John Calvin Commentary Jeremiah 26:20-23

"And there was also a man that prophesied in the name of Jehovah, Uriah the son of Shemaiah of Kiriath-jearim; and he prophesied against this city and against this land according to all the words of Jeremiah: and when Jehoiakim the king, with all his mighty-men, and all the princes, heard his words, the king sought to put him to death; but when Uriah heard it, he was afraid, and fled, and went into Egypt: and Jehoiakim the king sent men into Egypt, [namely], Elnathan the son of Achbor, and certain men with him, into Egypt; and they fetched forth Uriah out of Egypt, and brought him unto Jehoiakim the king, who slew him with the sword, and cast his dead body into the graves of the common people." — Jeremiah 26:20-23 (ASV)

Another example is brought forward, partly different, and partly alike—different regarding the king, similar regarding a Prophet. Uriah, mentioned here, faithfully discharged his office; but Jehoiakim could not bear his preaching, and therefore killed him. Some explain the whole in the same manner, as though the elders designed to show that the wicked can gain nothing by resisting God’s prophets, except that by contending they make themselves more and more guilty.

But others think that this part was brought forward by the opposing party, and the words, “And also,” וּגַם, ugam, favor this opinion; for they may be taken adversatively, as if they said, “But there was another Prophet, who did not speak of the ruin of the city and of the destruction of the Temple with impunity.” This opinion seems to be confirmed by what follows in the last verse of the chapter, Nevertheless the hand of Ahikam, etc.; the particle אךְ, ak, is properly "nevertheless"; but it means sometimes, at least, or only. However, in this place, as I will show again shortly, it retains, I think, its proper meaning; for the Prophet declares that though he was in great danger, Ahikam fought so bravely for him that he eventually gained his cause.

But as to the present passage, both interpretations may be accepted; that is, either that the malicious ones cited the death of Uriah in order to overwhelm Jeremiah, or that God’s faithful followers intended to show that there was no reason for acting in this manner, for the state of things had become worse, since King Jehoiakim had cruelly killed God’s servant.

But the time should especially be noted. We have seen that this prophecy was committed to Jeremiah, and also proclaimed at the beginning of Jehoiakim’s reign. However, this beginning is not to be confined either to the first or second year. Since he became tributary to the king of Babylon, he afterwards endeavored to throw off the yoke and was eventually disgracefully dethroned; hence, the beginning of his reign must be understood as the time when his power was undiminished.

While Jehoiakim retained his dignity, then, Jeremiah was instructed to proclaim this message. However this may have been, King Jehoiakim thus enjoyed a tranquil reign; he was at Jerusalem. It is not, therefore, said here that Uriah had threatened the city during his time; but the history is given as if it were a present event.

One thing then is evident: this discourse was delivered when King Jehoiakim was not far away. His palace was near the Temple; his counselors were present, having come down, as we have seen, because of the tumult. For the affair could not be hidden, since the priests and the false prophets everywhere inflamed the rage of the people.

The king’s counselors therefore came to quell the disturbances. If this part of the address is to be ascribed to the defenders of Jeremiah, then they must have been endowed with great courage and firmness to allege against the king a nefarious murder, and also to condemn him for sacrilege, for he had not only injured a holy Prophet but had directly opposed God himself.

There are plausible conjectures on both sides. For if we follow this opinion—that the servants of God, who favored Jeremiah and sought to deliver him from danger, spoke these words—it might be objected that no such thing is expressed. But the narrative goes on continuously, And there was also a man, etc.

Now, when different persons speak and oppose one another, it is usual to indicate the change. It seems then that the whole is to be read connectedly, so that those who first cited the example of Micah then added, on the other hand, that Uriah indeed suffered punishment, but that in this way a crime was added to a crime, so that Jehoiakim gained nothing by furiously persecuting God’s Prophet.

And that they did not speak of the consequences should not seem strange, for the condition of the city and of the people was known to all, and a more grievous danger was near at hand. Hence, a simple narrative might well have been given by them; and as they did not dare to exasperate the king, it was the more necessary to leave that part untouched.

But if the other view is more favored—that the enemies of Jeremiah rose up against him here and cited the case of Uriah—there is also some plausible reason in its favor. The king was living; his counselors were present, as we have said. It might then be that those who wished for Jeremiah’s death referred to this recent example in order to have him destroyed, asking, “Why should he escape, since Uriah was recently put to death? For the cause is exactly the same.”

Uriah did not go any further than Jeremiah; he seems indeed to have taken the words from his mouth. As, then, the king did kill him, why should Jeremiah be spared? Why should he escape the punishment the other underwent, when his crime is more grievous?”

It therefore appears that this view can be plausibly defended: that is, that the enemies of Jeremiah endeavored to aggravate his case by referring to the punishment the king inflicted on Uriah, whose case was not dissimilar. I do not reject this view. If any favor the other view, that this part was spoken by the advocates of Jeremiah, I readily allow it. However, I cannot yet entirely reject the idea that Jeremiah was burdened with prejudice by having the case of Uriah brought forward, who was killed by the king for having prophesied against the city and the Temple.

Let us now consider the words: There was also a man who prophesied in the name of Jehovah, etc. If we accept the opinion of those who think that Jeremiah’s enemies speak here, then the name of Jehovah is to be understood as a false pretense, as if they had said, “It is a very common thing to use God's name as a pretext; for everyone who claims the office of teaching for himself boasts that he is sent from above, and that what he speaks has been committed to him by God.”

Thus they indirectly condemned Jeremiah; for it was not enough for him to use God’s name as a pretext, as Uriah, of whom they spoke, had also loudly professed that he was God’s prophet, that he brought nothing of his own, and that he had a certain calling.

But if this part is to be ascribed to God’s true worshippers, whose aim it was to protect and defend Jeremiah, then to speak in the name of Jehovah, as we said yesterday, was not only to glory because of the prophetic office, but also to give evidence of faithfulness and integrity, so as really and by the result to prove that he was God’s prophet, as he wished to be regarded.

They then added, he prophesied against this city and against this land according to all the words of Jeremiah. If the opponents of Jeremiah were the speakers, we see that he was so overpowered that it was afterwards unnecessary to know anything more of his cause; for another had already been condemned, whose case was in no way dissimilar. They argued, “He spoke according to the words of Jeremiah, and he was condemned; why then should we now hesitate concerning Jeremiah?”

We see how maliciously they turned this example against Jeremiah, as if he were condemned beforehand in the person of another. But if these were the words of the godly, they are to be explained in another way; what is implied is that if Jeremiah was killed, God’s vengeance would be provoked, for it was more than enough to shed the innocent blood of one Prophet.

It then follows, And when, Jehoiakim the king, and all his mighty men and the princes, heard his words, etc. This verse seems to favor the opinion of those who conclude that godly men were the speakers, for they spoke dishonorably of the king and his counselors; the king heard and his mighty men (literally, powerful men), and also all the princes; and the king sought to slay him.

These words, however, may also be attributed to the ungodly and the wicked, for they wished to terrify the common people by first mentioning the king and then the mighty men and the princes. And seeking to kill him might also have been excused, on the grounds that the king could not bear such a reproach without avenging it; for he saw that the Prophet had taken such a liberty as not to spare the holy city nor the Temple. The king then heard, and his mighty men and princes; and then, the king sought to slay him.

But when Uriah heard it, he feared and fled. This passage teaches us that even the faithful servants of God, who sincerely strive to carry out their duties, are yet not always so courageous as to boldly despise all dangers; for it is said that the Prophet feared; but he was not condemned for this reason.

This fear was not indeed blameless; but his fear was such that he still continued in his calling. He might indeed have pleased the king, but he dreaded such treachery more than death. He, therefore, so feared that he did not turn aside from the right course, nor deny the truth, nor accept anything unworthy of his dignity or of the role he held.

His fear then, though wrong, did not so possess the Prophet as to prevent him from remaining ever faithful to God in his calling. It then follows, that he went into Egypt. We therefore conclude that the king’s wrath and cruelty were so great that the holy man could not find a corner to hide himself in throughout the whole land of Judea, nor even in other surrounding regions. He was therefore forced to seek a hiding place in Egypt.

It is afterwards added that the king sent men, even Elnathan, the head of the delegation, with others. There is no doubt that Jehoiakim sent to the king of Egypt, complained that a turbulent man had fled, and asked him to deliver him up as a fugitive. So then, he was brought back, not through power, but through a nefarious compact, for he was betrayed by the king of Egypt.

It is finally added that they led up Uriah from Egypt, and brought him to King Jehoiakim, who slew him with the sword, and cast his dead body into the graves of the common people, as a mark of dishonor. For Jeremiah here calls them the graves of the common people, as we in French call charnel houses des charniers.

The rich are honorably and splendidly buried today, and everyone has his own grave; but when there is a large number, the bodies are thrown together, for it would be too expensive to dig a grave for each. It seems also that there was such a practice in Judea, and that God’s Prophet was buried in this shameful manner.

Thus, those who spoke implied that the king’s wrath burned so fiercely that he not only put him to death but followed up his vengeance, so that a new disgrace awaited the Prophet, even when dead, for he was cast among the obscure and ignoble common people.

I have thus far explained this passage in such a way as to leave it doubtful whether it is more probable that the speakers were Jeremiah’s enemies or his advocates. And though, as I have declared two or three times, I do not reject the view which is different from the one I hold, yet it seems most probable to me that the words were spoken by the godly men who defended the cause of Jeremiah.

I will not specify here all the various reasons that lead me to this conclusion, for everyone can see for themselves why I prefer this view. The general agreement of almost all interpreters also influences me, from which I do not wish to depart, unless necessity compels me, or the matter itself makes it evident that they were mistaken.

But we have seen from the beginning that the two examples follow consecutively, and that nothing comes between them; it may therefore be supposed that the enemies of Jeremiah had previously made their argument. The words themselves then show that those who began the discourse were those who carried it on.

And that they did not mention the reason why they cited this example is not surprising, for the king’s displeasure was feared, and he had given ample proof, in his treatment of the holy Prophet, of how impatiently he bore anything that infringed upon his own dignity. They therefore cautiously related the matter and left what they did not express to be inferred by those who heard them.

But it was easy from their words to know what they meant—that God’s vengeance was to be dreaded. For one Prophet had been killed; what if there was to be no end to cruelty? Would not God eventually arise to execute judgment when His servants were treated so unworthily? Since, then, the words are not completed, it seems probable to me that God’s true servants spoke thus reservedly and cautiously because they did not dare to express their thoughts openly.

Furthermore, these words, the king sought to slay him, and the king sent men, etc., are more fitting when considered as spoken by the defenders of Jeremiah than by the ungodly and the wicked; and they also named Elnathan, that they might pass down his name in infamy to future ages.

And they finally added that the Prophet was brought up from Egypt. What was very shameful certainly seems to be presented here before us: that he was forcibly brought back from that land to which he had fled for asylum, and also that he was brought to the king, that he struck him down with the sword (that is, cruelly killed him), and further, that being not satisfied with this barbarous act, he caused him to be shamefully buried.

All these particulars, as I have said, seem to show that these words may be more appropriately applied to the holy men who defended the cause of Jeremiah than to his enemies.