Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible
Jeremiah 26:1-24
A). Jeremiah Declares In The Temple That If Judah Will Not Repent Their Sanctuary Will End Up like That at Shiloh, Which Was Destroyed By The Philistines, And Their City Will Be Subject To YHWH's Curse. This Results In His Being Brought Before The Authorities For What Were Seen As Treasonable Utterances (Jeremiah 26:1).
The chapter commences with a statement of his source of authority, ‘the word of YHWH'. ‘In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim -- came this word from YHWH saying --' (Jeremiah 26:1), and goes on to describe a speech made in the Temple which includes a call to repentance, followed by a warning that if they did not take heed their city would become a curse and their Temple would be made ‘like Shiloh', which was where the original Temple/Tabernacle had been destroyed, presumably by the Philistines, in the days of Samuel. Subsequent attacks on Jeremiah by the priests and prophets are then described, although ameliorated by a counter-argument put forward by ‘the elders of the people of the land' who cite the prophecies of Micah in Jeremiah's defence. A reminder of what happened to another loyal prophet of YHWH named Uriah is then given.
‘In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, came this word from YHWH, saying,'
The prophecy is dated as ‘in the beginning' of the reign of Jehoiakim. This may be a technical description indicating the initial period after Jehoiakim came to the throne prior to his ‘first (full) year' which would commence at the new year. Alternately it may just be a general indicator. But we know that it must have been fairly early on in his reign because it is later made clear that relationships with Egypt were still prominent. Babylon had not yet come on the scene. The mention of Jehoiakim's descent from Josiah is, in context, a reminder of the reforms of that good king, and brings out that what follows was a new state of affairs which Josiah would not have countenanced. It was already therefore an indicator that Judah's downward slide had openly recommenced.
“Thus says YHWH, Stand in the court of YHWH's house, and speak to all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in YHWH's house, all the words that I command you to speak to them. Diminish not a word.”
The command came from YHWH that Jeremiah was to stand and proclaim His word in the outer court of YHWH's house where a large number ‘from all the cities of Judah' who had come up to the feast would be present. It is apparent that amidst all their idolatry, the regular worship of YHWH still continued, but the problem was that their hearts were not in it, with their loyalties being more directed towards the Baals on the high places.
Jeremiah was to speak what YHWH commanded, and not to hold back from declaring the whole truth, or to relax from declaring all His commandments. He must ‘diminish not a word' (compare Deuteronomy 4:2; Deuteronomy 12:32). It is the sign of a true man of God that, while not being unwise (courting persecution is never godly), he holds nothing back of what God wants him to say.
Many see this Temple speech as paralleling the one in Jeremiah 7:1 ff. with this being simply a summary of that speech. Certainly they contain a similar emphasis, and it is therefore something which can neither be proved nor disproved, in which case we may see the speech in Jeremiah 7:1 ff. as filling in the details here. But as there is little doubt that it contained a message whose content would have been reproduced on a number of occasions (Jeremiah often repeats himself), this may well be a similar message proclaimed at a different time rather than the same one. This could be seen as supported by the fact that here it is the city's fate which is the prime emphasis whereas in chapter 7 the concentration was on the Temple. Furthermore it will be noted that in Jeremiah 7:1 ff. there is no indication of a violent reaction to his message.
‘Diminish not a word.' Such a command was very necessary and a reminder of the difficulty and danger surrounding Jeremiah's ministry. It would have been very tempting for him to take the sting out of some of what he was saying so as to make it more acceptable. But he must not do so. Jeremiah was well aware of the feelings and excitable nature of the people and he knew that he was demolishing what they saw as guaranteed truths, namely that:
1. They believed that the land was their inheritance given to them by YHWH for ever (whilst they had seen it taken away from northern Israel, their view was probably that that was precisely because, unlike Judah, they had not remained faithful to the Temple and to the son of David).
2. They believed that the Temple was the dwelling place of YHWH and therefore inviolate as long as they maintained the proper rituals (as in their view was proved by what had happened when Jerusalem was miraculously delivered under Hezekiah). They were probably even more confident in this fact because they were now tributaries of Egypt who ruled as far north as Carchemish, so that any other enemies would have appeared far away. After all what could the others do against mighty Egypt? (They were not to know at this point in time that within five years Egypt would have been defeated by Babylon, and that its power would then be limited to within its own borders)
3. They believed that the rule of the house of David over Judah was guaranteed for ever unconditionally.
These things being granted, they would have argued, why should they believe that the Temple would be destroyed or that they would be removed from the land? To declare such things was to go against their cherished beliefs, and to attack what they saw as their national and ‘rightful' heritage.
“It may be they will listen, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil which I purpose to do to them because of the evil of their doings.”
YHWH declares here what His real desire is. It is that they would listen and turn from their evil ways so that He Himself would not have to bring His severe judgment on them. We are reminded of Peter's words, ‘The Lord -- is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance' (2 Peter 3:9). It is a reminder that in His love and compassion God desires to give every man a fair opportunity, and that in His heart He longed for Judah's repentance. This emphasises the fact that while it was true that Manasseh's behaviour had sealed Judah's doom (Jeremiah 15:4), it was only so because it was his influence that had stirred up their latent sinfulness and had largely made them unwilling to repent. Had they genuinely repented and maintained that repentance, Manasseh's sin would have counted for nothing.
We have here a reminder that man was created as a free will being who chooses his own way. It is only the fact that he always chooses the way of sin that makes the sovereign work of God in salvation necessary. For the truth is that while men and women may of themselves repent of particular sins, full repentance is something that is beyond them without God's gracious working. That is why, at its foundation, ‘salvation is of the Lord', and why all attempts to be saved apart from Him will fail.
“And you shall say to them,
Thus says YHWH,
If you will not listen to me,
To walk in my law, which I have set before you,
To listen to the words of my servants the prophets,
Whom I send to you,
Even rising up early and sending them,
But you have not listened,
Then will I make this house like Shiloh,
And will make this city a curse to all the nations of the earth.”
This abbreviated content of what must have been a larger speech sums up his message, which was that if they failed to walk in accordance with the covenant, and refused to listen to the genuine prophets, then in the end their Temple would be made like Shiloh (destroyed and non-existent) and their holy city would become a curse (subjected to the curses of Deuteronomy 28). In other words he was contradicting all that they firmly believed, and suggesting that they were not as secure as they had thought. Their city becoming a curse continued the thought in Jeremiah 25:29; Jeremiah 25:37.
‘If you will not listen to me, to walk in my law, which I have set before you.' YHWH stresses that He had personally spoken to them from Mount Sinai and had made clear to them His requirements. Thus to fall short of obedience to His Instruction (Torah, Law) was to directly disobey Him.
‘To listen to the words of my servants the prophets, whom I send to you, even rising up early and sending them -.' compare Jeremiah 25:4. They had also refused to listen to Him subsequently when He had sent His servants, the prophets. We know of many of these prophets and ‘men of God' from the early records (Joshua-Chronicles), and they would have been known to them from their tradition. And He stresses that He had not been backward in sending them. He had, as it were, risen up early in order to send them, demonstrating real effort and determination (a typical Jeremaic phrase).
‘But you have not listened.' But they had not listened to them either. Their hearts had been set obstinately against obeying YHWH's covenant requirements. This indeed was why they now came under the curses contained within that covenant (Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 27-28).
‘Then will I make this house like Shiloh, and will make this city a curse to all the nations of the earth.' And because of their failure to listen to Him and respond to His covenant He would ‘make their house like Shiloh' and ‘make their city a curse'. What had happened at Shiloh was proof positive, for those who would listen, that God's Sanctuary was never seen by Him as inviolable. So let them remember Shiloh where the Tabernacle had been erected after the Conquest, and which, as a result of additional outbuildings, had itself become a kind of Temple. But when His people had been disobedient in the time of Samuel that had been destroyed, and furthermore this fact that YHWH had forsaken His Sanctuary in this way was ironically something that they often sang about (Psalms 78:60). It was precisely because YHWH had forsaken it that it was no more. And the same could therefore happen to their present Temple.
On top of this the covenant had been backed up by curses (Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 27-28). Thus if they were disobedient to that covenant they should expect their holy city to be cursed in the eyes of all nations, and to suffer the doom described in the curses. That would in itself vindicate the covenant. It is a salutary reminder that in the end God's truth is in the final analysis demonstrated by judgment.
But we can clearly see why, spoken to an excitable people, made more excitable by the festival atmosphere, these words could cause more than a stir. They had come to the feasts with such confidence that ‘they were doing right by YHWH', and so full of self-satisfaction at being uniquely ‘the people of God', that to be informed that that was not sufficient would have appeared to be almost blasphemy. They forgot the words of Samuel, Isaiah, Hosea, Amos and Micah that obedience counted for more than offerings, and to do YHWH's will was more important than the fat of rams (e.g. 1 Samuel 15:22; Isaiah 1:11; Hosea 6:6; Amos 5:21; Micah 6:7). Like we so often are, they were limited in their spiritual vision. They had eyes but they saw not.
‘And the priests and the prophets and all the people heard Jeremiah speaking these words in the house of YHWH.'
It is emphasised that Jeremiah's words were heard by ‘the priest and the prophets and all the people'. Such was his impact that even the priest and the cult prophets had come to listen to his words, spoken in the outer court of the Temple to the festival crowds. It is a reminder that the same thing happened to our Lord, Jesus Christ, Who was also called to account for what He proclaimed and did in the Temple.
‘And it came about, when Jeremiah had made an end of speaking all that YHWH had commanded him to speak to all the people, that the priests and the prophets and all the people laid hold on him, saying, “You shall surely die.”
The whole of the populace who were present were at first aroused against him, ‘the priests, the prophets and all the people', although excluding the civil authorities. It was a ‘popular' movement. And when he had finished speaking he was by popular consent, and by the authority of the priests and prophets, arrested, it being declared that he was worthy of death. They were enflamed at the thought of what he had said, and no doubt considered his prophecy to be patently false, making him worthy of death (Deuteronomy 18:20).
“Why have you prophesied in the name of YHWH, saying, ‘This house will be like Shiloh, and this city will be desolate, without inhabitant?'
They demanded to know why he had dared to prophesy in the Name of YHWH that the Temple would be destroyed in the same way as Shiloh had been, and that the city would become a deserted city, a ghost town, a place where no one lived. It was the very opposite of what the priests and prophets were telling them They probably did not even think of what Micah had previously said (Jeremiah 26:18), as they may well not have known about it. The ‘princes and elders' would prove to be better informed.
‘And all the people were gathered to Jeremiah in the house of YHWH.'
Thus Jeremiah found himself surrounded by an enflamed people, encouraged on by the priests and the prophets, those who should have been most concerned for the truth of YHWH. What probably saved him from instant death was the sanctity of the Temple. They would not want to shed his blood in the Temple and thus defile it during the feast.
‘And when the princes of Judah heard these things, they came up from the king's house to the house of YHWH, and they sat in the entry of the new gate of YHWH's house.'
Meanwhile news of the disturbance had reached ‘the princes of Judah', the tribal leaders and the royal court gathered at the king's palace, and they came down to the house of YHWH to quell the disturbance and try the case. They consequently sat in session in the entry of ‘the new gate of YHWH's house'. We do not know which gate this was. Possibly it was the high gate built by Jotham (2 Chronicles 27:3). ‘The gate' in each city was the place where the elders of the city would meet in order to hold trials. Jerusalem, of course, had a number of gates, but this was the one seemingly seen as the correct site in which to hold a trial
‘Then the priests and the prophets spoke to the princes and to all the people, saying, “This man is worthy of death, for he has prophesied against this city, as you have heard with your ears.”
It was the priests and prophets, who recognised that Jeremiah had spoken against them in what he had said, who put forward the case for the prosecution. (It was Jeremiah against those who professed to speak in YHWH's name). They declared in open court that Jeremiah was worthy of death because he had prophesied the destruction of the city (including the Temple). Note the emphasis on the whole city (unlike in chapter 7). The safety of the city would be of more immediate concern to the secular authorities.
‘Then Jeremiah spoke to all the princes and to all the people, saying, “YHWH sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city all the words which you have heard.”
Jeremiah then provided his defence which was that it was YHWH Himself Who had sent him to prophesy against both the Temple and the city with the very words that they had heard. He as thus claiming that it was he who was YHWH's messenger. Note the exclusion of the mention of the priest and the prophets. They were the main accusers, baying for his blood. There was little point in appealing to them. The very people who should have been supporting his words were the ones most bitterly opposed to him.
‘Now therefore amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of YHWH your God, and YHWH will repent him of the evil that he has pronounced against you.”
He then boldly called on them to amend their ways and their doings, their attitudes and their actions, and to start obeying the voice of YHWH. Then they could be assured that He would alter His purpose with regard to them and change His mind about the evil that He had pronounced against them. It will be noted that this change of mind by YHWH is not to be seen as describing an arbitrary ‘change of mind', as though He had previously got it wrong, It was a change of mind based on the fact that they had first changed in their attitude towards Him and His covenant. It was an indication that God would respond to man's change of heart.
“But as for me, see, I am in your hand. Do with me as is good and right in your eyes. Only know you for certain that, if you put me to death, you will bring innocent blood on yourselves, and on this city, and on its inhabitants, for of a truth YHWH has sent me to you to speak all these words in your ears.”
He then declares that as far as he was concerned, they could do what they liked with him. He was not important. What mattered was the truth of YHWH. But let them only remember that they would be judged for the choice that they made, so that if they shed his innocent blood, they would bring that blood on themselves, the blood of YHWH's messenger, both on themselves, and on their city and on its inhabitants. And this was because it was YHWH Who had sent him to speak these words to them.
‘Then the princes and all the people said to the priests and to the prophets, “This man is not worthy of death, for he has spoken to us in the name of YHWH our God.”
How quickly the mood of a crowd can change. Shortly before ‘all the people' had been clamouring for his blood. Now they were siding with the judges in recognising his innocence. His defence had impressed the hearers, and so much so that they turned on his accusers and declared that Jeremiah was not worthy of death because he had spoken to them ‘in the Name of YHWH our God'. In their view he was a true prophet. And Israel/Judah had a history of accepting such prophets (although usually too late for their own good).
‘Then certain of the elders of the land rose up, and spoke to all the assembly of the people, saying,'
The ‘elders of the land' were probably the leaders of the people from around the country, in contrast with those who dwelt in Jerusalem. We can compare the phrase, ‘the people of the land' which often meant the landed gentry who were not so caught up in high level politics. And it was some of them, visitors to Jerusalem for the festival, who now spoke up on Jeremiah's behalf. We have here the memory of an eye-witness who remembered who said what. There is also here an indication that, unlike in Jerusalem (Jeremiah 5:1), among the wider people were those who still feared YHWH, at least to a certain extent.
“Micah the Morashtite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and he spoke to all the people of Judah, saying, ‘Thus says YHWH of hosts, Zion will be ploughed like a field, and Jerusalem will become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest'.”
Jeremiah's sterling defence had brought to mind the words of previous prophets, and they consequently pointed back to the prophecy of Micah 3:12, an interesting indication that the writings of the early prophets were already available to them and were seen as carrying authority. They brought out that he too had prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem in the days of Hezekiah (and thus in the latter part of his ministry). Indeed he had declared that it would be so emptied that it came under the plough, with Jerusalem being turned into heaps of rubble and the Temple mount becoming overgrown. He had been no less emphatic than Jeremiah.
“Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear YHWH, and entreat the favour of YHWH, and YHWH repented him of the evil which he had pronounced against them? Thus would we commit great evil against our own souls.”
And what had the then king done with Micah? Had he and all Judah sought to put him to death? No, rather they had listened to what he had said and had ‘feared YHWH,' responding to the covenant positively and reforming their lives. They had then called on YHWH's mercy with the result that YHWH's anger against them was stayed. He had changed His mind with regard to His judgment that he was bringing on them. (If only they had gone a stage further and had themselves truly repented, the history of Judah might have been different). The argument was important as indicating the decision of the house of David in regard to a similar situation. It suggested that the present king Jehoiakim, and his courtiers, should have the same attitude.
This may have in mind the special deliverance of Jerusalem mentioned in 2 Kings 18-19, or it may simply have in mind an earlier occasion in the early days of Hezekiah's reign of which we are unaware. Or indeed both. It is a reminder that there were genuine ‘revivals' of which we are not told elsewhere. But the main point was that a prophet of YHWH had been listened to by both king and people, even though he had warned of dire things, with no attempt being made to silence the prophet.