[4–6] The public message Jeremiah was to
deliver is often understood to be an abridged version of the temple sermon
(7:1–15). Apart from the dire precedent of the destruction of Shiloh’s
sanctuary (v. 6, echoed in v. 9; 7:12, 14), there are some other parallels in
diction, such as the reference to Yahweh’s prophetic servants in v. 5 (as in
7:25), and Jeremiah’s subsequent call for radical improvement in v. 13 (as in
7:3, 5). A more significant phenomenon in this passage is the use of prose
sermonic language in vv. 4–6 and also in vv. 3 and 13. This redactional prose
sermon, which will be echoed in v. 19, is not only related to the diction of
ch. 7. It draws parallels not only with ch. 7 but also with ch. 18. The divine
change of mind echoes 18:8. The positive exhortation to improvement of
lifestyle (v. 13) does coincide with 7:3, 5, but also with 18:11, where it
follows the negative exhortation that occurs again in 26:3. The opening wĕʿattâ (nrsv “Now therefore”) in v. 13
aligns the appeal even more closely to 18:11. Essentially vv. 3–6, 13, and 19
have been composed in prose sermonic language to supply a summary of the divine
message in a narrative that focuses not on that message but on the reaction to
it. Apart from the use of general prose sermonic terms, there is a particular
dependence on the diction of the prose sermons in chs. 7 and 18. This prose
sermon lays blame firmly on the covenant people; Yahweh could not do otherwise
than bring disaster. This import may be ascertained by comparing the parallels
in chs. 7 and 18. The exhortations and conditions of 7:3–7 have a hypothetical
and ironic role in view of the offenses of 7:8–11a. They set up positive
possibilities that the context recognized were not realized, and broached
negative possibilities that must eventually be realized. In ch. 18 the report
of a negative popular reaction in v. 12 turned the argument that culminated in
a call to repentance in v. 11 into a virtual oracle of disaster. Both cases
were set in contexts of failure; in neither case was appeal or positive
possibility to be taken at face value. That the same is true in ch. 26 is
demonstrated by v. 9, where the hearers sum up the divine oracle of vv. 4–6 as
a straightforward announcement of disaster. Verse 9a (cf. v. 6) seems to
preserve a basic form of the message, which, while it shares with ch. 7 a
reference to Shiloh, is to be distinguished from it in that here the fall of
temple and city are related (cf. mt in v. 20). In ch. 7 the fate of temple and
land are interlocked. Correspondingly “this place” in 28:6 and 29:10 will refer
not to the land but to Jerusalem.
The sins of disregarding both Yahweh’s double revelation of the torah
traditions and the subsequent warnings of the prophets were featured in ch. 7
(vv. 5–6, 9, 13 and 23, 25–26), echoing Jeremiah’s poetry in 6:16–19. The
background of the torah is also emphasized in the prose sermon of 11:1–14,
while the one in 25:1–14 defines in vv. 4–7 the failure to heed the messages of
Yahweh’s “prophetic servants” as the ultimate sin that guaranteed communal
disaster. This double accusation of earlier prose sermons is summarized here.
In an nt setting of religious persecution, Stephen would repeat it (Acts
7:51–53). (Leslie C. Allen, Jeremiah: A Commentary [The Old Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2008], 297-98)
