26:1–6 The opening note that Jeremiah’s Temple Sermon came at the beginning of Jehoiakim’s reign as king (v. 1) supplies a chronological detail missing from its parallel account in chapter 7. Jehoiakim was the second of Josiah’s three sons to reign as king of Judah. The first son was Jehoahaz/Shallum (cf. 2 Kings 23:31–34; Jer. 22:11), who reigned for three months before Eliakim/Jehoiakim; the third son was Mattaniah/Zedekiah (cf. 2 Kings 24:15–17; Jer. 21:1; 24:8; 27:3), Judah’s final king. Among these three sons, Jehoiakim was particularly wicked for overturning the reformation instituted by his father (cf. 2 Kings 22–23). Already in the beginning of Jehoiakim’s reign it became necessary for Jeremiah to confront the king even though Josiah’s godly actions would still have been in recent memory. Tragically, the full list of sins given in Jeremiah 7 reveals that Judah renewed precisely those pagan practices in Judah that Josiah had abolished less than two decades before.

As in chapter 7, Yahweh commands Jeremiah to situate himself in the courtyard of the temple and warn the entering and exiting people to repent of their sins, lest the temple in Jerusalem be destroyed, as Shiloh was (26:2–6; cf. 7:3–11). Of utmost importance is that Yahweh is a compassionate God who is far from eager to judge his people but would rather that “every one turn from his evil way, that [he] may relent of the disaster that [he] intends to do to them because of their evil deeds” (26:3). Yahweh has already sent his “servants the prophets” (v. 5) to his unresponsive people for centuries (cf. 7:25; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4). Judgment need not be inevitable, for Yahweh is offering Judah a final chance to repent through the prophetic word of Jeremiah.

26:7–11 Jeremiah’s sermon elicits a hostile response from its audience, unrecorded in chapter 7. Rather than heeding the message to turn back to Yahweh (cf. 26:3), the religious leaders and the people who hear Jeremiah (v. 7) attempt to silence the messenger: “‘You shall die! Why have you prophesied in the name of the Lord, saying, “This house shall be like Shiloh, and this city shall be desolate, without inhabitant?”’ And all the people gathered around Jeremiah in the house of the Lord” (vv. 8–9).

Jerusalem’s inhabitants are deeply attached to their temple as a guarantor of their safety (cf. Jer. 7:4; Ezek. 24:21). Thus, for them to hear Jeremiah’s comparison between the temple and the destroyed northern sanctuary of Shiloh is beyond galling. In their eyes, had not the presence of Yahweh’s temple in Jerusalem been the decisive factor in turning back Assyria’s armies a century prior (cf. 2 Kings 18–20; Isaiah 36–39)? They apparently think that the northern kingdom of Israel was taken into exile only because of its syncretistic cultic sites throughout the land (cf. 1 Kings 12:28–32; 2 Kings 10:29; 17:9–11). Jeremiah’s words represent betrayal to his hearers, for he is taking direct aim at Judah’s national identity as the true kingdom of Israel.

Before the impending riot becomes a lynching, political officials from the king’s palace arrive at the temple in Jerusalem to restore order (Jer. 26:10). In an eerie anticipation of the sham trial against Jesus (cf. Matt. 26:59–68), it is the religious leaders of Jerusalem who challenge Jeremiah for his prophecies against Jerusalem: “This man deserves the sentence of death, because he has prophesied against this city, as you have heard with your own ears” (Jer. 26:11). Underlying their inability to hear Jeremiah are the cherished traditions of Zion’s inviolability: Had not Yahweh himself said that Jerusalem was Zion, the sacred place where he dwelled as King among his people (Psalm 48; Isa. 26:1–6)? Did not the prophets teach that Jerusalem is the chief city among the nations and would never know war again (Isa. 2:1–4; Mic. 4:1–4)?

26:12–15 Others prior and contemporaneous to Jeremiah have clearly spoken of “peace” for Jerusalem (Isa. 26:12; Jer. 6:14; 14:13). Thus it is necessary for Jeremiah to defend himself against the crowd’s accusation that he has spoken illegitimately of destruction. He asserts, “The Lord sent me to prophesy against this house and this city all the words you have heard” (26:12), referring back to his call to ministry, in which he was “sent” to speak exactly and only Yahweh’s words (cf. 1:7). That supernatural act of receiving Yahweh’s word in Yahweh’s presence is what alone qualifies a prophet to speak in his name (cf. 23:16). But when true and false prophets both claim to be speaking in Yahweh’s name, as happens in chapter 28, it will be the difficulty and unpleasantness of a prophetic word like Jeremiah’s that furnishes proof of its authenticity. Oracles of deliverance are more likely than oracles of judgment to be invented by false prophets for their gullible audiences.

Indeed, Jeremiah’s audience in chapter 26 has already begun misunderstanding him. Despite Jeremiah’s divinely given mission and the clarity of Yahweh’s direct word through him, they apparently take him to be prophesying a certainty of judgment against the city rather than its contingency. Earlier their selective hearing was reflected in their inaccurate summary of Jeremiah’s message as an oracle “against this city” (26:11). Such a distortion of Yahweh’s word leads Jeremiah to insist again that destruction is not a foregone conclusion, if only the people would repent of their sins (v. 13; cf. vv. 3–6). The people of Jerusalem can envision their God only as absent (in being unable to see their sins) or as cruel (in being too eager to judge their sins)—both of which are self-serving distortions of God’s nature and intentions.

At the climax of his defense of Yahweh’s word, it is striking that Jeremiah declines to defend himself. He commits his fate to the crowd, asking them to respond “as seems good and right to you” (v. 14), a move unlikely to end well for Jeremiah, given the penchant for violence already demonstrated by his hearers. At the same time, it is Jeremiah’s refusal to act for his self-interest that sets him apart from the false prophets, who stand to reap personal gain for their oracles of wishful thinking. Instead, Jeremiah speaks in his audience’s self-interest by warning them that killing Yahweh’s true messenger (cf. v. 8) would only magnify their guilt (v. 15).

26:16–19 The tide turns when the royal officials and the crowd break with the religious leaders who have been at the forefront of accusing Jeremiah (cf. v. 11). The former group recognizes his authority (“he has spoken to us in the name of the Lord our God”; v. 16). Other passages in the book mention false prophets who also claim to minister in Yahweh’s name (e.g., 14:14–15; 23:25). Given that chapter 26 is chronologically one of the earliest passages in the book (26:1; cf. 1:1–3), it appears that Jeremiah and Uriah (cf. 26:20–23) may be the only prophets speaking in the name of Yahweh at this stage of Jehoiakim’s reign.

Jeremiah’s credibility does not rest only on an invocation of Yahweh’s name. In addition to this criterion, there are some of Jerusalem’s elders who recognize that Jeremiah follows in the line of a true prophet like Micah, who warned Jerusalem in the time of Hezekiah to repent or be destroyed (vv. 17–18). Rather than threatening Micah with death, Hezekiah and his people responded affirmatively to Micah and his God, leading to Jerusalem’s deliverance at the height of the Assyrian crisis (v. 19). These undeniable similarities between Micah and Jeremiah, coupled with Jerusalem’s vastly different receptions afforded to these two prophets, lead to the damning conclusion, “We are about to bring great disaster upon ourselves” (v. 19). Jeremiah will be welcomed like Micah and Jerusalem’s judgment will be averted, but only for the time being.

26:20–24 What follows is a brief conclusion that compares Jeremiah to another prophet. Like Jeremiah, Uriah the son of Shemaiah was a prophet who proclaimed Yahweh’s threat of destruction against Jerusalem (v. 20). Also like Jeremiah, his audience in the time of King Jehoiakim sought to kill him for this subversive message (v. 21). But unlike Jeremiah, Uriah was forced to flee to Egypt (v. 21). His attempt to escape proved futile, however, when men sent by Jehoiakim brought him back to Judah, where Jehoiakim personally put Uriah to death and even shamed his corpse by dumping it in a commoners’ cemetery (vv. 22–23).

The demise of Uriah contrasts notably with Jeremiah, who continues to prophesy and whose oracles are eventually collected into the book that bears his name. What ultimately accounts for this difference, given the similarities in the content and circumstances of their oracles? Jeremiah 26 concludes by explaining that a certain “Ahikam the son of Shaphan” protected Jeremiah from the people who sought to kill him (v. 24). Shaphan is later identified as the head of a scribal family in Jerusalem (36:10).

Ahikam himself is never mentioned again in the book, but his son Gedaliah serves as Babylon’s first governor of Judah (39:14; 40:5, 9), and the generation of Shaphan’s grandsons is named as the scribes who serve in Jehoiakim’s court (36:11–14). Given this information, it appears that Ahikam is an elderly benefactor unable to protect Jeremiah very long. Jeremiah will be spared from death, but hostility toward him will not cease. By Jehoiakim’s fourth year (605 BC, shortly after the events of ch. 26), he is already considered persona non grata in the temple (36:5) and undoubtedly in the king’s palace as well. Jeremiah’s life and ministry will only grow more difficult through the reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah.