1EARLY IN THE REIGN of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, this word came from the LORD: 2“This is what the LORD says: Stand in the courtyard of the LORD’s house and speak to all the people of the towns of Judah who come to worship in the house of the LORD. Tell them everything I command you; do not omit a word. 3Perhaps they will listen and each will turn from his evil way. Then I will relent and not bring on them the disaster I was planning because of the evil they have done. 4Say to them, ‘This is what the LORD says: If you do not listen to me and follow my law, which I have set before you, 5and if you do not listen to the words of my servants the prophets, whom I have sent to you again and again (though you have not listened), 6then I will make this house like Shiloh and this city an object of cursing among all the nations of the earth.’”
7The priests, the prophets and all the people heard Jeremiah speak these words in the house of the LORD. 8But as soon as Jeremiah finished telling all the people everything the LORD had commanded him to say, the priests, the prophets and all the people seized him and said, “You must die! 9Why do you prophesy in the LORD’s name that this house will be like Shiloh and this city will be desolate and deserted?” And all the people crowded around Jeremiah in the house of the LORD.
10When the officials of Judah heard about these things, they went up from the royal palace to the house of the LORD and took their places at the entrance of the New Gate of the LORD’s house. 11Then the priests and the prophets said to the officials and all the people, “This man should be sentenced to death because he has prophesied against this city. You have heard it with your own ears!”
12Then Jeremiah said to all the officials and all the people: “The LORD sent me to prophesy against this house and this city all the things you have heard. 13Now reform your ways and your actions and obey the LORD your God. Then the LORD will relent and not bring the disaster he has pronounced against you. 14As for me, I am in your hands; do with me whatever you think is good and right. 15Be assured, however, that if you put me to death, you will bring the guilt of innocent blood on yourselves and on this city and on those who live in it, for in truth the LORD has sent me to you to speak all these words in your hearing.”
16Then the officials and all the people said to the priests and the prophets, “This man should not be sentenced to death! He has spoken to us in the name of the LORD our God.”
17Some of the elders of the land stepped forward and said to the entire assembly of people, 18“Micah of Moresheth prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah. He told all the people of Judah, ‘This is what the LORD Almighty says:
“‘Zion will be plowed like a field,
Jerusalem will become a heap of rubble,
the temple hill a mound overgrown with thickets.’
19“Did Hezekiah king of Judah or anyone else in Judah put him to death? Did not Hezekiah fear the LORD and seek his favor? And did not the LORD relent, so that he did not bring the disaster he pronounced against them? We are about to bring a terrible disaster on ourselves!”
20(Now Uriah son of Shemaiah from Kiriath Jearim was another man who prophesied in the name of the LORD; he prophesied the same things against this city and this land as Jeremiah did. 21When King Jehoiakim and all his officers and officials heard his words, the king sought to put him to death. But Uriah heard of it and fled in fear to Egypt. 22King Jehoiakim, however, sent Elnathan son of Acbor to Egypt, along with some other men. 23They brought Uriah out of Egypt and took him to King Jehoiakim, who had him struck down with a sword and his body thrown into the burial place of the common people.)
24Furthermore, Ahikam son of Shaphan supported Jeremiah, and so he was not handed over to the people to be put to death.
Original Meaning
CHAPTER 25 IS prose and poetry; it served as a concluding portion to the first half of this book. Chapter 26 begins a series of narratives in chronological order about the prophet and his public ministry, along with references to specific kings and their reigns.
Chapter 26 contains a portion of a message delivered at the temple in the beginning of Jehoiakim’s reign (609/608 B.C.), along with an extended account of the audience reaction. Jehoiakim was the third king to rule in less than a year’s time. Upon Josiah’s death, the people of the land had appointed Jehoahaz, the son of Josiah and younger brother of Jehoiakim, as king. The Egyptians removed him and put Jehoiakim on the throne (2 Kings 23:29–35). It was a time of uncertainty for the direction of the Judean state. The previous chapter concerns a message from the fourth year of Jehoiakim.
Jeremiah’s oral message is summarized in Jer. 26:1–6. This sounds like an abbreviated form of the longer message delivered at the temple and recorded in Jeremiah 7. Whether or not chapter 26 and chapter 7 are two accounts of the same “sermon” is debated among interpreters.1 The primary difference between the chapters comes in the attention given to audience reaction. Here Jeremiah engages his audience in debate (26:7–19) over the validity of his prophetic word. A summary comment is appended in 26:20–24 that describes the martyrdom of the prophet Uriah and the crucial support given Jeremiah by Ahikam the son of Shaphan. In any case, chapter 7 preserves the longer form of the same message, whether or not it is the same incident.
26:1–6. Jeremiah warns the people that if they fail to follow the instruction (tora, v. 4)2 of the Lord, they will bring calamity on themselves. This is a typical form of the act-consequence claim: Disobedience brings disaster. Not following the Lord’s instruction is the same thing as not listening to the Lord and not heeding the words of his “servants the prophets.”3 As Jeremiah will argue in the debate with his audience, he stands in this line of prophets sent (šlḥ) by the Lord because, like them, the Lord has also “sent” (šlḥ) him (26:12–15). The temple will be destroyed in the coming judgment, just like the destruction of the worship center at Shiloh during the days of the judges and the prophet Samuel.4
Jeremiah’s words about the temple strike a chord with his audience. It is God’s “house,” and the assumption of many in the audience is that God will protect it no matter what. Also, for some in the audience, to speak against the temple is tantamount to speaking against God himself. This is blasphemy. The form of Jeremiah’s proclamation, however, is a warning and a call for repentance. The historical fate of the temple is actually influenced by the actions of the people.
26:7–19. Opposition to the “temple sermon,” with its prediction that the temple will be destroyed, is widespread and intense. Priests and prophets (cf. 26:16), as well as “the people,” propose the death sentence for what appears to them as both blasphemy and treason. The essentials of a public trial ensue, when certain officials take their seat in the New Gate of the temple complex (26:10). Such a location lends gravity to the situation and the charges against the prophet. He will be judged in the context of the temple complex against which he himself has just announced the possibility of judgment (cf. also ch. 20).
Jeremiah defends himself as one in the line of prophets whom the Lord has sent to warn his people about the consequences of disobedience to his instruction (cf. 26:5). He recognizes that he is “in [their] hands” (26:14)—that is, he is on trial—but he warns them that if they execute him, they will incur the judgment of bringing “innocent blood on yourselves.” There are two implications of this claim. (1) The shedding of innocent blood will bring guilt on the assembly and the place. The Old Testament is strongly oriented to the claim that unrequited blood brings a community or people into the sphere of guilt. (2) Jeremiah is thereby reminding the people indirectly that as “innocent” of their charges, he is one of the prophets sent by the Lord. To put it in a kind of syllogism: If Jeremiah speaks a word against the temple in the name of the Lord, yet is innocent of blasphemy, then the word he speaks must come from the Lord.
This second point, at least, gains a hearing for Jeremiah among some of the people. He has spoken to them in the name of the Lord (as opposed to the prompting of another deity or offering his own political commentary). He meets, therefore, at least one of Deuteronomy’s criteria for judging prophecy (Deut. 13). Some elders of the land add that Jeremiah is no different from Micah of Moresheth, who prophesied in Hezekiah’s reign that Jerusalem would be destroyed (26:18 = Mic. 3:12). Apparently they agree that Micah was one of God’s servants the prophets. King Hezekiah, they remind the court, did not execute Micah; instead, he feared the Lord, and the Lord relented concerning the announced judgment. In an unintended prophecy, the elders conclude that by the present course of action (opposing Jeremiah rather than heeding his warning), the people are doing great harm to themselves. This is a tacit recognition of Jeremiah’s claim that to execute him would bring guilt on the place.
In referring to the prophecy of Micah, the people engage in a type of exegesis or interpretation of their religious traditions. Just as Jeremiah drew a comparison between the Jerusalem of his day with the Shiloh of Samuel’s day, so they draw a comparison of Jeremiah’s message with that of Micah. The elders put the work of Micah and the response of Hezekiah together in a more explicit way than either 2 Kings or 2 Chronicles (the two narratives about Hezekiah’s reign) or the book of Micah itself does. The elders do not quote Micah’s prophecy about Jerusalem as part of a warning or a call to repentance. In Micah 3:12 the prophet announces judgment to come. The people understand, however, that Hezekiah’s reaction to the prophecy was genuine repentance and that God used the unconditional prophecy to move the king and people toward change.
26:20–24. A prophet named Uriah, however, was not given the reprieve accorded Jeremiah. King Jehoiakim’s anger against prophets who announced the Lord’s judgment on Judah led to the extradition of Uriah from Egypt (where he had fled) and his execution. It should be remembered that Jehoiakim was appointed king by the Egyptians, so the Egyptian officials were likely to cooperate with him. The narrator notes incidentally that the body of Uriah was thrown in the burial place of the common people. This was intended as a further sign that Uriah was not a real prophet. In another context, Jeremiah prophesies that Jehoiakim’s burial will be that of a donkey—tossed outside the gate of the city (22:19; cf. 36:30).
Jehoiakim’s execution of Uriah thereby brings the judgment of “innocent blood” on himself and his administration. Jeremiah too might have been executed except that an important official, Ahikam5 son of Shaphan, stood on his side. With Ahikam one gets a glimpse of someone who sympathized with Jeremiah and his prophetic task. His brother later lends to Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe, his office (“room”) overlooking the temple complex (36:10).
Bridging Contexts
INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE WITHIN SCRIPTURE. How does one deal with a prophecy of the Lord’s judgment like this one? Such is the fascinating challenge of Jeremiah 26. Readers will see in the recorded response to Jeremiah’s “sermon” an example of inner-scriptural interpretation, as hearers attempt to put Jeremiah’s words in historical and theological contexts. Apparently the majority of the audience believe that Jeremiah has committed blasphemy and treason because they cannot fathom why God would announce the destruction of his own house. Perhaps they also feel that Jeremiah has overreacted to some minor spiritual failings regarding the covenant responsibilities of Judah.
The primary issue according to the prophet, however, is the comparison of Jerusalem with the worship center at Shiloh (26:9). Jeremiah offers a typological comparison between the days of the judges, when the corrupt worship center at Shiloh and the priestly line of Eli were destroyed, and the circumstances of Judah under Jehoiakim. To use an anachronistic phrase, what we have here is an example of Scripture interpreting Scripture.
In his defense before the assembled court and people, Jeremiah claims membership in the line of prophets whom the Lord has sent to warn his people about the consequences of their failure. Jeremiah’s opponents cannot claim ignorance of such prophets or of the use God made of them in a previous generation; the questions are whether Jeremiah’s diagnosis of the times is accurate and whether he himself stands in their succession.
Another example of bridging contexts comes in the elders’ citation of Micah’s prophecy concerning Jerusalem during the days of Hezekiah. This is a rare example in the Old Testament of a quote now contained in another prophetic book, complete with reference to time and place. It is a second example (to be anachronistic) of Scripture interpreting Scripture. Interpreters all recognize that Jeremiah has been influenced by the prophecies of Hosea. Here, however, his prophecy is compared to that of another eighth-century prophet, Micah, who announced judgment on Jerusalem. The elders assume that Micah was a prophet sent by the Lord; furthermore, Micah induced the fear of the Lord in Hezekiah, and the king’s response to the prophetic word averted that word’s announced wrath from God.
Here one encounters the claim that the predictions of a “true” prophet do not always come to pass literally; if the announced judgment provokes the fear of the Lord and evidence of faithful living, then it has served a divine purpose. The response of the people to Jeremiah and, above all, the response of Jehoiakim to Uriah demonstrate that the judgment predicted by Jeremiah will ultimately come.6 This is foreshadowed by the comment of the elders that the rejection of Jeremiah will result in great harm coming on the people (26:19).
Uriah was given a prophet’s “reward” (Matt. 5:10–12) and executed. He was a martyr, whose witness would have gone unrecorded had it not been noted here. God sent a line of prophets, but the people have not listened. Uriah has an honored place in that line of witnesses.
The reform movement. Jeremiah’s words have not fallen on completely deaf ears! Even if the disaster announced cannot be averted, the response of the elders is the beginnings of a reform movement and perhaps also an indication of the circles of people who “remember” his words. Ahikam too seems to be a supporter of Jeremiah’s call for holy living and wholehearted obedience to the Lord’s instructions. He is from a family of scribes with a distinguished record of service to Judah. He is another member of the (often unnamed and unmentioned) reform movement that hear Jeremiah’s words and help to preserve them for posterity.
Contemporary Significance
LISTENING TO A PROPHETIC WARNING. How does one listen to a prophetic warning or announcement of disaster to come? One should not simply ask about the dire circumstances of the past, as if biblical interpretation is finished when one understands what was wrong.7 There is the responsibility also of a faithful reading where one shines the light of hard sayings on a personal or corporate present. In doing so, the issue is not to find a one-to-one correspondence between then and now but a theological link between the call to faithful living then and the call to faithful living in the present. There is also the issue of act and consequence, something the prophets specialize in uncovering. What will be the results of my life or that of a church or community if things do not change? What changes is God calling for among his people?
Jeremiah was put on trial for his warning about judgment to come. Is a clear warning about judgment to come what is required for a faithful rendering of Jeremiah 26 for today? Certainly this is possible, but it is not necessarily the case. One way to understand the contemporary significance of judgmental prophecy in Scripture is to interpret it as an example for later instruction. As such, one must decide first if it is a warning to society as a whole or to one particular community (e.g., a church), or if the application is a more personal matter.
If we conclude that the warning is to society as a whole, then one should be prepared for the question: “Why should they even listen?” Or what about the church? Should the church acknowledge its failures and weaknesses? That is easy to answer; surely, it should! And while the church has good theological reasons for being concerned about destructive trends in society, the light of God’s Word should go first to the life of God’s people to expose what is wrong and hurtful about its own witness.
Heeding judgment. The response of the elders of the land indicates another way in which this chapter may take on contemporary significance. Notice how carefully they listen to Jeremiah and compare his word with that of another prophet who brought a judgmental word from the Lord. They ask: What did that prophecy evoke among its hearers? Unfortunately, the repentance evoked in Hezekiah was not matched in Jeremiah’s day by either King Jehoiakim or the people, but the question starts the search for application in the hearers’ own day.
Judgmental prophecy does not reach its final goal when (or even if) a predicted disaster occurs. Micah was a true prophet in that he brought about a change in Judah, although the judgment he announced did not come to pass. Judgmental prophecy is a sharp way of defining who God is, a God who takes his people seriously as covenant partners in his work of bringing justice and redemption to the world. Does God have standards? Yes! Is he committed to the righteousness and integrity of his people? Yes! While God may vindicate his righteousness through judgment of the wicked (and thereby instruct others), such judgment (enacted in history or simply announced) may also serve the larger ends of renewing his people. Both righteousness and renewal are goals of God according to the broader scriptural witness. Attaining these goals through refinement is a consistent pattern of God’s dealings with his people.
Standing with the prophets. Perhaps Christians should be wary of a too-ready identification with Jeremiah. After all, God does not call each of his people to be a prophet any more than God requires all congregations to engage consistently in prophetic witness. Ahikam, however, represents a person of some repute and influence in the larger Judean society who responds to the hostile reception of Jeremiah by standing with him. When Jeremiah’s life was “on the line,” in a sense the integrity of Ahikam’s faith was also “on the line.” This is what the prophecy evoked in his personal life. He did not take the easy way out, which in this case meant acquiescence to the majority view. In Jeremiah’s hour of need Ahikam put his reputation and influence to good use. Perhaps we can say that he acted out of a shared conviction with Jeremiah that the Lord they both worshiped had rightly announced a judgment on iniquity.
The future judgment will take its course from the present realities—unless the people can be brought to their theological senses, which seems unlikely. It is more important that Ahikam stand up and be counted than that he “win the day”; although without his influence, it is likely that Jeremiah would have perished at the hands of the prophets and priests who opposed him. Ahikam is a disciple, one of the “seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to the Baal,” one of those effective witnesses whose work has great influence at a crucial time but whose name is not remembered by many. He is an example of that great truth that God’s Word does not return to him void, nor finally does the life of God’s servants become void. By God’s grace there will be someone (or some people!) who have the spiritual ears to hear what a true prophet has to say.
In April 1999 the United States was brought to a state of collective shock over the senseless murders of students and a teacher at Columbine High School in the Denver area. Much has been written about the multiple tragedies of that fateful day.8 Two disturbed and disaffected students took senseless vengeance on their school community before turning the guns on themselves. One chilling account comes with the testimony of students who saw or heard the killers stalking their prey in the school building, then stopping and asking one young woman (according to reports, Cassie Bernall) if she believed in God. When she answered “yes,” they shot her. She was one of thirteen victims to die. There are reports that the killers asked the same question of another young woman and that she answered in the affirmative before being shot.
One cannot know what went through the minds of the young women in the last seconds before their murder. One thought perhaps was that the murderers felt rage at God and the pretensions of classmates to believe and trust in him, and that now these demented boys were going to make the girls victims of that rage. Indeed, they were victims, but more than that, they were witnesses. We have only the brief reference to Uriah or to the courage of Ahikam. They did what they did and stood where they stood because they believed in God. We need not ask the modern psychological question of what they thought at the moments of decision; we should, however, give thanks that they acted on what they believed. And we should be reminded that God asks that of all disciples of his Son.