Does Jeremiah 29:11 apply to you? If you are in Christ, you can count on it. (says Moore)
I’ve been teaching on the book of Jeremiah, and if you are following this line of logic, you also have to say that the difficulties of the non-exiles God promises in the same chapter are also yours. The line of thinking seems to be this: If it’s good, and it happened in the OT, it’s yours in Christ. If it’s bad, it isn’t. Are you kidding me?
I hate seeing this verse yanked out of context the way it so often is. There is an application for us though: God does have plans for us and they are good and wise plans, though they may often appear otherwise. But we have Romans 8:28 and other passages for that. It’s often one of those “good truth; wrong text” situations.
But the passage is instructive to us if we put it in context to show a pattern of how God deals with those who are His.
Where the transfer of the passage to NT believers isn’t straightforward is that for Israel, this fit into a context of geopolitical promises — promises of land, material prosperity, and a king on the throne of David. Along w/those promises of blessing, promises of earthly, material, geopolitical judgment. So the cross doesn’t turn the passage into a 1 to 1 message straight to NT believers by stripping away the judgment. You have to strip away all that was Israel-specific: the whole geopolitical, material piece of it also, all components of a covenant we were never parties to.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
This is pretty typical of Moore’s covenant theology. You can’t read Jeremiah as an Israelite prophet, you need to read him through the lens of the NT. Never mind the fact that his readers most certainly understood this promise in terms of their exile to Babylon and their hopes of a return, just slap a few NT references on Christian suffering on top and call it a day. Guess that’s why I can’t be a covenant theologian.
Discussion
NewUgh...
I’ve been teaching on the book of Jeremiah, and if you are following this line of logic, you also have to say that the difficulties of the non-exiles God promises in the same chapter are also yours. The line of thinking seems to be this: If it’s good, and it happened in the OT, it’s yours in Christ. If it’s bad, it isn’t. Are you kidding me?
NewYep
That’s because Christ took the bad things on himself at Calvary.
NewYes, ugh
I hate seeing this verse yanked out of context the way it so often is. There is an application for us though: God does have plans for us and they are good and wise plans, though they may often appear otherwise. But we have Romans 8:28 and other passages for that. It’s often one of those “good truth; wrong text” situations.
But the passage is instructive to us if we put it in context to show a pattern of how God deals with those who are His.
Where the transfer of the passage to NT believers isn’t straightforward is that for Israel, this fit into a context of geopolitical promises — promises of land, material prosperity, and a king on the throne of David. Along w/those promises of blessing, promises of earthly, material, geopolitical judgment. So the cross doesn’t turn the passage into a 1 to 1 message straight to NT believers by stripping away the judgment. You have to strip away all that was Israel-specific: the whole geopolitical, material piece of it also, all components of a covenant we were never parties to.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewThis is pretty typical of
This is pretty typical of Moore’s covenant theology. You can’t read Jeremiah as an Israelite prophet, you need to read him through the lens of the NT. Never mind the fact that his readers most certainly understood this promise in terms of their exile to Babylon and their hopes of a return, just slap a few NT references on Christian suffering on top and call it a day. Guess that’s why I can’t be a covenant theologian.