Covenant Renewal:
Jeremiah 31:31 “הִנֵּה (Behold), יָמִים (days) are בָּאִים (coming),” נְאֻם (declares) יַהְוֶה (Yahweh), “וְ (when) כָרַתִּי (I cutteth) אֶת־ (with) the בֵּית (house of) יִשְׂרָאֵל (Israel), וְ (and) אֶת־ (with) the בֵּית (house of) יְהוּדָה (Judah) the בְּרִית (covenant-binding) חֲדָשָׁה (newly, anew).
"I cuteth ...the covenant-binding anew"; In English the word "the" should be supplied before "the covenant-binding anew", as Hebrew often has a definite meaning even without the article. For example, in this very same text, English requires "the house of Israel", even though the Hebrew only has "house of Israel". It would be a mistake to think that the text means "a house of Israel"! And one could imagine a fertile field of heresies that could be based on, "a house of Israel", especially if the heretic tried to define "a new Israel" without regard to "the house of Israel". So, you see, the Church which rejects Yahweh's covenant with Israel has no open and shut case here of a brand new covenant that is not a renewal of the original covenant.
Jeremiah 31:32 לֹא (not) כַבְּרִית (like the binding) אֲשֶׁר (which) כָּרַתִּי (I cut off) אֶת־ (with) אֲבוֹתָם (their fathers) ....
It might seem at first glance that this text is denying that the covenant in the previous text is Yahweh's covenant with Israel. Such equivocation, however, is not necessary. The word covenant is like the word "law". When we speak of "the law", either the whole law may be generally referred to, or only some specific and particular law. The fundamental meaning of "covenant" is a "binding", "stipulation", or "agreement". The word agreement may mean the whole of an agreement or a specific agreement that is part of an overall agreement. So then, there is a specific agreement as to what will happen if the overall agreement is broken. To say the renewed agreement is not like the agreement ...when they broke the agreement is simply to say that the renewed agreement does not put into effect the agreed upon consequences for breaking the overall agreement.
...אֲשֶׁר (when) הֵמָּה (they) הֵפֵרוּ (broke) בְּרִיתִי (My covenant-binding).
Here is the qualifying statement. I have omitted the parenthetical statement giving the circumstances. This is to make it plainer. It is "not like the binding/agreement ...when they broke my covenant". In the renewed agreement, the consequences for the transgressor are not put into effect. Yes, this agreement is still part of the covenant renewal. But in the renewal this agreement is not put into effect. This is what the words "not like" actually mean. It does not mean legislatively different. It only means applicationally different! For when you say one thing is "not like" another one does not mean wholly unlike, but only "not like" in the particular of the context. For instance, I say I am not like my sister because she loves to play the piano, and I don't. That does not mean we are totally unlike. She's a linguist just like me.
וְאָנֹכִי (although I) בָּעַלְתִּי (marrieth) בָם (with them),
This text could have orginally read with the LXX:
וְאָנֹכִי (when I) גָּעַלְתִּי (disregardeth) בָם (with respect to them).
BHS cites the LXX and suggests a one letter scribal error to explain the difference between the MT and the LXX: ב vs. ג, which is possible. If this be the case, then the phrase becomes a strong qualification upon the meaning of "not like". What is "not similar" between the applications of the covenant in the wilderness and the future application is that Yahweh will not have to "disregard" Israel.
In order to renew the covenant in this way, two things have to be accomplished, a.) the penalty for transgression has to be paid by Yeshua, and b.) Israel must be sanctified so that it no longer breaks Torah. And this is what is actually promised in vs. 33:
Jeremiah 31:33 “But this is הַבְּרִית (the binding) which אֶכְרֹת (I am making) with the house of יִשְׂרָאֶל (Israel)”: “After those days”, declares יַהְוֶה, “I will put תּוֹרָתִי (My law) within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be to them לֵאלֹהִים (as Almighty), and they shall be for Me as people.
Firstly, notice that the imperfect is not strictly future: אֶכְרֹת = (I am making/cutting). We could even translate it, "I was making"; the anti-Torah Church would have us believe that this is just another suggestion that the covenant renewal is legislatively different. This is not the case, because in Deut. 30:6 we have the original promise that Yahweh would circumcise Israel's hearts in the end of days. It is part of the covenant he made with Israel. So the translation, "I will make" is out. Secondly, the words "After those days" open the next sentence. They do not close the first sentence. "After those days" means that the Deut. 30:6 promise is fulfilled after Israel repents and returns from her final exile. Yet, the Church wants us to believe that a legislatively "new covenant" is made "after those days". On the contrary, the prophecy is merely reminding us of the original promise.