John Calvin Commentary Jeremiah 20:1-2

"Now Pashhur, the son of Immer the priest, who was chief officer in the house of Jehovah, heard Jeremiah prophesying these things. Then Pashhur smote Jeremiah the prophet, and put him in the stocks that were in the upper gate of Benjamin, which was in the house of Jehovah." — Jeremiah 20:1-2 (ASV)

Jeremiah relates here what sort of reward he had received for his prophecy—that he had been struck and thrown into prison, not by the king or by his courtiers, but by a priest who had the care of the Temple. It was a grievous and bitter trial when God’s servant found that he was so cruelly treated by one of the sacred order, who was of the same tribe, and his colleague. For the priests who were then in office had been legitimately appointed, for God had chosen them.

Since, then, their authority was founded on the Law and on God’s inviolable decree, Jeremiah might well have been greatly terrified. This thought might have occurred to him— “What can be the purpose of God? For he has set priests of the tribe of Levi over his Temple and over his whole people. Why, then, does he not rule them by his Spirit? Why does he not make them fit for their office?

Why does he allow his Temple, and the sacred office which he so highly commends to us in his Law, to be so profaned? Or why, at least, does he not stretch out his hand to defend me, who am also a priest and sincerely engaged in my calling?” For we know that God commands in his Law, as a proof that the priests had supreme power, that whoever disobeyed them should be put to death (Deuteronomy 17:12).

“Since, then, it was God’s will to endow the priests with so much authority and power, why then did he not guide them by his grace, so that they might faithfully execute the office committed to them?”

Nor was Jeremiah alone moved and shaken by this trial, but all who then truly worshipped God. Small, indeed, was the number of the godly; but surely everyone was astonished at such a spectacle as this.

Pashur was not the chief priest, though he was of the first order of priests. It is probable that Immer, his father, was the high priest, and that Pashur was his vicar, acting in his place as the ruler of the Temple. Whatever the case may have been, he was undoubtedly superior, not only to the Levites, but also to the other priests of his order.

Now this person, being of the same order and family, rose up against Jeremiah. He not only condemned a fellow-priest in words but treated him outrageously, for he struck the Prophet.

This was unworthy of his station and contrary to the rights of sacred fellowship. For if Jeremiah’s cause was bad, a priest still should have pursued a milder course; he might have thrown him into prison, so that if found guilty, he might afterwards be condemned. But to strike him was not the act of a priest, but of a tyrant, a ruffian, or a furious man.

From this we may learn how disordered things were at that time. For in a well-ordered community, the judge does not leap from his tribunal to strike a man, even if he might deserve a hundred deaths, as regard must be given to what is lawful. Now, if a judge, whom God has armed with the sword, should not thus give vent to his wrath and use the sword without discretion, it is surely a thing entirely inconsistent with the office of a priest.

The state of things then must have been in very great disorder when a priest disgraced himself in this way. And from his precipitate rage, we may also gather that good men were then very few.

He had been chosen to preside over the Temple; he must then have excelled others not only regarding his station but also in public esteem and in the possession of some kind of virtues. But we see how he was led away by the evil spirit.

We ought to consider these things carefully, for it sometimes happens that great commotions arise in the Church of God, and those who should be moderators are often carried away by a blind and, as it were, furious zeal. We may then stumble, and our faith may completely fail us, unless an example like this affords us aid, which shows clearly that the faithful were previously tried and had their faith exercised by similar contests.

It is not then uselessly said that Pashur smote Jeremiah. If he had struck one of the common people, it would have been more endurable, though in that case it would have been an act entirely unworthy of his office. But when he treated God's servant insolently, and one who had for a long time discharged the prophetic office, it was far less excusable.

This circumstance, then, should be noticed by us: that the priest dared to strike the Prophet of God.

It then follows that Jeremiah was thrown by him into prison. But we must notice this: that he had heard the words of Jeremiah before he became infuriated against him. Doubtless, he should have been moved by such a prophecy; but he became mad and so audacious as to smite God’s Prophet.

Hence, it appears how great is the stupidity of those who have once become so hardened as to despise God; for even the worst of men are terrified when God’s judgment is announced. But Pashur heard Jeremiah proclaiming the evil that was near; and yet the denunciation had no other effect on him but to make him worse.

Since, then, he so violently assailed God’s Prophet after having heard his words, it is evident that he was blinded by a rage entirely diabolical. We also see that the despisers of God blend light with darkness, for Pashur covered his impiety with a cloak and therefore threw Jeremiah into prison. In this way, he showed that he wished to know the state of the case, as he brought him out of prison the following day.

Thus the ungodly always try to make coverings for their impiety, but they never succeed. The hypocrisy of Pashur was very gross when he threw Jeremiah into prison so that he might afterwards call him to defend his cause, for he had already struck him.

This great insolence, then, took away every pretense for justice. It was therefore extremely frivolous for Pashur to resort afterwards to some form of trial for deciding the case.

The word מהפכת, mephicat, is translated by some as 'fetter,' and by others as 'stocks'; and they think it to be a piece of wood, with one hole to confine the neck, and another for the feet.

But I do not know whether this is suitable here, for Jeremiah says that it was in the higher gate of Benjamin. This certainly could not be properly said of fetters, or of chains, or of stocks. It then follows that it was a prison.

He mentions the gate of Benjamin, since it belonged to that tribe; for we know that a part of Jerusalem was inhabited by the Benjamites. They had two gates, and this was the higher gate towards the east. He says that it was opposite the house of Jehovah; for besides the court, there were many small courts, as is well known, around the Temple. It follows: —