No where does Jeremiah state that the new covenant eliminated the law.
No where.
If the law were eliminated then the prophets would have said it first.
Just to be clear: There are two general types of laws from God. There is the OT
Mosaic Law, occupied with separation, sacrifice and ceremony, that was given
solely to the OT Israelites; and there is the
Moral Law given to
all humanity. The Mosaic Law is defunct, under the New Covenant; the Moral Law is not. In any case, law-keeping of any kind - Moral or Mosaic - can't properly satisfy God since our law-keeping can't ever meet God's standard, which is
perfection. We needed Christ, the God-Man, who could do for us what none of us could ever do for ourselves both in perfectly fulfilling the Law of God and atoning for our sin (
2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 5:6-10; Hebrews 9-10:22, etc.).
There are many things about the New Testament Church about which the prophets said nothing. Why should we think, then, that they would have anything explicit to say about the setting aside of the Mosaic Law under the New Covenant?
Romans 2:13
For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
Romans 2:9-16
9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11 For there is no partiality with God.
Paul indicates here that God shows no favor to the Jew over the Greek (aka - Gentile). Both must give account for their conduct to their Maker and will be rewarded accordingly. This statement by Paul is vital to understanding everything that follows to the end of chapter 2. The Jew doesn't get a "pass" from God because he's a Jew and keeps the Mosaic Laws of separation, ceremony and sacrifice; he will face the same justice of God that the Gentile will face.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
Whether a Jew acting under the Mosaic Law or a Gentile who has no obligation to, or knowledge of, that Law,
both will endure consequences, though judged by different standards. Paul is clearly dissolving the Jewish belief in their superiority over the Gentile because of their adherence to the Mosaic Law.
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
The Jew who knows the Mosaic Law is not justified by that knowledge alone, Paul points out here. It is the Jew who not only knows but
keeps the Law who will be justified before God (if he does so
perfectly -
Matthew 5:48).
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
The Gentile without the Mosaic Law has an "instinctive" sense of God's Moral Law, at least. In following it, the Gentile is a "law to himself," acting as the Jew ought to do but without the Mosaic Law ordering his actions.
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
Here, Paul indicates that the Gentile has the "Law of God written on his heart" in the form of his conscience - just like any Jew - and is accused by it, or defended from accusation (of a moral sort) by it on the Day of Judgment. The Jew, then, isn't the only one obeying a God-given Law; any Gentile can boast of the same in his possession of, and obedience to, his conscience.
Throughout chapter 2 of Paul's letter to the Romans, Paul is working to diminish the sense of superiority that the Jew might have over the Gentile, going after the Jew's sense of superiority, especially insofar as it arises from their observance of the Mosaic Law.
Romans 2:25-27
25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?
Paul's words here would have been very offensive to the average Jew of his time. Paul states that the Gentile who keeps the "Moral Law of God written on his heart," who obeys his God-given conscience - is
better than the hypocritical Jew (
vs. 17-24).
Having dissolved the sense of superiority of the Jewish believer over the Gentile one, Paul continues, pointing out that neither Gentile nor Jew are chosen of God as His (i.e. an "inward" Jew) on the basis of outward conformity to the Mosaic Law, exemplified in circumcision:
Romans 2:28-29
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
It is only by the Spirit of God, not by the letter of the Law of God, that one is "circumcised in heart" and so become a "Jew" which is to say a member of God's spiritual "Chosen People," the Body of Christ, the Church.
So, then,
Romans 2:13 is NOT indicating that the Christian person is justified before God by keeping the OT Jewish Law of Moses. Not only does such a reading of the verse not correspond to what Paul is doing in the chapter but this sort of a prescriptive reading of
Romans 2:13 also directly contradicts other things Paul wrote concerning a person's salvation and justification before God. See:
Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, 2 Timothy 1:9, Galatians 3:24-25, Galatians 5:4, 6, etc..
