JEREMIAH 26
The narrative in Jeremiah 26 exemplifies
how the ancient Judahites understood the principle of prophecy taught in
Ezekiel 33 and Jeremiah 18 to operate. At the beginning of the reign of King Jehoiakim
(609-598 BC), the Lord instructed Jeremiah to go to the temple and prophesy
against the people’s sins in hopes that “they will hearken and turn (šûb) every man from his evil way, that I may repent (niḥam) me of
the evil which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings”
(v. 3). Jeremiah warned that if the people continued to ignore the Lord’s prophets
and commandments, then the Lord would permit Jerusalem and its temple to be
destroyed, but if they turned back to the Lord, then all would be well (vv. 4-6).
This message appears to be an abridged version of Jeremiah’s temple speech in
Jeremiah 7:1-5, where he explicitly taught, “If ye thoroughly amend your ways
and your doings . . . then I shall let you live in this place” (vv. 5, 7).
While some people (including some priests and other prophets) rejected Jeremiah’s
prophecy and sought to have him executed because he spoke against Jerusalem and
its temple (26:7-9, 11), others accepted his prophecy as the word of the Lord
and declared him unworthy of death (v. 16).
Some local elders defended Jeremiah’s prophecy by citing a prophecy of
the eighth-century prophet Micah: “Zion shall be plowed like a field, and
Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places
of a forest” (“6:18; compare Micah 3:12). The elders then noted that instead of
putting Micah to death as some had just tried to do with Jeremiah, King Hezekiah
had “besought the Lord, and the Lord repented (niḥam) him of the evil
which he had pronounced” (Jeremiah 26:19). In other words, these elders
understood Hezekiah to have acted in accordance with the principle that
Jeremiah enumerated over a century later. The king turned toward the Lord, and
the Lord preserved Jerusalem and the temple.
Hezekiah’s reaction to Micah’s prophecy is particularly instructive
because the book of Micah does not preserve a record of Micah ever saying that
the Lord would refrain (niḥam) from destroying Jerusalem if the people
turned (šûb) back to him. Following a diatribe against corrupt Judahite
leadership (3:9-11), Micah declared, “Therefore, because of you, Zion
shall be plowed as a field” (v. 12 English Standard Version; emphasis added).
At no point does Micah say that Jerusalem’s destruction can be prevented. Yet,
as the Judahite elders attested a century later, King Hezekiah did not believe
the destruction was inevitable, demonstrating a belief that even when a prophet
did not explicitly mention the Lord’s willingness to relent (niḥam) if
the people turn (šûb) toward him, the option was still available.
Old Testament prophecy was less about revealing an absolute future
than about revealing the information that the Lord wanted his people to know.
Israel shared this worldview with its neighbors. Neither Hebrew nor Akkadian
literature attest a word that corresponds to English fate, which is
shaped by the Greek concept of destiny. One Old Testament scholar described
these conceptual differences this way: “According to Greek thinking, fate is
what inevitably will take place, regardless of a person’s actions. . . . In
contrast to this, šimtu [the Akkadian word often translated as “fate”]
is an established norm and a cultural convention, an individual’s lot in life,
changeable, for better or for worse.” Old Testament prophecy corresponds more
to Akkadian šimtu than to Greek notions of fate. Thus, prophecies of
destruction informed the Israelites of the Lord’s thoughts on their current situation
and allowed them to decide what to do.
The Elders’ quotation of Micah 3:12 is an example within an example
that speaks across millennia. The book of Jeremiah, like the book of Ezekiel,
dates to after the destruction of Jerusalem. Those final editors designed the
book to be studied as divine guidance for future generations. By citing Micha’s
similar prophecy against Jerusalem and the temple, highlighting Hezekiah’s
response in turning toward the Lord, and emphasizing that the Lord preserved
Jerusalem and the temple because of that changed behavior, the elders were
telling their historical audience that the Lord could likewise protect
Jerusalem and the temple in their day if they obeyed Jeremiah and turned from
their sins. The response to Michah’s prophecy sharply contrasts with the
response to Jeremiah’s prophecy. Readers of the book of Jeremiah in turn
realize that Micah’s unfulfilled prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction in Hezekiah’s
day became fulfilled in Jeremiah’s day because the people failed to turn away
from their sins. Both prophecies serve as examples to students of Jeremiah:
turn toward the Lord and will cause you to live, but turn away from the Lord
and he will allow you to perish. Moreover, the fact that the Lord sent Jeremiah
with a message nearly identical to that of Micah highlights the Lord’s mercy
and desire to give the Israelites another chance to save themselves. (Michael
J. Biggerstaff, “An Unconventional Mercy: Prophecies of Destruction as Divine
Instruction,” in Tender Mercies and Loving-Kindness: The Goodness of God in
the Old Testament [Brigham Young University Religious Education Symposium
in Honor of Sidney B. Sperry; Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt
Lake City: Deseret Book, 2025], 309-11)
