Though separated by centuries and contexts, the prophet Jeremiah and the Apostle Paul both engaged with cultural issues of their time, calling their audiences to align with God’s will. However, their methods differed significantly. Jeremiah, a fiery prophet confronting a crumbling Judah, spoke with directness and urgency, addressing societal and spiritual corruption head-on. Paul, writing to the Christian community in Rome, employed a more subtle and nuanced approach, weaving his critique into theological arguments and moral exhortations.
Walter Brueggemann’s insights into the Hebrew prophets, particularly Jeremiah, emphasize their role in dismantling the “royal consciousness.” This term refers to the dominant cultural ideology that sustains systems of power, wealth, and complacency at the expense of covenantal faithfulness. Jeremiah’s directness was born out of his context: Judah faced imminent destruction due to its idolatry, injustice, and refusal to heed God’s call to repentance.
Jeremiah’s prophetic imagination was not subtle. His words were fiery, his images shocking. He likened Judah’s idolatry to prostitution (Jeremiah 2:20), smashed a pot to symbolize the nation’s impending ruin (Jeremiah 19), and wore a yoke to dramatize submission to Babylon (Jeremiah 27). This approach was designed to confront a hardened people who had grown deaf to gentler appeals. As Brueggemann observes, the prophet’s role is to “revoke” the dominant narrative and to “summon” the people into an alternative reality — one that aligns with God’s justice and faithfulness.
Jeremiah’s directness aimed to awaken Judah to its dire situation, but it also made him a pariah. His critique of cultural and political leaders, combined with his stark warnings, alienated him from his contemporaries. Yet his unflinching approach was necessary to cut through the layers of denial and complacency that clouded the nation’s moral and spiritual vision.
The Apostle Paul’s context was dramatically different. Writing to the church in Rome, Paul addressed a mixed audience of Jewish and Gentile believers navigating cultural tensions in the heart of the Roman Empire. Unlike Jeremiah, Paul was not confronting a single, unified audience but rather a diverse group with competing worldviews, theological assumptions, and social standings.
Paul’s rhetorical strategy was one of subtlety and indirection. Instead of directly confronting cultural issues — such as Roman imperial ideology, Jewish-Gentile divisions, competing claims of cultural superiority, attempts to give honor to insiders and bestow shame on outsiders, or ethical laxity — Paul embedded his critique within theological arguments, appealing to shared values and the transformative power of the gospel. For instance, in Romans 1:18–32, Paul critiques the moral failures of Gentile culture, but his tone shifts in Romans 2, where he exposes the hypocrisy of Jewish readers who judge others but fail to live righteously themselves. This rhetorical move levels the playing field, preparing his audience to accept the universal need for salvation (Romans 3:23).
Paul’s subtle approach can also be seen in his critique of Roman imperial culture. While he does not directly attack Caesar or the empire, his language often subverts imperial claims. For example, his declaration that Jesus is Lord (Romans 10:9) implicitly challenges the Roman slogan “Caesar is Lord.” By presenting Christ as the true sovereign who brings justice and peace, Paul invites his audience to reconsider their allegiance without directly provoking the authorities.
Paul’s emphasis on civic virtues in Romans 12–13 is another example of his nuanced approach. While Paul calls believers to submit to governing authorities (Romans 13:1–7), this is not an endorsement of the empire’s moral or spiritual superiority. Instead, Paul subtly frames submission as a temporary posture, rooted in the Christian ethic of peace and love, while ultimately affirming that God’s kingdom transcends all earthly powers.
The differences between Jeremiah’s directness and Paul’s subtlety can be understood in light of their respective contexts and audiences. Jeremiah operated in a covenantal community that had explicitly rejected its obligations to Yahweh. His mission required urgent confrontation because the stakes were existential: Judah’s survival as a nation depended on repentance. Subtlety would have been ineffective in the face of such entrenched rebellion.
Paul, however, ministered in a pluralistic and politically charged environment. His audience included believers from vastly different cultural and religious backgrounds, many of whom were already marginalized within the Roman Empire. A direct prophetic approach, akin to Jeremiah’s, might have alienated or endangered his audience. Instead, Paul sought to foster unity and transformation by appealing to the shared foundation of the gospel and the universal lordship of Christ.
Despite their differing methods, both Jeremiah and Paul shared a common goal: to call their audiences to align with God’s will and to critique the cultural forces that opposed it. For Jeremiah, this meant exposing Judah’s idolatry and injustice in stark, unmistakable terms. For Paul, it meant weaving a subtle yet profound critique of Roman and Jewish cultural assumptions into his proclamation of the gospel.
Jeremiah’s directness demonstrates the necessity of bold truth-telling in times of crisis, while Paul’s subtlety highlights the power of persuasion and theological nuance in fostering lasting change. Together, they remind us that faithful witness requires both courage and wisdom, adapting methods to the needs of the audience and the demands of the moment.
Jeremiah and Paul embody two sides of the same coin in their engagement with cultural issues. Jeremiah’s directness disrupts complacency, while Paul’s subtlety builds bridges across divisions. Both approaches remain relevant today, offering models for addressing cultural challenges in ways that are both faithful to the gospel and responsive to the needs of the audience.
I am trying to learn from them to discern when to speak boldly and when to engage with subtlety, always aiming to bear witness to God’s justice, mercy, and transformative power. I have a lot of work to do on this. Pray for me.
Debbie and I serve as the FMI Global Associate Director for MENACA and Europe. We focus on cultivating disciples, leaders, and church planting movements.
