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 28/10/14 10:43 Pagina 393
THE REDEMPTIVE INVERSIONS OF JEREMIAH IN ROMANS 9–11 393
fruits are holy then the whole lump becomes holy 18. But in Jer 2,3,
Israel is called the Lord’s first fruits in a divine oracle. Then in what
M. Fishbane has argued is a shift to the prophetic voice, these holy
first fruits are described as being eaten, bringing guilt upon those
who consume them. Fishbane shows how this text in Jeremiah is a
reworking of Lev 22,14-16, a prohibition against laypeople con-
suming food consecrated by being offered to the priests 19. The con-
nection between Jeremiah and Romans are the catchwords a[gioj(
avrch. genhma,twn in Jeremiah and avparch, in Romans, and a con-
ceptual link of comprehensive inclusion, signaled by pa,ntej oi`
e;sqontej and pa/sa patria. oi;kou Israhl in Jer 2,3-4 and the
fu,rama in Rom 11,16. Instead of Jeremiah’s emphasis on the guilt
of those who have eaten Israel, which Fishbane takes to be a refer-
ence to the military destruction of Israel by her enemies 20, or the
waywardness of Israel, including her priests and teachers of the
law, that follows in Jer 2,5-8, Jeremiah’s metaphor is inverted to
say that the first fruits make the whole lump holy. It is as if the Ro-
mans text disagrees with Jeremiah’s exegesis of Lev 22,14-16. Jer-
emiah uses the priestly text to describe the guilt of those who
consume Israel, guilt arising from the contaminating, “holy” char-
18
M. HARTUNG, “Die kultische bzw. agrartechnisch-biologische Logik der
Gleichnisse von der Teighebe und vom Ölbaum in Röm 11.16-24 und die sich
daraus ergebenden theologischen Konsequenzen”, NTS 45 (1999) 129-130, and
C.E.B. CRANFIELD, The Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh 1979) 563,
offer no scriptural antecedents beyond the general priestly rules of the first
fruits found in Num 15,17-21 and Lev 19,23-25. Hartung also mentions
1 Cor 7,12-16 as exemplifying the principle of sanctification Paul offers in
Rom 11,16a (“Die kultische bzw. agrartechnisch-biologische Logik” 130).
D.E. AUNE, “Distinct Lexical Meanings of APARCH in Hellenism, Judaism
and Early Christianity”, Early Christianity and Classical Culture. Compara-
tive Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (eds. J.T. FITZGERALD – T.H. OL-
BRICHT – L.M. WHITE) (NTSup 110; Leiden 2005) 121-122, notes the
connection between Rom 11,16 and Num 15,20-21, but misses the possibility
that Paul is inverting Jeremiah’s use of first fruits in Jer 2,3.
19
M. FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford 1985)
300-304. I am indebted to J. Kaminsky for this reference.
20
M. FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, 302. W. L. HOLLADAY, Jeremiah 1.
A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 1–25 (Philadel-
phia, PA 1986) 85, also sees “military conquest” behind “eat” here. Holladay’s
connection of this text in Jeremiah to a similar use of first fruits in Hos 9,10
helps us see another first fruits text that Paul is inverting (ibid. 84).
FOLLOW US