

























INTRODUCTION
    Background of Study

The insight to write on this theme came while in Rome on 
studies away from my land and people. Listening to the news 
from Nigeria both in the radio and on the television became a 
kind of nightmare as a result of the many atrocities being 
reported. Some instances might suffice here. There were 
cases of misappropriation and mismanagement of public 
funds; misappropriation of justice; extrajudicial killings; 
armed robbery and ritual killings; kidnappings and 
assassinations, just to mention a few. It prompted the 
question: is the prophetic voice in Nigeria being heard loud 
enough so as to effect any positive change in the society? This 
is what then forms the background for this study: to look at the 
prophetic consciousness of Jeremiah, a consciousness that 
made him to give up everything for the sake of his prophetic 
ministry.

One sees in Nigeria today a great number of men and 
women who claim to have been called and sent by God. They 

89

AN EXEGETICAL UNDERSTANDING 

OF JER. 26:12-15 AND THE 

CHALLENGES FACING 

THE PROPHETIC MINISTRY IN 

NIGERIA TODAY

Vincent B. OJO



go about as God's messengers and emissaries enjoying all the 
privileges that pertain to the office of God's mouthpiece. In 
the same society, however, we find so many atrocities being 
committed in high and low places, and the prophetic voice is 
almost never heard or at the least never loud enough.  In this 
paper, an exegesis of Jer 26:12-15 is done to prove that 
Jeremiah was a true prophet who was conscious of his calling 
and mission. It also underscores the fact that a true prophet 
must be resolute and determined to speak to the different 
situations of life irrespective of whose ox is gored. It is sad to 
submit that our society today is not yet blessed with many 
such prophets like Jeremiah.
Historical Background of Jer 26:12-15

Chap. 26 is dated in the accession year of King Jehoiakim 
to underscore the fragility of the political situation at the time. 
King Josiah initiated some reforms which were both religious 
and political to which Jeremiah gave his succinct support 
initially until he realized that the reform failed to inspire 
personal repentance because it dealt more with the externals 
of religion. Henri Cazelles describes this period saying that 
judging by the possibilities offered by Deuteronomy (17:6), 
Jeremiah became prominent in Jerusalem where he enjoyed 
the friendship of the reformed group that sustained him in the 
difficult moments (26:24) but he had only limited rights to 
worship in the temple such that he came in conflict with the 
priests of Jerusalem (20:26, 28). What he then saw in 
Jerusalem showed fullness of corruption (5:1) and the 
strength of the resistance to the politics of Josiah (183). That 
is, Jeremiah became discontented with the behaviour of the 
religious figures and the people in Jerusalem even after the 
reforms of Josiah. Werner Schmidt also believes that 
Jeremiah was favourable to the reforms of Josiah but he 
warns: “Jeremiah has good relations with the supporters of 
the reform (compare 26:24; 36:10 with 2 Kgs 22:12), but at no 
point does he take an explicit position on it. King Josiah is 
praised not for his reform but for his dedication to social 
justice (22:15f.)” (277). However, King Josiah met his death 
at the hands of Pharaoh Necho of Egypt at Megiddo (2 Kings 
23:29ff) while trying to prevent Necho from helping the 
Assyrians against the Babylonian incursion and his son 

90



Jehoahaz was installed in his place. He was only there for 
three months when Pharaoh Necho removed him and sent 
him on exile in Egypt and in his place he installed his elder 
brother, Eliakim, whom he named Jehoiakim as king. This 
means within one year, Judah had three different kings (2 Kgs 
23:28-37). Jehoiakim was loyal to Egypt as he was paying the 
heavy tribute to Necho even at the expense of his people. He 
did everything to wipe out the traces of his father's reforms. 
Jeremiah discerned that the idolatrous practices of the king 
and his encouraging the people to participate in such would 
spell doom for the whole nation. He then heard the word of the 
Lord to warn them of the danger involved in taking such a 
course of action. Meanwhile at this time, Babylon had grown 
to become a super power demanding the allegiance of Judah 
and so Judah was caught between the two super powers-
Egypt and Babylon. This was how there came to be two 
different parties in Judah namely those who were pro- 
Egyptian and those who were pro-Babylonian. The pro-
Egyptian party wanted Judah to maintain allegiance to Egypt 
while the pro- Babylonian party wanted Judah to submit to 
Babylon.

Jeremiah urged the king and the people not to resist 
Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon but to submit to him as this was 
the Lord's wish to punish the people for not heeding the words 
of the prophets he had sent to them (Jer 25). However, these 
words of Jeremiah were considered by the officials of Judah 
as treacherous even though the King Zedekiah believed 
Jeremiah but was too weak and afraid of his officials, the 
priests and prophets and all those who were pro-Egyptian. 
They therefore regarded the prophet as being pro-Babylonian 
and so a traitor and an enemy of the state (Jer 27-29). This fact 
could have contributed to the hostile way in which the people, 
especially the religious authorities, reacted to the temple 
sermon and were bent on killing Jeremiah. As Barbara Bozak 
puts it “Jeremiah's prophetic message attempted to make 
sense of a constantly changing situation. After Assyria's 
power had crumbled and Babylon had grown stronger, 
Jeremiah, recognizing the futility of an alliance with Egypt, 
preached confidence in YHWH” (1066). The shock, however, 
came when he asked the people to surrender to 

91



Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon as God's servant (Jer 27; 29). 
What all this points to is that Jeremiah was no longer seen 

as speaking the mind of God but the mind of Babylon. He was 
considered a traitor. This may have also contributed to the 
continued suffering and persecution of the prophet at the 
hands of the political and religious establishments of Judah. 
The historical background of this text, therefore, rests on the 
fact that the prophets, the priests and all the people, bearing in 
mind all the aforementioned, saw Jeremiah as a traitor and 
someone not to be trusted. He was looked upon with 
suspicion and all his prophecies and actions were seen as 
such. Hence, Jeremiah had to put up a defence of his prophetic 
call, using his divine mandate to establish that he was 
conscious of his prophetic call.
 Literary Analysis of Jer 26:12-15

The literary analysis of this text is done under the 
following sub headings: delimitation, text and textual 
criticism, literary context and genre, and organizational 
structure. 
 Delimitation of Jer 26:12-15 
The defence of Jeremiah is a unique unit in chap. 26. In 
addition, there is an internal coherence in the pericope of vv. 
12-15 that makes it independent of v. 11 and capable of 
standing on its own. This coherence is shown by the content 
and the language of the text which are different from the 
content and language of the preceding verse (v. 11) and the 
following verse (v.16). The pericope, vv. 12-15, is marked by 
the first person pronouns. It is the only place in the entire 
chapter where Jeremiah refers to himself in the first person. 
The remaining verses are marked by references to Jeremiah in 
the third person. Besides, the content is also different from the 
rest because it contains the defence speech of Jeremiah 
distinct from the narration of the events leading to and 
following it. The process started in v. 10 and ended in v. 16 but 
it is only vv. 12-15 that contains the direct words of the 
prophet. Therefore, the unit, vv. 12-15, can stand on its own as 
a pericope. 

Structure of Jer 26:12-15
The structure of the text of Jer 26:12-15 is concentric. 

92



This means that the author ends with the same theme with 
which he begins the text. In this case, what is contained in v. 
12 is repeated in v. 15.
  This proposed structure is presented thus: The 
proposed structure could be interpreted as A-B-A¹. This is a 
chiastic structure in which Jeremiah begins his speech in v. 
12b which is A. Then from vv. 13-15b which is B, the speech 
continues but in a different tone and is closed by 15c which is 
A¹, because it goes back to the same theme as 12b (A).    

As noted while delimiting this text, Jer 26:12-15 is a 
literary unit bound together by the setumah at the end of the 
unit. They are together because they contain the response of 
the prophet in his own defence before the officials and all the 
people as a result of the allegation by the priests and prophets 
that he prophesied against the city. This is the only place 
where Jeremiah spoke directly in the entire chap. 26. This in 
itself marks it out from the rest of the chapter. 

From the structure of Jer 26:12-15, it is evident where 
the emphasis lies. This is underscored by the repetition of the 
words ynIx;�l'v.��hw"hy> which appear in both v. 12 and v. 15. Yes, 
YHWH truly sent Jeremiah to speak his words to his people. 
In other words, Jeremiah is fully conscious of his identity as 
God's prophet and he is ready to defend it with the last drop of 
his blood. The order of these words, furthermore, forms a 
chiasm as the following table shows:

93

v. 12   ynIx;�l'v.   hw"åhy>
v. 15   �hw"hy>   ynIx:Ül'v..

Though they are not worded in the same manner, a 
parallel is also formed by the words :l. in v. 12 and �rBed:l. abe�N"hii
in v. 15 which may be referred to as a synonymous 
parallelism. This is due to the fact that they both have the 
same object, the prophet, and they both refer to the same 
activity of proclaiming. This is why this researcher thinks that 
the structure of this pericope is A-B-A¹ where v. 12b is the A, 
vv. 13-15  is the B, and v. 15c the A¹.b
Therefore, this structure can be summarized in pictorial form 
thus:
V. 12b= A: Jeremiah's assertion of divine authority



94

Vv. 13-15 = B: New call to conversion and submission to b
judgment
V.15c= A¹: Jeremiah's assertion of divine authority
Content analysis of Jer 26:12-15

The defence of Jeremiah as noted all along in this work is 
a turning point in chap. 26 and in the entire book of Jeremiah. 
This is because it is the only instance in the whole book where 
the prophet was brought to trial and was allowed to defend 
himself. This however did not prevent further persecution by 
the royal and religious authorities. It nevertheless showed up 
the prophet as being able to stand by his vocation and defend 
it. 

    ynIx;�l'v.�hw"åhy> (the Lord sent me v. 12)
Jeremiah opens his defence with the claim that the Lord 

sent him to the people. This is a very strong claim by Jeremiah 
considering the regulation in the book of Deuteronomy 
concerning those who claim to have been sent by God 
whereas they have not been sent (Deut 18:20). So, Jeremiah's 
offence could vary from treason (by predicting the overthrow 
of the government of the land cf. 1 Sam 22; 6-19); to 
blasphemy (by saying that the sacred city and its Temple 
would be destroyed cf. Exod 22: 8; Lev 24:16); to 
presumptuous prophecy (by claiming to have spoken at God's 
orders cf. Deut 18:20). The consequence of prophesying 
falsely in the name of God, if found guilty, is death. Jeremiah 
was aware of this provision, yet, he dared claim that it was the 
Lord who sent him to prophesy to the people. By so doing 
Jeremiah establishes his authenticity as the spokesman for 
God in bringing the people back to the right track.

Jeremiah uses this verb to challenge the authority of his 
opponents, the “false prophets” according to the LXX. Unlike 
them who have not been sent by God, Jeremiah claims his 
divine authority as God's messenger by using this verb. 
Though the goal is not stated, it is to be understood from the 
context of the oracle where God explicitly says: I have sent 
you (Jer 1:7). 

The use of this word as sending does not refer exclusively 
to the commissioning of a prophet by God. It could be used in 
other contexts like sending someone to do something in the 
ordinary day life. However, it is still “the primary catchword 
for the commissioning of a prophet.” (Herrmann 64). The use 



of this word with the subject, YHWH, points to a prophetic call. 
Jeremiah claims by these words that his call and message 
came from YHWH whose mission he must accomplish. 

So in Jer. 26:12-15, Jeremiah used the verb xlv to 
underscore the fact that it was God who sent him. It is used in 
the transitive sense saying that God sent him to prophesy. The 
three components are present namely the sender (God), the 
object (Jeremiah) and the purpose (to prophesy). The fact that 
this word is repeated in v. 15 demonstrates its importance and 
relevance in the book of Jeremiah showing that Jeremiah is 
convinced of his divine call and mission and has no doubts 
whatsoever about it. The words were not his but the Lord's. K. 
O'Connor puts it thus: “By affirming that Yahweh is the 
source of his mission, the latter frame highlights Jeremiah's 
claim to be a true prophet” (622). The word ynIx;�l'v is put in the 
qal perfect in both verses to underscore this fact which is also 
to debunk the first allegation of  his accusers that he has 
spoken presumptuously in the name of the Lord (v. 11) 

In fact, the entire defence of Jeremiah revolves around 
this verb because it is the springboard upon which his entire 
message rests. One can see the indication to this in the 
structure of the pericope which is chiastic. Thus, the most 
important word in the defence is xiv together with hw"åhy> which 
is mentioned both at the beginning and at the end of the 
pericope. This is not surprising because the word was 
prominent even at the beginning of the book in the episode of 
the call and commissioning of the prophet (1:4-10) and he 
was very conscious of this throughout his entire prophetic 
ministry notwithstanding the few times that he complained to 
God (cf. 15:10-21; 18:18-23; 20:7-18).

In the other prophetic books, this word occurs especially 
in the commissioning of the prophets. In Isaiah 6, it was the 
prophet who volunteered to be at the service of the Lord as his 
messenger when he says in v. 8�ynIxE)l'v.�ynIïn>hi “here I am, send 
me”. The prophet Jeremiah at his own commissioning when 
he expressed his unworthiness to be God's messenger was 
told this by God %leêTe�'^x]l'v.a,¥�rv<Üa]-lK'-l[;(�yK�“for you shall go to 
whomever I shall send you” (Jer 1:7). Ezekiel too received his 
own commissioning when God said to him: laeêr"f.yI�ynEåB.-la, 
'^t.Aa�ynIÜa]�x:le'Av “I send you to the sons of Israel” (2:1). So xlv is 
very prominent in the call and commissioning of the prophets.

95



There can be no doubt as to the importance of these words 
in the defence of Jeremiah since the defence opens with it and 
closes also with it. The prophet begins his speech by laying 
claim to divine authority (v. 12b) and after preaching 
repentance to the people, he concludes by reiterating with an 
oath that he had truly been sent (v. 15c). Brueggemann 
highlights the meaning and significance of these words when 
he says: “Jeremiah makes an important distinction between 
the words he must speak from God (vv. 12-13) and his own 
personal destiny (v. 14)…. in v. 15 the prophet returns to the 
main issue, the summons to torah as the only chance for life in 
Jerusalem. His opponents want to dispose of his message by a 
political-judicial maneuver. Such an urgent, ominous word, 
however, cannot be eliminated by disposing of the messenger. 
The message itself will have to be engaged, because it is from 
God” (7). So, it is in order to emphasize the otherness of his 
mission and message that Jeremiah used these words in two of 
the four verses that make up his defence. He has not spoken of 
his own volition but he had been mandated by God to speak 
all the words they had heard him speak. The reference, 
therefore, is not just to the message but also to the exact words 
spoken. This is the essence of the lK' “all” that Jeremiah used 
to accompany the words in both verses. By this he removes 
himself completely from the scene while laying everything at 
the doorsteps of God, the giver of the message. However, he 
takes responsibility for the message by submitting himself to 
judgment (v. 14) because he is the messenger that brought the 
message.

abe�N"hil (to prophesy, v. 12)
That Jeremiah is a true prophet is the goal here. The 

prophet uses the verb form of the word abn to convince his 
hearers that he is a true prophet sent by God to prophesy to 
them. The LXX distinguishes between Jeremiah and the other 
prophets by referring to the latter as pseudo-prophetai  
(Lundbom, Jeremiah 21-36, 288). The word as used in the MT 
is in the niphal infinitive construct abeúN"hil placing 
emphasis on his mission unlike their own prophets who have 
not been sent by God but prophesy peace and tranquility to 
them. Jeremiah speaks against the prophets who have not 
been sent by God but prophesy lies in his name (cf. 14:13-16). 

96



All the versions are agreed on the use of this word to express 
the authentic ministry of Jeremiah.

Jeremiah used the niphal infinitive construct of abn to lay 
claim to his prophetic authority to speak in the name of the 
Lord. The meaning of this word in the niphal sense is to 
signify an inspired prophetic discourse. He is under prophetic 
influence and whatever he says is not his own but belongs to 
the one who has sent him. That Jeremiah is a true prophet who 
spoke the mouth of the Lord is attested to in 1 Chr 36:12. He is 
sent like any other true prophet before him to bring the people 
to repentance in order to avoid disaster and so what he is sent 
to do is to prophesy concerning what is about to happen to the 
people should they fail to repent which is what these words la, 
abeúN"hil. “to prophesy against” stand for. 

What the use of nḇי strongly suggests is that Jeremiah did 
not just say the words of his own volition but had been 
compelled by the Lord to “play the prophet”. This means that 
the initiative to prophesy is not from him but from YHWH who 
mandates him to go and deliver his message (Jeremias 705ff). 
This may have perhaps been the reason he used nḇי (to 
prophesy) instead of the usual ̓�âmar (to say) though he also 
used another word in the defence (v. 15) apart from nḇי which 
is ḏbr (to speak). This brings about the question of the 
difference between nḇי “to prophesy” and ḏbr “to speak”. The 
difference between them is that while nḇי refers to a prophetic 
action, �br concerns only the action of speaking. These two 
words are used in the defence of Jeremiah in vv. 12 and 15 
respectively though the Targum maintains the use of pi��gâmayâ  ̓
in both vv. 12 and 15.

Ta k e n  t o g e t h e r,  t h e r e f o r e ,  t h e  s t a t e m e n t  
abe�N"hil�ynIx;�l'v.�hw"åhy> (the Lord sent me to prophesy v. 12) 
answers the charge against Jeremiah by the prophets and 
priests that he spoke presumptuously in the name of the Lord. 
This could not have happened if Jeremiah had not been 
conscious of his status as a prophet and his mission to 
prophesy to the people. This is the argument of this paper that 
Jeremiah, in the course of his defence, did not mince words in 
showing that he was very conscious of his prophetic calling 
and mission. This is the high point of the defence which is also 
reiterated in v. 15.

97



�~k,êylel.[;m;äW��~k,yker>d:�WbyjiÛyhe (make good your ways and your 
deeds v. 13)

Jeremiah continues by inviting the people to reform. This 
word h��î�� can mean “make good” or “reform”. It is a term 
used for repentance. The people are summoned to amend 
their ways and conduct before God. This is a clarion call from 
the prophet that the people turn from their evil ways and 
practices. Hence he says to them “make good your ways and 
your deeds”, that is, he charges the people to make their ways 
and deeds right before God. Their ways may refer to their 
worship of Yahweh in the Temple while their deeds may refer 
to their conduct outside of the Temple. Jeremiah therefore 
dissociates himself from any shallow and superficial worship 
of God.

The reference to “your ways and your deeds” points not 
just to the people's public worship of Yahweh in the Temple 
but more importantly to their way of life outside of the 
Temple. In other words, it challenges the people's life in its 
entirety, be it in the Temple, at home and everywhere they 
may find themselves. This is why J. P. Hyatt describes 
Jeremiah as a man who challenged the people “…and called 
them to find true salvation by practicing justice and 
righteousness in the sight of God” (34). Their ways and deeds 
must be right before God if their worship is to be acceptable.

lAqßB�W[§m.viw> (obey the voice of v. 13)
The use of W[§m.viw> is not like its use in v. 12 where it simply 

means to hear or to listen. Here it also involves obedience. 
This word can have different meanings depending on the 
Hebrew grammar. Hence it could mean to hear, listen, pay 
attention, understand, heed, obey, grant, and examine, all 
these in the qal sense. Here the word, used in the qal 
imperative, means to obey. In the niphal it means to be heard, 
be obedient or be granted. In the piel it means to summon. In 
the hiphil it means to cause to hear, proclaim, announce or 
summon (Aitken 175-181).  Here as it is used in this verse it 
means to listen and obey. Israel's failure to perceive God's 
revelation is often expressed as the inability of their ears to 
hear (Deut 29:4; Isa 6:9ff). This word echoes Jeremiah's call 
to reform in 7:3-7 (Lundbom 292).

So it can be said that while in v. 12 [m;v refers simply to 

98



the act of hearing, in v. 13 it goes deeper into the act of 
obeying what is heard. The people must as a matter of fact put 
into practice the message of the Lord which they hear from 
the mouth of his servant, the prophet. However, it is 
interesting to note the way the Targ. renders this passage. In 
place of the MT's �W[§m.viw> “and obey the voice of”, it has lAqßB
w�qabil��l��mêm�râ ,̓  which means “and welcome the Memra”. 

The word Memra does not refer to mere words but it is a 
powerful way of expressing what comes from God to human 
agents. Hayward expresses the meaning of Memra thus: “The 
Word (Memra) of YHWH is one of the most famous Targumic 
expressions, … and seems to have a sense of a divine 
command or order which Israel may receive (e. g. 3:13, 25; 
9:12; 23:18; 34:14, 17; 40:3; 44:23), transgress and rebel 
against (e. g. 2:20, 29; 3:13; 11:9; 33:8), or believe in (2:2)” 
(Hayward 31). 

~xeäN"yIw> (and will repent, v. 13)
The use of the word here is to say that God will change his 

mind and not punish his people if they turn away from their 
sins. It is used in the niphal with a jussive meaning, that is, to 
repent (Butterworth 89ff). In many cases in the OT, God's 
changing his mind is a gracious response to human factors. 
Thus in Jeremiah we often read that repentance on the part of 
the people will make it possible for God to also repent or 
change his mind. Cfr. Jer 18:8, 10; 20:16; 26:3, 13, 19; 42:10;  
cf. also Amos 7:3, 6 (Butterworth 81ff; Simian-Yofre 340-
355). The word used to designate the change on the part of 
God in the LXX is quite different from the MT. While the MT 
uses the word נחם  “to repent”, the LXX uses pau,setai 
meaning “to cease”. Here the Lord does not repent as if a 
human being but ceases to carry out what he has threatened. 
The Targum too seems to have a problem with the use of n�m 
for God and therefore opts for wî��� which means “will turn”. 
In this sense, the Lord will turn from the evil which he has 
threatened rather than repent which is a human way of doing 
things that does not befit God.

The MT however does not consider the use of n�m for 
Yahweh as inappropriate or demeaning. In fact, in this chap. 
26 alone, the word occurs 3 times (vv. 2, 13, and 19) being 
used for God and “the notion of Yahweh's repentance (cf. v. 

99



19) is mooted as a general principle in 18. 7-10” (Carroll 513). 
The significance of this word is captured succinctly by an 
author, Simian-Yofre, when he says: “The syntagmeme of 
Yahweh's repentance thus gives expression to Yahweh's 
profound and fundamental determination to forgive, gives 
meaning to the prophet's mission as one of intercession, and 
justifies the defense presented by the elders” (340-355).

It must be noted that the use of this word for God in the 
entire OT does not have the same meaning as it is used of a 
human being. God is not repenting from evil or sin but rather 
changing his mind from inflicting punishment on his people 
because of their sins (Osuji 128). The import of this word in v. 
13 rests on the fact that the message which Yahweh has sent 
through his prophet Jeremiah is not a concluded one. The 
people are given a way out if only they would heed the call to 
amend their ways and be upright. This is in contrast to the 
claim of the priests and prophets, Jeremiah's accusers, who 
have given the impression that the prophet has prophesied the 
ruin of the nation. As noted earlier, their aim in not stating the 
conditionality in Jeremiah's message might be to elicit 
sympathy from the officials and the people and thereby 
accelerate the prophet's condemnation. However, the prophet 
restores this conditionality in his defence which may have 
partly influenced not just the officials but also the people who 
now changed sides to be on the side of the prophet. He turns 
his defence into a form of offence by challenging both his 
accusers and the judges to “listen to the voice of the Lord” (v. 
13) (For more on the rare occurrence of a defence turned 
offence, see Bovati, Re-Established Justice, 114-117).

~k,_d>y<b.�ynIån>hi�ynIßa]w: (I am in your hands, v. 14)
Jeremiah begins this second part of his defence in v. 14 

with a rhetorical genre called “surrender”. He says: 
~k,_d>y<b.�ynIån>hi�ynIßa]w: which translates into “I am in your hands”. With 
these words Jeremiah surrenders himself to the judgment of 
the “court” trying him for perjury or treason as the case may 
be. Having stated his own side of the story which seems to be 
evidently clear to all over against the distorted version told by 
his accusers, the prophet leaves himself curiously not in the 
hands of God but in the hands of the officials and the people. It 
is curious because as God's messenger delivering God's 

100



message, one would ordinarily have expected Jeremiah to 
invoke God's help and intervention at such a perilous moment 
in his prophetic life. This is especially true because God 
himself has promised to deliver him from all his adversaries 
(Jer 1:19). Instead of making recourse to this lifeline that he 
has, Jeremiah submits himself to the decision of the court. 
The question is: what does he expect to get from this 
haphazardly constituted court?

 Majority of scholars agree with the way the MT puts it 
and based on this they extol the courage and resillience of 
Jeremiah in the face of stiff opposition and imminent death 
that he is able to hold up his head. R. Carroll calls it “a 
magnificent gesture of self-humbling which indicates a lack 
of arrogance” (517). W. Holladay explains it thus: “Jrm 
deliberately puts himself in the power of the court, a power 
that obviously includes the possibility of the death penalty” 
(107).

For J. Lundbom, Jeremiah's submission to the will of the 
court is a veiled argument because it is meant to throw the 
challenge back at the court. He says: “This submission to the 
will of the court is actually a veiled argument, one that the 
classical rhetoricians called “surrender”” (292). O'Connor 
also says of Jeremiah's surrender: “Jeremiah's surrender into 
the hands of his captors (v 14) dramatically underscores the 
decision facing the community which this text places before 
them anew- to accept or reject the prophetic word. It is a 
matter of life or death for the community, and it rests in their 
hands (v 14)” (622). We can therefore say that Jeremiah's 
submission to the court is a subtle way of making the judicial 
panel take responsibility for whatever decision they may take 
concerning him. He is right there before them powerless, 
defenceless and apparently forsaken.

  ~k,(ynEy[eB.�rv"ßY"k;w>�bAJïK;�yli�-Wf[} (do to me as good and right 
in your eyes, v. 14)

After Jeremiah had submitted himself into the hands of 
the court, he challenges the members of the court to do to him 
what is good and right in their eyes. He invites them to use 
their power to give him a fair hearing, a hearing that respects 
the principles of justice and right judgment. As officials of 
Judah, they should be knowledgeable in the law to know 

101



when an offence is committed and which offence merits a 
death sentence as demanded for him by his accusers, the 
priests and prophets. 

W[�d>Te�[:doåy"��%a:å (but know for sure, v. 15)
Jeremiah introduces this statement in v. 15, the last verse 

of the defence, with an adversative particle %a:å a word which 
suggests a contrasting opinion from the previous one. It is a 
very powerful word in making comparisons. In v. 14 he 
submits himself to the whims and caprices of the court 
challenging them to do to him whatever seems good and right 
to them. However with this particle, he gives another 
dimension of the issue by pointing out the consequence of an 
unjust death sentence on him. The “only” here changes the 
tone of the defence and introduces in clear terms the likely 
consequence of the decision before the court.

Jeremiah begins the second part of his defence with a 
rhetorical argument called “surrender” (v. 14) and now in v. 
15, he introduces another one called descriptio by the 
classical rhetoricians. In fact, Lundbom says that this kind of 
argument could be used for both prosecution and defence. 
(293).

W[�d>Te�[:doåy"��%a:å which literally means “only know for 
certain” is a way of underscoring the seriousness and 
importance of the issue at hand. It is a form of emphasis given 
to the discussion by the play on the verb [dy “to know”. The 
knowledge spoken about here is awareness or consciousness. 
Jeremiah calls the people to the awareness of the seriousness 
of the decision that lies ahead of them. This consciousness or 
awareness is very necessary for any imputation of guilt to take 
place. Should the people proceed to kill the prophet, they 
would have no excuse because they have been forewarned. 
However,    ידע[dy could also refer to God's knowledge of his 
people which signifies the special relationship he has with the 
people of Israel (Amos 3:2). So this phrase better translated as 
“only know for sure” can also be found elsewhere in Jeremiah 
(Jer 42:19, 22). The prophet had no doubt whatsoever in his 
mind that he was delivering God's message to the people and 
that whatever course of action they take against him would be 
tantamount to fighting against God, the sender of the 
message, and this can only result in one thing namely disaster.

ytiao�é~T,a;�~ytiämim.-~ai�yKiä (for if you put me to death v. 15)

102



Jeremiah continues by telling the members of the court 
that “if you put me to death” which is a conditional statement, 
then he states the consequence h'yb,_v.yO-la,w>�taZOàh;�ry[iîh'-la,w>��
~k,êyle[]�~ynIåt.nO��~T,a; yqi�n"�~d"ä-yKi “you are bringing innocent blood �
upon yourselves, and upon this city and upon its inhabitants”. 
There is a case of protasis and apodosis here. This explains the 
communal nature of the sin of shedding innocent blood. 
Jeremiah considers the possibility that the officials together 
with the people could pass a death sentence on him. He knows 
the danger which faces him based on the obvious animosity of 
the priests and prophets who are bent on his death. One might 
not be too certain what was going on in the mind of Jeremiah 
during his trial and defence before the court. However, what 
becomes clear is that he lays the options before the people 
from which to choose, each with its own consequence. This 
knowledge is necessary for them before they make their 
decision concerning him. It is such a delicate decision to take, 
hence he brings their attention to the full consequence of that 
decision not only on the judges themselves but also on the 
whole land and their posterity (O'Connor 622).

Some questions have been asked about why Jeremiah 
chose this form of argument. Was he threatening the judges in 
his case? Was he intimidating them because he had a direct 
contact with God? Was he even blackmailing them by 
preempting their judgment? A few authors have tried to 
explain why Jeremiah employed these rhetorical methods. 
Keown, Scalise and Smothers have given some explanation 
about the reason behind the way Jeremiah defended himself. 
They say: “Jeremiah was not threatening his judges with 
some form of personal revenge, a haunting from his grave, or 
a curse laid upon them; he was reminding them of an accepted 
principle of justice: the death of innocent persons… must be 
avenged or atoned (Gen 9:5-6; Deut 19:13)” (26). Jeremiah 
could not have been threatening his accusers and all the 
people having earlier on submitted himself to their judgment. 
What he was doing was to make them conscious of the action 
they were about to take and to take responsibility for it.

Lundbom, Brueggemann, Barker and Kohlenberger 
have all acknowledged the brave performance of Jeremiah at 
his trial. For McEntire, the defence of Jeremiah was an 
affirmation that he knew what he was doing and what life with 

103



Yahweh could mean- danger and risk. He says: “Jeremiah 
points to a way to live with this danger faithfully, while his 
opponents deny the existence of danger and claim God's 
protection from all harm” (303). The implication of these 
views is that Jeremiah's defence was one that demonstrated 
courage, fortitude and fearlessness in the midst of danger, 
hostility and even imminent death. This does not in any way 
turn Jeremiah into a superman who was not afraid even to die. 
No! What it only did show is a man who being very conscious 
of his prophetic calling was undaunted in defending it. He 
was also conscious of the fact that he was part and parcel of 
the people and whatever happens to them, he too would not be 
spared. 

In fact, it seems that the fate of Jeremiah is embedded 
in the fate of the city. This explains further his passion and 
resolve in wanting to save his people from disaster even when 
they were hell-bent to enter into it. He continued to make 
effort to convince his people that the only option available to 
them to be at peace is a return to God and his commands. He 
followed this path of negotiation and patriotism till even after 
the destruction of Jerusalem though he was often 
misunderstood by his people who saw him as a traitor. 
However, the love he has for God and his people would not 
permit him to remain silent (14:19). Thus in this episode, he 
resumes the defence of his prophetic authenticity in the words 
that follow.

hL,ae(h'�~yrIßb'D>h;-lK�taeî�~k,êynEz>a'B.��rBed:l.�~k,êyle[]��hw"hy>�ynIx:Ül'v.�tm,
�a/b�yKiä�(for in truth the Lord sent me to speak in your hearing 
all these words, v. 15)

 Jeremiah goes back to what he started with by adjuring 
himself that “for in truth the Lord sent me to speak in your 
hearing all these words”. In these words we again find all the 
essential features of a true prophet namely: the sender (God); 
the messenger (Jeremiah); and the mission (to speak). 
Jeremiah here reiterates the fact that he has been truly sent by 
Yahweh to deliver his words to his people. This is his final 
appeal to the court before they give their verdict. Carroll has 
this to say about these final words of the defence: “It is an 
impressive performance by a man facing death at the hands of 
a mob screaming for his blood and, even more dangerous, a 

104



tribunal with the power to execute him. The editors have 
penned the portrait of a very brave man” (517). Thus the 
portrait of Jeremiah in his trial and defence is that of a man 
resolute and determined to carry out God's commands to the 
very end no matter the sufferings and pains that accompany 
them. It is therefore not a matter of blackmail or threat but a 
plea for conversion.

The point of emphasis in the judicial trial of Jeremiah in 
general and his defence in particular is the message that came 
from God and the need to be faithful to it. The defence brings 
into limelight how the words of God could be received by 
people especially when it calls to conversion and amendment 
of life. Jeremiah finds himself at odds with the power 
establishment of Judah because he dares to challenge the 
status quo to make it turn inwards and reform. By openly 
defending himself and his prophetic ministry, Jeremiah 
resonates the need to distinguish between true and false 
prophecy as this would go a long way in determining the fate 
of the people before God. If they listen to false prophecy 
which ordinarily will soothe them by preaching peace even 
where there is obviously none, this will pitch them against 
God and consequently lead to their destruction. However, if 
they listen to true prophecy no matter how harsh and 
uncomfortable it may be, they will have sought the face of 
God and thus save their own lives (cf. 26:19). 

L. Allen summarizes the events of the trial and defence of 
Jeremiah thus: “That Jeremiah's prophesying led to a public 
discussion of whether Jeremiah should be tried on a capital 
charge carries the ironic implication that his audience was 
hammering a further nail into its own coffin. The 
community's response to Jeremiah was a measure of its 
response to Yahweh, because prophesying had been done “in 
Yahweh's name” (vv. 9, 16, 20)” (296-297). The officials and 
all the people seem to have realized this by the verdict of v. 16 
which acquits Jeremiah of any wrongdoing. In their 
judgment, they simply negated the words of the priests and 
prophets by saying: � tw<m'ê-jP;v.mi��hZ<h vyaiÛl'-!yae that is, “there is no 
death judgment to/for this man” as against what the priests 
and prophets said tw<m'ê-jP;v.mi��hZ<h vyaiÛl' “death sentence to/for �
this man” (v. 11). The officials and all the people were 
unanimous in upholding the innocence of the prophet against 

105



the guilty verdict sought by the priests and prophets. Even 
though Emerton, Cranfield and Stanton do not see the 
officials as judges in the case against Jeremiah and their 
words in v. 16 as not declaring him a true prophet, they 
nevertheless hold that “… they gave him the benefit of the 
doubt and decided that there was no treasonable intent”  (681; 
also McEntire 303). O'Connor, however, is of the opinion that 
the verdict in v. 16 of chap. 26 is a proclamation of Jeremiah 
as a true prophet (625). This researcher is in complete 
agreement with this latter view. 

The position of Emerton, Cranfield and Stanton above is 
contestable because the officials and all the people asserted 
that Jeremiah spoke to them in the name of the Lord their God. 
This has no other meaning than to say that he is a true prophet. 
They might not have believed or put into practice what he said 
to them, nevertheless, they declared him to be a true prophet 
as against the priests and the prophets who accused him of 
speaking falsely in the name of the Lord. 

This is the task of a true prophet and this is what Jeremiah 
did which presents him as being prophetically conscious 
during his trial in general (vv. 10-16) and in his defence in 
particular (vv. 12-15).

 Theology of Jer. 26:12-15
The theology of this text is brought out to reflect the 

challenges facing the prophetic ministry in Nigeria today. 
This is because the defence of Jeremiah as enunciated in the 
passage under review attests to how a true prophet should 
comport himself and carry out his prophetic ministry 
fearlessly even in the face of stiff opposition.

The Prophet's Loyalty: to the Sender or to the Audience?
In the consideration of the task of the prophets, the 

question of allegiance is very necessary. This is because 
oftentimes, if not all the time, the authenticity of the prophet is 
called to question by the audience or the recipients of the 
message of the prophets (Exod 3:13-15). In the passage just 
cited, Moses tries to establish the authenticity of the message 
God is giving him by asking for his identity so that when he is 
asked about the source of his message, he would know what 
to say. Thus, authenticity gives credence to the issue of 

106



allegiance. Once the authenticity of the message of the 
prophet has been established, then his allegiance can be 
guaranteed. The allegiance of the prophet is to the sender of 
the message, namely God. It is not to the audience, namely the 
people. Hence, in Yoruba wisdom literature, it is often said 
that “eni ran ni nise la nberu; a ki nberu eni a maa jise fun” 
meaning “the person to be feared is the sender of the message 
and not the recipient of the message”. Bright puts it succinctly 
when he says: “This was the point at issue in Jeremiah's own 
defense of himself (vss. 12-15). He neither denied that he had 
spoken as charged (he obviously had), nor contended that his 
words were not out of accord with popular belief (they 
obviously were); he merely insisted that Yahweh had indeed 
commanded him to say what he had said. The princes for their 
part accepted this explanation, and therefore took Jeremiah's 
side on the grounds that a prophet ought not to suffer reprisals 
for speaking Yahweh's word” (Lxxxviii).

O'Connor underscores the importance of the 
authentication of the prophetic word leading to allegiance 
when she says: “Two framing devices set his speech apart 
from the rest of the scene. The first is the threat of death in v 
11,  m i�pa��m â w e t �l â י î � �ha z z e h ,  and again in  v  16,  
 �n�lâî��hazzeh�mî�pa��mâwet. The second is the repetition of keyי
words in Jeremiah's defense, Yhwh���lâ�anî 'Yahweh sent me,' v 
12) and its inverse (v 15). By affirming that Yahweh is the 
source of his mission, the latter frame highlights Jeremiah's 
claim to be a true prophet” (621-622). It was this conviction 
that he did not send himself that enabled Jeremiah to be true to 
his prophetic calling in spite of all odds. He did not fear the 
hostile audience so as to mitigate the force of his message. As 
Dempsey puts it “True to his vocation, he remained faithful to 
his preaching, his vision, and his God, despite all odds and 
despite the eventual loss of everything for Judah, which he 
knew was inevitable” (xxiv).

When someone is not truly sent by God to speak his words 
and he does so presumptuously, there is a tendency for the 
person to say only what will appease the ears of his audience. 
This often happens for two reasons: to curry favour from them 
and to avoid persecution. For these reasons, the so called 
prophet's allegiance is to the recipients of his message since 
he has not been sent by God. The true prophet, however, is not 

107



afraid to speak God's word to the people even if unwanted and 
unpopular. In the words of J. Dubbink, “The prophet is drawn 
as a picture (in the Confessions, but not only there) of a man in 
a challenged position. He does not doubt that his version of 
the word of YHWH is right, but he suffers, afraid that he may 
not be shown to be convincing to others” (31). This cannot be 
said of the false prophets whose only preoccupation is to 
gratify their audience in order to gratify themselves too.

Therefore, the important point from this pericope of Jer 
26:12-15 is that the prophet's allegiance must always be to the 
sender and not to the audience. Once the prophet is sure that 
he has received God's word, he must speak it to the people 
without compromise. This point is more relevant in today's 
society where many claim to be prophets but only a few really 
speak God's true words to the people. Many of these 
“prophets” tell the people only what they want and like to 
hear. They feed at the corridors of power and so cannot afford 
to speak against their benefactors just like those prophets at 
the palace of the kings in the OT whose allegiance was to the 
kings rather than to God. Others who are not at the service of 
rulers do all they can to keep their audience by speaking to 
them only what suits them. They never challenge the people's 
way of life or their sources of income as long as money flows 
in to their coffers. This is why the prophets are not penetrating 
the heart of the society as they should. Jeremiah offers a 
shining example of being true to God's word in spite of the 
difficulties involved. The prophet is not supposed to be afraid 
of his audience (Jer. 1: 8). This leads to the second theme in 
the theology of Jer 26:12-15.

The Prophet's Task to Deliver God's Message in its 
“Rawness”

As a follow up to the prophet being loyal to the sender of 
the message, namely God, he is also challenged to deliver this 
word in all its “rawness” without watering it down or 
compromising it. This point is evident in the life and ministry 
of Jeremiah who was even warned at the beginning of his 
ministry not to remove anything from God's message that 
comes to him (Jer 1:17-19; 26:2). This is a great temptation 
for the prophet because in the circumstances in which he 
found himself, the people were prepared to hear only words of 
peace and prosperity. There were other prophets who readily 

108



tell them these soothing words all the time. Yet, in spite of this 
Jeremiah must speak God's word, unpopular and unpalatable 
as it may be, to the people. This he did in the famous temple 
sermon in chaps. 7 and 26 and which he also defended in 
26:12-15. “Jeremiah's speech in this verse {v. 13} does not 
have to do with this case; it has to do with the reason the Lord 
sent him to preach in the temple in the first place. His judges 
must make a decision about their own lives, which is more 
important than Jeremiah's case; they had to choose whether to 
obey God's word. The defense speech gave Jeremiah an 
opportunity to draw his audience's attention back to the rest of 
the message God had given them (26:4-6), to all the words 
that they had heard him speak” (Keown, Scalise, Smothers 
25).

The nature of the prophetic ministry entails that the 
prophet can receive any message from God which may be 
favorable or unfavorable. No matter how strong or negative 
the message is, the messenger must be prepared to deliver it 
just as it is given. This is where the great challenge of the 
prophetic office lies. The prophet is not at liberty to choose 
which message to deliver and which message to be discarded. 
He is not free to water down the tone of the message received 
or to remove some part of it. Prophets are to deliver God's 
messages as they receive them from God without 
compromise. Talking about the nature of the prophetic 
ministry, Dempsey says: “Usually a very 'ordinary' person, 
the prophet is often God's 'surprise' to a group of people, 
presenting them with an unexpected word, insight, or vision 
that can either jar and cut to the quick or comfort, soothe, and 
salve a bleeding wound, a broken dream, a shattered life” 
(xxvii). Thus, the prophet is often caught in a dilemma 
between allegiance to God and his message and giving room 
for compromise. He is a lover of both God and his people but 
his first allegiance is to God who must be obeyed without any 
hesitation or reservation.

Consequently, the prophet becomes a sign of 
contradiction in the midst of the people. He is at the receiving 
end both from God and from the people. In his attempt to be 
true to God and his message, he offends the people and also in 
his effort to palliate the people by softening the word, he 
offends God. Hence, Dempsey again submits thus regarding 

109



the attributes of a true prophet: “Gifted with tremendous 
passion, heightened sensibilities, and enlivened imagination, 
the prophet speaks with authority the hard word that wells up 
and gushes forth from the deep reservoir of uncompromised 
love. Often living life both on the periphery and on the cutting 
edge, the prophet is someone who remains faithful to God, 
faithful to the community, and faithful to the mission, even if 
it means having to stand alone. A servant of the divine word 
and vision, the prophet becomes the one capable of leading all 
to wholeness and holiness in the measure that the prophet is 
willing 'to act justly, love tenderly, and walk humbly with 
God' (Mic 6:8)” (Dempsey xxviii).

It follows, therefore, that the prophet must be impervious 
to the machinations of the people in the process of delivering 
God's message to them otherwise he stands the risk of 
compromising the message in order to satisfy or placate the 
people. Since the words they speak are not their own, they are 
expected to be fearless in proclaiming it to the people. This is 
an important characteristic of the OT prophets as Boadt puts 
it, “There are a number of indications within the Old 
Testament that this conviction that the words they spoke came 
directly from God was based on the prophetic experience of 
being summoned in some kind of a vision to hear God speak 
in the heavenly throne room” (306). 

So the prophets spoke words other than theirs. Just as 
Jeremiah attributed his words to God and stood by it, the 
priests and prophets of today are challenged to see their 
calling and ministry not as their own but as God's initiative. 
This conviction will help them to speak the prophetic word 
without fear or favour and without minding the consequence. 
This is a great challenge to the prophets of today who have 
continued to water down the word of God in order to make it 
palatable to their audience. This is often done in order to curry 
favour and ensure that the people continue to be generous in 
their giving. Thus, such prophets hardly speak words that 
prick the consciences of the people leading them to 
conversion but only words of peace and prosperity. In fact, 
this is more serious in today's world where the gospel that 
sells best is the gospel of prosperity. This leads to the final 
point under the theology of Jer 26:12-15.

The Prophetic Consciousness of Jeremiah in his Defence

110



That Jeremiah was prophetically conscious of his call and 
mission in his defence is an issue that cannot be 
overemphasized. This is because he was fully aware and 
conscious of his mission and calling even when he was 
confronted with a very difficult and life threatening situation. 
Walter Brueggemann describes Jeremiah thus: “Jeremiah 
embodies the alternative consciousness of Moses in the face 
of the denying king. He grieves the grief of Judah because he 
knows what the king refuses to know. It is clear that Jeremiah 
did not in anger heap scorn on Judah but rather articulated 
what was in fact present in the community whether they 
acknowledged it or not” (47). This means that Jeremiah knew 
what others, including fellow prophets, did not know and for 
this reason he was unperturbed and undaunted by the death 
threat from his opponents. The prophet knew that he had been 
called and chosen by God to carry his word. He had no iota of 
doubt about this. This was why after speaking the word to the 
people and it was resisted, Jeremiah did not mitigate the effect 
of his message or compromise it. He did not explain it away in 
order to make himself acceptable to his audience. Instead, he 
seized the opportunity to reiterate what he already told them. 
So, the knowledge that Jeremiah had which others did not 
have was that consciousness that the call and mission belong 
to the Lord and not to the prophet.

In the four verses of his defence, Jeremiah encompasses 
his entire teaching about repentance and submission to God's 
rule. He challenged the status quo concerning their false hope 
and trust in the inviolability of Judah and Jerusalem in spite of 
whatever the people did. He told them that their security can 
only be guaranteed if and when their lives outside of the 
temple correspond to the worship they offered in the temple. 
He was unambiguous in taking his stand as Brueggemann 
again notes “The most striking thing about Jeremiah's public 
ministry is that he takes sides on a decisive public question in 
unambiguous terms” (12). This is a mark of someone who is 
prophetically conscious. He is never evasive or undecided 
when it matters most. He does not keep quiet when he should 
speak neither does he speak when he should be silent. He does 
not sit on the fence. People can always count on him to speak 
the word of truth to them and to chart the right course for 
them.

111



That the fate of the people is also shared by Jeremiah is 
shown in the words of Barbara Bozak when she says: “The 
prophet Jeremiah is a paradoxical figure. He cares deeply for 
his people, identifies with their suffering, and repeatedly calls 
them to repentance. However, he also rails against their sin 
and issues threats of destruction” (1062). 

Lundbom, in his reflection on the defence of Jeremiah, 
has this to say: “It has frequently been pointed out what 
exemplary behaviour Jeremiah shows in making his defence: 
no heroics, no theatrical defiance, simply a humble testimony 
exuding confidence in what he has prophesied” (292). This 
does not mean that the prophet was not in danger or that he did 
not realise how dangerous the path he was treading by being 
God's messenger. Brueggemann has expressed the view that 
love was the motive behind the ministry of Jeremiah, love of 
God and love of his people. It was this love that moved him to 
continue to appeal to them to reform their ways so as to escape 
punishment even when they were very hostile to him and his 
message. “The grief of Jeremiah”, he says “was at two levels. 
First, it was the grief he grieved for the end of his people. And 
that was genuine because he cared about this people and he 
knew that God cared about this people. But the second 
dimension of his grief, more intense, was because no one 
would listen and no one would see what was so transparent to 
him. So his grief was kept sharp and painful because he had to 
face regularly the royal consciousness, which insisted 'peace, 
peace' when apparently only he knew there was no peace” 
(47). 

 McEntire sees in prophet Jeremiah a man determined to 
carry out God's commands to the last letter. He challenged the 
people's way of life by telling them that life with Yahweh was 
risky and dangerous while they insist on their security. 
“Jeremiah points to a way to live with this danger faithfully, 
while his opponents deny the existence of danger and claim 
God's protection from all harm” (303). He continues by 
saying that Jeremiah was even aware that working for 
Yahweh could also be very risky and this became clear in the 
counter-precedent cited by the elders. Hence he concludes: 
“There is a stark reminder, however, in the fate of Uriah, that 
speaking against the dominant theology is dangerous 
behaviour” (305).It is clear from the foregoing that Jeremiah 

112



was prophetically conscious of his call and mission during his 
trial and defence. This is a challenge, therefore, to the priests 
and prophets of today to be convinced of their calling and 
mission and to defend it with everything they have. In today's 
world where people are obnoxious to the truth and are ready 
to quench any vanguard of the truth, Jeremiah offers a shining 
example of how to be prophetic even in the midst of a stiff 
opposition.

Conclusion
One of the contentions in the book of Jeremiah is the issue 

of false prophecy. The prophet, Jeremiah, had to contend with 
the presence and activities of the false prophets who always 
antagonised whatever he said to the people. They are referred 
to as “the shalom prophets” (Osuji 112). In fact, Jeremiah 
went into serious struggles with them and even confronted 
them on certain occasions (Cf. Jer 6:14; 14:13-16; 28). The 
bone of contention in all of these instances was the 
determination of who carried God's word. There were 
prophets who spoke only sweet words to the people assuring 
them of security and peace where there were none. The LXX 
did not mince words by referring to them as false prophets 
(Hibbard 340). Others, though true prophets, sometimes 
spoke without hearing from the Lord e. g. Hananiah (Jer 28). 
In other words, they spoke presumptuously.

 However, the criteria for determining which prophet was 
true or false are not so clearly spelt out in the Hebrew Bible. 
The only clear references to this are in the book of 
Deuteronomy (13:1-5; 18:20-22). In both passages those 
whose predictions are not fulfilled or those who speak in the 
name of other gods or who presume to speak in the name of 
the Lord when he has not actually sent them are condemned as 
being false. Even the criterion of predictive accuracy or 
fiulfillment is debunked by Jeremiah as can be seen in Jer 
26:3, 13, 19. The prediction of doom may not come through if 
the people repent and turn back to God. Hence, Hibbard 
concludes that “As such, the criterion of fulfilment as an 
indicator of true prophecy is replaced by prophecy's function 
as a source of reform” (346-347).

One may thus conclude by offering the following criteria 
for distinguishing between true and false prophets:

113



A) Called and commissioned: The true prophet must have 
been called and commissioned to speak in the name of the 
Lord (Isa 6:4-9; Jer 1:4-10; Ezek 2:1-10; Hosea 1:1-2; 
Amos 7:14-15 etc).

B) Words of repentance: the true prophet must always call 
people back to repentance (Isa 1:1-20; Jer 7:1-15; 26:1-6; 
Ezek 33:1-20; Hosea 14:1-3; Joel 2:12-17).

C) Consistency: The true prophet must be consistent in his 
preaching to the people and not be double-faced. He must 
be sure that he has received words from the Lord before 
giving them to the people.

D) Personal moral life: The true prophet must avoid 
complicity and duplicity in his own private life. This 
means he must live by his own words, otherwise, his 
hearers may despise him (See Matt 7:15-20).

E) Readiness to suffer: The true prophet must be seen to be 
ready for personal suffering occasioned by his calling. He 
should not fail to speak out against evil as a result of fear of 
suffering. True prophets are long suffering and resilient 
(Jer 20:1-6; 26:7-24; 37:11-38:13; Ezek 3:22-27).

F) Disciplined: The true prophet must be disciplined and not 
carried away by gifts, privileges and accolades (Jer 16:1-
13). In order to be true to his prophetic calling, the true 
prophet must embrace personal discipline so as not to be 
swerved by the powerful and influential in the society (Jer 
1:17-19).

REFERENCE
Allen, Leslie C. Jeremiah: A Commentary. London: Westminster John 
Knox Press, 2008. Print.
Barker, K. L. & J. R. Kohlenberger. The Expositor's Bible Commentary: 

The Abridged Edition of Old Testament. Michigan: Grand Rapids, 
1994. Print.

Beall, T. S.,W. A. Banks, C. Smith. Old Testament Parsing Guide, Revised 
and Upgraded Edition. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000. Print.

Carroll, R. P. From Chaos to Covenant: Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah. 
New York: Crossroad, 1981. Print.

---. Jeremiah Volume 1. London: SCM Press, 1986. Print.
---. Jeremiah Volume 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006. Print.
Cazelles, H. Storia politica d'Israele, dale origini ad Alessandro Magno. 

Roma: Edizioni Borla, 1985. Print. 
Hayward, R. The Targum of Jeremiah: Translated, with a Critical 

Apparatus, and Notes. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987. Print. 

114



---. “The Memra of YHWH and the Development of its Use in Targum 
Neofiti 1”, in JJS 25, 1974. Print. 

Herrmann, S. Jeremiah 1, 1-19, BK XII/1 1986
Jamieson R., A. R. Fausset, D. Brown. Commentary Critical and 

Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Oak Harbor: Logos Research 
Systems, 1997. Print.

Jansen, J. G. Studies in the Text of Jeremiah. Cambridge: Harvard 
University Press, 1973. Print.

Jeremias, J. “aybi_N"�n�bîי” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament Vol 2
Jorge, P. Jeremiah. Missouri: Chalice Press, 2004. Print.
Klein, M. L. “The Translations of Anthropomorphisms and 

Anthropopathisms in the Targumim”, in VTSup 29, 1978.
Leclerc, Thomas L. Introduction to the Prophets: Their Stories, Sayings, 

and Scrolls. New York: Paulist Press, 2007. Print.
McEntire, M. “A Prophetic Chorus of Others: Helping Jeremiah Survive 

in Jeremiah 26” in Review and Expositor, 101 2004. Print. 
McGinnis, C. “Trusting in Deceitful Words: Jeremiah's Temple Sermon” 

in The Bible Today: Jeremiah. Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 
March/April 2011. Print.

McKenzie, John L. Dictionary of the Bible. Canada: Macmillan, 1965. 
Print.

Osuji, A. C. Where is the Truth? Narrative Exegesis and the Question of 
True and False Prophecy in Jer 26-29 (MT). Leuven: Uitgeverij 
Peeters, 2010. Print. 

Perdue, L.G. “The difference between the MT Jeremiah and the LXX 
Jeremiah”, in L. Perdue- B. Kovacs (eds.), A Prophet to the Nations: 
Essays in Jeremiah Studies. Indiana: Winona Lake, 1984. Print.

Pixley, J. V. Jeremiah. Missouri: Chalice Press, 2004. Print. 
Price, J. D. The Syntax of Masoretic Accents in the Hebrew Bible. 

Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1990. Print. 
Raitt, T. M. A Theology of Exile: Judgment, Deliverance in Jeremiah and 

Ezekiel
Redditt, P. Introduction to the Prophets. Michigan: Williams B. 

Eerdmans, 2008. Print. 
Samantha, J. Provocation and Punishment: The anger of God in the Book 

of Jeremiah and deuteronomistic theology. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 
2006. Print.

Scalise, P. J.; G. L. Keown; T. G. Smothers. Word Biblical Commentary: 
Jeremiah 26-52. Texas: Word Books, 1995. Print. 

Thompson, J. A. The Book of Jeremiah. NICOT. Michigan: William B. 
Eerdmans, 1980. Print. 

Wickes, W. Two Treatises on the Accentuation of the Old Testament, H. M. 
Orlinsky (ed.). New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1970. Print.

White R. E. O. The Indomitable Prophet: A Biographical Commentary on 
Jeremiah. Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1992. Print.

Wilson, Robert R. Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: 
Fortress Press, 1984. Print. 

Willis, T. The College Press NIV Commentary: Jeremiah and 
Lamentations. Missouri: College Press, 2002. Print.

115


