Rev. Fr. (Dr.) Osmond Anike

Readings:

First Reading: Jeremiah 31:31-34 – I will write my Law in their hearts.

Responsorial Psalm: Psalm 50(51):3-4, 12-15 – A pure heart create for me, O God.

Second Reading: Hebrews 5:7-9 – He learned to obey and he became the source of eternal salvation.

Gospel: If a grain of wheat falls on the ground and dies, it yields a rich harvest.

Today’s first reading is the well-known Jeremiah’s “New Covenant Prophecy”. In order to appreciate what is “new” in this covenant prophecy, we must take a cursory look at the preceding covenants and how they ruptured. Since creation, God has always had a bond-like relationship with human beings. From Adam and Eve who were assured of divine blessings provided they remained faithful to God’s instruction never to eat of the tree of knowledge, through to Noah who entered into a unilateral covenant with God by the means of the rainbow, to Abraham whose tripartite promises from God were a kind of unilateral covenant, all are examples of God’s intervention in human affairs by means of covenants. But perhaps the most elaborate of these old covenants was the Sinaitic-Mosaic Covenant when Yahweh entered into an exclusive relationship with Israel and revealed to them his divine will which they must respect in order to have life. This bilateral kind of relationship is codified in the Decalogue; and the covenant was ratified when Moses poured a bowl of animal blood upon God’s altar and sprinkled the people with it, calling it “the blood of the covenant”.

The very possibility of the eventual rupture of the Sinaitic covenant is evident in the very structure of the covenant itself. There is conditionality attached to it – the “if – clauses”. The clear-cut condition of absolute fidelity on Israel’s part is indispensable to the continued assurance of the divine blessings. Already on the very first day of this Sinaitic pact, Israel greeted the bond by resolutely breaking it (cf., the account of the sin of the Golden Calf and the consequent concrete rupture of the two tablets). The renewal was still on two tablets of stone which, like the former, remained potentially breakable – hence, defective from the onset. When Jeremiah therefore gave a prophecy of a “New Covenant”, he said that it will be completely different from the old one.

In those last and trying days of Judah before her final demise in 587 BC, her official theology dwelt on Yahweh’s unconditional promise. They therefore made light of the indispensability of genuine repentance as a means of averting the nation’s impending doom. Jeremiah, on the contrary, insisted on the covenant obligation as the only way out. When they refused to amend their ways, he had to proclaim the demise of Judah as unavoidable. But still within this impasse, he uttered the New Covenant Prophecy that God’s eternal plan of salvation could not be overthrown by man’s failure. And so, God must himself now so act in man as to radically reform man and make it possible for him to obey.

This Jeremiah’s prophecy is the only instance in the whole of the OT that the term “New Covenant” was used. Something therefore, has happened to the old covenant. The core of Jeremiah’s message is that this New Covenant would be between the union of both kingdoms (Judah and Israel); and that it is not like the old one. Whereas in the defunct dispensation, God’s law (the Torah) was dictated to the people and written down on two fragile stone tablets, in the future perfect dispensation, Yahweh would cause his law to exist directly already within man – right there in his “heart” that once so radically transformed, man would have it in his nature to love and obey his covenant God: “I will be their God and they shall be my people”. The second element in this covenant is that there will be no need for teaching. The Sinaitic law needed teaching; but the expected effect of this teaching namely, the perfect knowledge of God, never came. But in this New Covenant, a leading effect of God’s transforming action in man will be this all-important knowledge of God. Since the attainment of this was impossible under the old dispensation in spite of the instructive mission of the prophets and other religious leaders, it should not be surprising that in the new order, it must be God himself and not any human teaching agency, giving this ability to his people.

Jesus Christ ushered in this New Covenant; and instead of animal blood that was incapable of removing sin, he used his own blood once and for all. By accepting to sacrifice his life on the cross, Jesus saw death as a fulfilment of his life and mission rather than as an interruption of them. He had opportunities to escape death if he so wished; but he knew that his “hour” has come, and that, “unless a wheat grain falls on the ground and dies, it remains only a single grain; but if it dies, it yields a rich harvest”. This was actually the answer he gave to the Greek visitors who apparently came to warn him about the plot to his life and convince him to follow them to Greece – the land of freedom and knowledge. Since the tragic sentencing to death of Socrates by the Greek authorities on the charges of “corrupting” the youth with his philosophical teachings, subsequent generations of Greeks resolved never again to persecute anyone on account of their belief. Greece became therefrom the most broad-minded people on earth, promoting various religious and philosophical ideas and seeking to protect anyone from the entire region seen to be under attack on account of his teachings. This was apparently what brought them to Jerusalem – to see and warn Jesus that his life (like that of Socrates of old) was in danger, and that he should follow them to Greece for safety. But like Socrates before him, Jesus knew that his mission would have remained unaccomplished if he avoided death. This was why he gave them the above reply. He came as a fulfilment of Jeremiah’s New Covenant prophecy; and since animal blood was incapable of removing sin in the old dispensation, he had to use his own very blood. The effect of this is that he took away our sins and opened the gate of paradise for us. The veil covering the sanctuary was literally torn to symbolically give us free access to God. We no longer have to go through the Old Testament priests in order to gain access to God. Jesus Christ is the perfect image of God. To have seen him is to have seen the Father.

Removing obstructions in order to have access to God, however, is one thing; actually gaining that access is another thing altogether. Although God’s law is written in our hearts; although the veil covering the sanctuary has been torn revealing the Holy of Holies; it is left to each individual to willingly decide to follow God’s way. There are so many museums and historical sites whose access are free; but how many people make use of such free access to actually gain entrance into them? I always find it strange that tourists come from far and wide to teach natives what is behind their own backyards. May this not happen to us as Christians!