Jeremiah/Romans

Hey there folks, I'm still moving. It's been kind of a busy week...we wrapped up field work with the auditors and I finally feel like I can get moving forward again. Anyway, this post is a response to a question I got last week from someone in a class where I was substitute teacher for the week at church. Since learning comes from interaction with others, I'm curious to see what any of you think of my response. Here you go:

The question presented was, “Why does Jeremiah 31: 34 appear to conflict with our study in Romans 1 regarding whether people can be culpable in having knowledge of God? Romans 1 makes the claim that no man is ignorant of God and instead chooses other than God, Jeremiah seems to make the claim that there are people that do not have knowledge of God and are told by their brothers about Him.”

Assuming that I have summed up the question correctly, I would offer the following as a possible response to your question.

I think there is an assumption that the two passages are attempting to make similar (or at least closely related) arguments and that the “people” involved in each discussion comprise the same universe of people. In the passage we were studying in Romans, Paul was discussing the righteousness of God against a people that have rejected Him. Paul starts his argument in chapter 1 against the pagans/heathens in the society around him that have rejected God. His argument will then expand in chapter 2 to include the Jews who proclaim to follow the Law and who don’t act/judge righteously. Effectively he is condemning the entire world, the Jews and the Greeks (barbarians). It is important in reading this not to impose our erroneous view of the church on Paul’s argument. Paul is arguing as a Jew who saw the completion of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, his “Christianity” is not a separate church from the Jewish people. His focus here is why God is righteous in judging man. Remember, his overall argument is for the glory & righteousness of God as revealed in the Gospel.

Jeremiah 31 deals with a promise made to God’s people, Israel, to bring them back from their exile. Right off the bat, there is a difference in the universe of people being dealt with. You mentioned that you read this as a messianic passage and I do believe that you are correct in assuming Christ is being shown in the passage. Amusingly, of the commentaries I had around here they either dealt with it as a strictly historical prophecy (completed with the return of Israel) or else glossed over the section without laying out any substantive discussion or premises to review. I believe that as with most (all?) prophecies given through the prophets, there is usually a dual context; and seeing Jesus in this passage is correct, as all scripture is properly interpreted through Law & Gospel and that Jesus Christ is the revelation of that Gospel. That is not to diminish or overlook the historical relevance of the prophecy, but I believe we are correct here in looking at it here from a messianic viewpoint. In this context, Jeremiah says that He (God) will place His Law within His people. They will no longer need the external Law; they will live within the Law as completed by Jesus. This passage is speaking about how God’s people will interact with Him and with each other, not with how guilty they are before God. The will walk together through the internalization of the Law of God, not an externalization (e.g. - the 10 Commandments as written in stone).

I believe entirely separate conversations are taking place in each area that when placed in context form a complementary view of life in Christ and don’t contradict one another. Man is depraved before God and He is entirely righteous in His judgment upon us. Fortunately, we are adopted sons and daughters through faith in Jesus Christ and as such live with His righteousness imputed to us and His Holy Spirit living within us.

Thoughts? Comments?