How many items is this verse on at your local Bible bookstore?:
For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. (Jer 29:11)
This verse is often proclaimed to be a promise to Christians. God has a wonderful plan for our future that involves lots of blessings. Is this truly a promise to us that we won’t experience evil and our future will be peachy?
Let’s look at it in context.
These are the words of the letter that Jeremiah the prophet sent from Jerusalem to the surviving elders of the exiles, and to the priests, the prophets, and all the people, whom Nebuchadnezzar had taken into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon. … 10 “For thus says the Lord: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place. 11 For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. 12 Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. 13 You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you, declares the Lord, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, declares the Lord, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile. (Jer 29:1,10-14)
While this is a promise, is it a promise to all believers for all time? No. This was a message to the Jews living in Babylonian exile, promising that God would bring them back to the land of Israel. This cannot possibly be a promise to us since God dis not drive us into the nations as judgment, and will not be moving us to the land of Israel.
Does this mean God does not have plans for our future? Does it mean God has no blessings for us? Of course not. But if we want to appeal to such promises that God has made to us, then we need to properly cite the verses where such promises are made. Just because we have the right message doesn’t mean we can cite the wrong verse.
Keep it in context….
Thinking to Believe 
November 9, 2016 at 9:10 am
Jason:
I must say you are correct; this is the exact context of Jeremiah as a promise to the exiles and not to any other people.
And I hasten to add, all prophets as Jeremiah himself does, preface their sermons or promises or any other message they utter they do so by proclaiming their statements as being from the Lord: “For thus says the Lord……..”:
So we must keep this in mind because it is important to understand that prophets and priests and ministers are all told that they are appointed, as graduates of the Schools they attend….
The first record of the concept of the Vicar of Christ is mentioned in the Epistle to the Magnesians of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who was possibly a disciple of both John the Apostle and Saint Peter, with a pastoral sense, written between the years 88 and 107 AD “your bishop presides in the place of God”.
The second recorded use of the term “Vicar of Christ” is found in the epistles of Tertullian in the 3rd century, with a different theological slant to refer to the Holy Spirit, that is, as Christ is not physically performing miracles in the Church, Holy Spirit acts as his Vicar on his behalf, performing miracles and preventing the Church err.
The third use of the term Vicar of Christ appears in the 5th century, in a synod of bishops to refer to Pope Gelasius I. The theological connotations of the title got a pastoral sense, evoking the words of Christ to the Apostle Peter, regarded by the first Catholic Pope in John 21:16-17, “Feed my lambs… Feed my sheep”, so Christ made Peter his vicar and pastor with the responsibility to feed his flock (i.e. the Church) in his own place.
This is important because a church leader by merely saying the words “For thus says the Lord……..” does not establish or give credence to the concept of the God they espouse but only to the “belief” in the concept of the God they espouse whether minister, prophet, preacher or priest but it is still a human person expressing the words of an entity imagined.
As they are taught, so they speak. This understanding doesn’t take anything away from the goodness or wisdom they message or from their belief as they are lead to speak.
So please do not be dismayed because I point this out. In all of you, I believe goodness prevails and to that end, that goodness will prevail; that is, when humanity is leavened through and through, though the quest may be long, persistence will win the day as the parable of Luke 18:1-8 – The Parable of the Persistent Widow and Luke 11:5 The parable of the persistent friend knocking for bread, shows.
When humanity is leavened by that good from within you throughout, that day will be good and that day will be the judgment day we all yearn for and try to achieve in our own personal way. Everybody believes in Good; it’s how you behave, what you say, and the way you are that demonstrates what is within you because it is there, within you, that the concept of God the Father, lives.
LikeLike
November 9, 2016 at 9:59 pm
What does this have to do with the post? You stayed on track for one sentence, and then go on for 20 more talking about speaking on behalf of God. This is the kind of stuff I was talking about in my recent post about commenting on this site. This post is not about the validity or history of people claiming to speak for God. This is the warning I mentioned. If this persists, next will come deletions, and finally blocking. I would rather have no comments on this blog than a bunch of comments that have nothing to do with what I’m writing.
LikeLike
November 10, 2016 at 6:09 am
Jason, good post, I agree. We make a big mistake when we use old testament scriptures addressed to others and apply them to us haphazardly.
Context is everything…
Naz
LikeLike
November 10, 2016 at 8:19 am
“For thus says the Lord:………”
“…….promising that God ………….”
It seems to me that these words are part of your blog……..and besides saying that your interpretation about context was correct I commented further on other words in Jeremiah’s letter.
Now if you want to delete my critical thinking comments that’s your prerogative.
“I would rather have no comments on this blog than a bunch of comments that have nothing to do with what I’m writing.” ( November 4, 2016
Would you vote for Hitler? Then stop voting for pro-abortion politicians.)
No replies! is this the “rather have” Post you mention as being preferable? I don’t think so.
It is worth noting that some of your older posts do not have any comments either since they did not stimulate replies. So why not delete them? Because they mean something to you. And my comments mean something too. Why disparage my posts, to elevate your own? I see many topics in every Post I read. But “context” is not everything contained in your Post.
Different strokes for different folks: what jumps out at me is not necessarily what jumps out at you. I don’t read the bible with the same slant as you so your “off topic” is to you what “on topic” is to me. It’s perspective. I could have avoided answering your post altogether which I was inclined to do but to avoid ending up another blank post I wanted to support you out of respect.
If you’re too busy to interact with posters on a regular basis and you believe Posts fall into disarray; yet, every few months, threaten them with warnings, deletions and blocks if “off topic” then what more can be said about your own failings as a successful blogger? Any?
LikeLike
November 10, 2016 at 9:50 am
Looking forward to your next example, T.R.
LikeLike
November 11, 2016 at 7:27 am
Son of Man, this post is about the meaning of Jeremiah 29:11, not the validity of speaking for God. So justify it if you will, but it’s not going to fly with me.
If you want to write on any topic you wish, get your own blog (or if you have one, stick to your own blog). But when I put up a post, it’s because I want to talk about a particular topic. It’s not an invitation for you to start your own topic and fill up my comments section with tons and tons of unrelated words and rants.
I don’t blog in order to solicit readership or comments. I would continue to blog even if I had a readership of zero and no one commented. I blog because it helps me sort out my own thoughts, and I use it as a place to store my ideas that I can link to and search in the future. So you aren’t doing me any favors by commenting. But I open comments up because I know I do have readers, and I want people to be able to interact with the post. And when I have time to interact with their interactions, I do so. But it’s not fair to anyone to allow people to take over the blog by constantly changing the topic. When I go to a blog and find a post I like, and proceed to read the comments, it’s because I’m expecting the comments to be a commentary on the post itself. If the post is about archaeology and the comments are debating the meaning of John 1:1, that’s frustrating. While I realize that conversations can veer off in different directions as they proceed, you’re habit is to change the topic from the one in the post to a different topic at the very beginning of the conversation. That’s not acceptable.
LikeLike
November 12, 2016 at 9:07 am
T.R. Jason:
Your Post #6 reminds me of the parable of the landowner in Matthew 21.
You sound like the landowner, who set up a vineyard Blog in his domain, digging and researching and setting out watchtower regulations for the farmhand commentators; then, going away busying himself with other matters for a period of time. But returning after 3 1/2 months, he find the fruits of his vineyard blog bore no fruit as expected but was grown over with extraneous weeds and withered fruits of the harvest as the commentators became carried away with their own points of view leading to a frustrated and wrathful domain holder because his vineyard had fallen into chaos, clutter and shambles.
The short version analogy:
“Here’s the story. Listen closely; sound familiar?. There was once a man, a wealthy farmer, who planted a vineyard. He fenced it, dug a winepress, put up a watchtower, then turned it over to the farmhands and went off on a trip. When it was time to harvest the grapes, (to glean from the comments) he returned. And found complaints and in-fighting.
“Now, when the owner of the vineyard arrives home from his trip, what do you think he will do to the farmhands?” he asked.
“He’ll warn them, delete their portion and (block them)—a rotten bunch, and good riddance,” they answered. “Then he’ll assign the vineyard to farmhands who will hand over the profits when it’s time.”
Jesus said, “Right—and you can read it for yourselves in your Bibles:
The stone the masons threw out
is now the cornerstone.
This is God’s work;
we rub our eyes, we can hardly believe it!
“This is the way it is with you. God’s kingdom will be taken back from you and handed over to a people who will live out a kingdom life. Whoever stumbles on this Stone gets shattered; whoever the Stone falls on gets smashed.”
———————————————
Now Jason, maybe you view your Blog as the Kingdom and want to protect it from the extraneous and I understand that because I would protect my children (brain Child) in the same way. So if disparage you, I disparage my own self.
Therefore I will try my best to comment on your Posts, as you deserve for your due diligence, without deviation. I will try to honour your guidelines and request that you please understand I have opinions diametrically opposed to Christian Apologetics and that will necessarily be reflected in my comments so please be flexible to allow this, while remaining true to the essence of the topic.
Respectfully, with thanks.
LeoTG
LikeLike