Mark Reasoner, «The Redemptive Inversions of Jeremiah in Romans 9–11», Vol. 95 (2014) 388-404
This article presents seven points of focused dissonance between Jeremiah and Romans, by identifying how Romans 9–11 inverts the judgment language of Jeremiah 1–20 against Judah. Without claiming that the inversions in Romans 9–11 are intentional, the article argues that the inversions of this section of Jeremiah are similar to the inversions that Deutero-Isaiah performs on this same section of Jeremiah, identified by B. Sommer. The inversions of Jeremiah that occur in Romans 9–11 highlight these chapters' positive stance toward corporeal, ethnic Israel, and provide another argument against interpreting 'all Israel' in Rom 11,26 as the church.
04_Reasoner_388-404 30/10/14 10:23 Pagina 391
THE REDEMPTIVE INVERSIONS OF JEREMIAH IN ROMANS 9–11 391
I. Dissonant Intertextuality between Jeremiah and Romans 9–11
First, the driving question in Romans 9–11 regarding the trust-
worthiness of God is more similar to what drives the early chapters
of Jeremiah than it is to Isaiah 10. In Jer 4,10, the prophet claims
that God’s word has deceived Israel. Paul asserts that God’s word
has not failed (Rom 9,6a) 11. While there is no verbal parallel here,
if one had to choose between Isaiah and Jeremiah when identifying
a canonical background for the intense questions of Romans 9–11,
Jeremiah would be the choice. Romans 9–11 plumbs the depths of
God’s abandonment of Israel, a prophetic topos more characteristic
of Jeremiah than of Isaiah.
Second, three times in this section of Jeremiah, God commands
the prophet not to pray for his people (Jer 7,16; 11,14; 14,11-12), a
prohibition that seems based on a rejection of Israel 12. In the third
of these references, Jer 14,11-12, God replies to Jeremiah’s prayer
for the Lord’s salvation with not only a prohibition against praying
for Israel, since he would not hear such a prayer, but also a predic-
tion that he will cut them off by sword, famine and death, specters
whose danger Paul has already explicitly denied for those who love
God (Rom 8,35.38). But the prohibitions against prayer that seem
more directly inverted in Romans are Jer 7,16 and 11,14. Both these
prohibitions of the prophet’s prayer for his people are followed by
descriptions of the futility of the sacrificial cult, a religious practice
possibly alluded to in the mixed criticism ― “I testify about them
that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge” 13.
Jer 11,14 is linked to Rom 10,1 by the catchword de,hsij. After the
divine oracle’s rhetorical questions against Judah’s zeal in the next
10
On the parallels between Paul as prophetic figure in Galatians with Jer-
emiah, see S. EASTMAN, Recovering Paul’s Mother Tongue. Language and
Theology in Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI 2007) 63-84.
11
LXX Jer 4:10 is kai. ei=pa W
= de,spota ku,rie( a;ra ge avpatw/n hvpa,thsaj*
This verse has already been linked to Romans by C. BRYAN, A Preface to Ro-
mans. Notes on the Epistle in Its Literary and Cultural Setting (New York
2000) 159.
12
The references for these three prohibitions against praying are the same
between the MT and the LXX. Cf. Dmitri’s remark to Alyosha, “Don’t pray
for me, I’m not worth it” in F. DOSTOYEVSKY, The Brothers Karamazov (trans.
C. Garnett; New York 1957) 150.
13
Rom 10,2; cf. Jer 7,16.21; 11,14-15.