Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Jeremiah 26:20

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Jeremiah 26:20” utilice nuestra app.

And there was also a man that prophesied in the name of the LORD, Urijah the son of Shemaiah of Kirjath-jearim, who prophesied against this city and against this land according to all the words of Jeremiah:

20. Kiriath-jearim ] perhaps Karyet-el-Enab seven miles N.W. of Jerusalem on the road to Joppa (Jaffa).

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

20 24. See introd. summary to ch. The story is introduced by the compiler (probably Baruch) to illustrate the risk to which Jeremiah was exposed; perhaps also to contrast Jeremiah’s courage and Uriah’s cowardice. Du. suggests that the occurrence took place at the same Feast, but at a moment when the king was himself present, and that Uriah’s words may have specially pointed at him as the protg of Egypt. Co. holds that, as the incident can hardly have occurred before Jeremiah’s prophecy otherwise the latter would not have produced such an excitement it must be considered to have been subsequent to it. He places Jer 26:24, as being the natural ending of the narrative concerning Jeremiah himself, before Jer 26:20-23; but against such transposition we may hold that the point of Jer 26:24 is the contrast between the case of the friendless Uriah and that of Jeremiah. In 21 23 the LXX omit various names and otherwise abbreviate.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

This narrative of Urijahs fate was no part of the speech of the elders, who would not be likely to contrast the behavior of the reigning king so unfavorably with that of Hezekiah. Moreover, it would have been a precedent, not for acquitting Jeremiah, but for putting him to death. Jeremiah, when he reduced the narrative to writing, probably added this history to show the ferocity of Jehoiakim, and the danger to which he had been himself exposed.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 20. Urijah – who prophesied] The process against Jeremiah is finished at the nineteenth verse; and the case of Urijah is next brought on, for he was also to be tried for his life; but hearing of it he fled to Egypt. He was however condemned in his absence; and the king sent to Egypt, and brought him thence and slew him, and caused him to have an ignominious burial, Jer 26:21-23.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

This is a piece of story which we have recorded in no other part of Scripture. Some judge these words were the words of the same that spake before; but this is not likely, for then they had brought one instance for acquitting him, another for the condemning of him. They are therefore rather to be interpreted as the words of some others, either of the court, who were enemies to Jeremiah, or of his accusers, or their counsel, urging a later precedent, in the time of Jehoiakim, the king that at this time reigned, who also pretended to speak in the name of the Lord, and whose prophecy was the same in substance with this of Jeremiah.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

20. As the flight and capture ofUrijah must have occupied some time, “the beginning of the reignof Jehoiakim” (Jer 26:1)must not mean the very beginning, but the second or third yearof his eleven years’ reign.

And . . . alsoperhapsconnected with Jer 26:24, asthe comment of the writer, not the continuation of the speech of theelders: “And although also a man that prophesied . . .Urijah . . . (proving how great was the danger in which Jeremiahstood, and how wonderful the providence of God in preserving him),nevertheless the hand of Ahikam,” &c. [GLASSIUS].The context, however, implies rather that the words are thecontinuation of the previous speech of the elders. They adduceanother instance besides that of Micah, though of a different kind,namely, that of Urijah: he suffered for his prophecies, but theyimply, though they do not venture to express it, thatthereby sin has been added to sin, and that it has done no good toJehoiakim, for that the notorious condition of the state at this timeshows that a heavier vengeance is impending if they persevere in suchacts of violence [CALVIN].

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And there was also a man that prophesied in the name of the Lord,…. These are not the words of the same persons continued; because the following instance is against them; but of some other persons in the sanhedrim, who were on the side of the priests and prophets; who in effect said, why tell you us of an instance in Hezekiah’s time, when there is so recent an one in the present reign, of a man that prophesied just as Jeremiah has done, and was put to death, and so ought he? after this manner Kimchi interprets it; and so Jarchi, who adds, that it is so explained in an ancient book of theirs, called Siphri; though some think they are the words of the same persons that espoused the prophet’s cause; and observe the following instance with this view; that whereas there had been one prophet of the Lord lately put to death for the same thing, should they take away the life of another, it would be adding sin to sin, and bring great evil upon their souls; and it might be observed, that Hezekiah prevented much evil by the steps he took; whereas, should they proceed as they had begun in the present reign, they might expect nothing but ruin, which they might easily see with their own eyes was coming upon them: others are of opinion that this instance is added by the penman of this book, either the prophet himself or Baruch, to show the wonderful preservation of him; that though there had been very lately a person put to death for the very same thing, yet he was preserved through the good offices of a person mentioned at the close of the chapter; and which seems to make this account probable. The name of the prophet was

Urijah the son of Shemaiah of Kirjathjearim; which was a city of Judah,

Jos 18:14; but who he was is not known, there being no account of him elsewhere:

who prophesied against this city, and against this land, according to all the words of Jeremiah; just as he had done, in much the same words, if not altogether; so that their case was similar.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The prophet Urijah put to death. – While the history we have just been considering gives testimony to the hostility of the priests and false prophets towards the true prophets of the Lord, the story of the prophet Urijah shows the hostility of King Jehoiakim against the proclaimers of divine truth. For this purpose, and not merely to show in how great peril Jeremiah then stood (Gr., Ng.), this history is introduced into our book. It is not stated that the occurrence took place at the beginning of Jehoiakim’s reign, nor can we infer so much from its being placed directly after the events of that time. The time is not specified, because it was irrelevant for the case in hand. Jer 26:20. A man, Urijah the son of Shemaiah – both unknown – from Kirjath-Jearim, now called Kuriyet el ‘Enab, about three hours to the north-west of Jerusalem, on the frontiers of the tribe of Benjamin (see on Jos 9:17) , prophesied in the name of Jahveh against Jerusalem and Judah very much in the same terms as Jeremiah had done. When King Jehoiakim and his great men heard this, discourse, he sought after the prophet to kill him. Urijah, when he heard of it, fled to Egypt; but the king sent men after him, Elnathan the son of Achbor with some followers, and had him brought back thence, caused him to be put to death, and his body to be thrown into the graves of the common people. Hitz. takes objection to “all his mighty men,” Jer 26:21, because it is not found in the lxx, and is nowhere else used by Jeremiah. But these facts do not prove that the words are not genuine; the latter of the two, indeed, tells rather in favour of their genuineness, since a glossator would not readily have interpolated an expression foreign to the rest of the book. The “mighty men” are the distinguished soldiers who were about the king, the military commanders, as the “princes” are the supreme civil authorities. Elnathan the son of Achbor, according to Jer 36:12, Jer 36:25, one of Jehoiakim’s princes, was a son of Achbor who is mentioned in 2Ki 22:12-14 as amongst the princes of Josiah. Whether this Elnathan was the same as the Elnathan whose daughter Nehushta was Jehoiachin’s mother (2Ki 24:8), and who was therefore the king’s father-in-law, must remain an undecided point, since the name Elnathan is of not unfrequent occurrence; of Levites, Ezr 8:16. (see on Jer 17:19) means the common people here, as in 2Ki 22:6. The place of burial for the common people was in the valley of the Kidron; see on 2Ki 22:6.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Vs. 20-24: A PROPHET WHO DID NOT ESCAPE

1. This incident illustrates the narrowness of Jeremiah’s escape.

2. Urijah was another prophet who pronounced upon Jerusalem a judgment similar to that spoken by Jeremiah, (vs. 20).

3. When king Jehoiakim attempted to murder him, he fled to Egypt; but Jehoiakim sent to Egypt and had him extradited to Jerusalem – a simple matter in the case of one charged with treason, (vs. 21; 23a; comp. 1Ki 19:2-4; Mat 10:23).

4. Jehoiakim slew this prophet with his own sword and cast his carcass into the burial grounds of the common people – as if he were a criminal! (vs. 23b; comp. Jer 2:30).

5. Jeremiah’s life seems to have been guarded by the influence of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, (comp. Jer 39:14; Jer 40:5-6).

a. The latter had served as Secretary of State under king Josiah, (2Ki 22:8-11).

b. Ahikam had also held a high position in the administration of Josiah, (2Ki 22:12-14).

c. A courageous, spiritual and God-fearing man, Ahikam wielded sufficient influence to run interference for Jeremiah against those wretched false prophets who yearned to silence his lips, (comp. Jer 1:18-19; 1Ki 18:4).

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

Another example is brought forward, partly different, and partly alike, — different as to the king, the like as to a Prophet. Uriah, mentioned here, faithfully discharged his office; but Jehoiakim could not bear his preaching, and therefore slew him. Some explain the whole in the same manner, as though the elders designed to shew 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 opposite party, and the words, “And also,” וגם, ugam, favor this opinion; for they may be taken adversatively, as though 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.” And this opinion seems to be confirmed by what follows in the last verse of the chapter, Nevertheless the hand of Ahikam, etc.; the particle אך, ak, is properly nevertheless; but it means sometimes, at least, or only. But in this place, as I shall shew again presently, it retains, I think, its proper meaning; for the Prophet declares, that though he was in great danger, yet Ahikam fought so bravely for him, that at length he gained his cause.

But as to the present passage, both expositions may be admitted; that is, either that the malignants adduced the death of Uriah in order to overwhelm Jeremiah, — or that God’s faithful followers intended to shew that there was no reason of acting in this manner, for the state of things had become worse, since King Jehoiakim had cruelly slain God’s servant.

But the time ought especially to be noticed. We have seen that this prophecy was committed to Jeremiah, and also promulgated at the beginning of Jehoiakim’s reign; but this beginning is not to be confined either to the first or second year; but as he became tributary to the king of Babylon, he afterwards endeavored to throw off the yoke and was at length disgracefully dethroned; hence the beginning of his reign must be during the time that his power was entire. While then Jehoiakim retained his dignity, Jeremiah was bidden to proclaim this message. However this may have been, the King Jehoiakim thus enjoyed a tranquil reign; he was at Jerusalem. It is not therefore said here, that Uriah had threatened the city in his days; but the history is given as of a present thing. One thing then is evident, that this discourse was delivered, when King Jehoiakim was not afar off. His palace was nigh the Temple; his counsellors were present who had come down, as we have seen, on account 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 counsellors 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 endued with great courage and firmness, to allege against the king a nefarious murder, and also to condemn him for a sacrilege, for he had not only done an injury to a holy Prophet, but had directly opposed God himself. There are on both sides probable conjectures; 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 and said, 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 mark the change. It seems then that the whole is to be read connectedly, so that they who first adduced the example of Micah, then added on the other hand, that Uriah indeed suffered punishment, but that thus 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, ought not to appear strange, for the condition of the city and of the people was known to all, and a more grievous danger was nigh at hand. Hence a simple narrative might well have been given by them; and as they did not dare to exasperate the mind of the king, it was the more necessary to leave that part untouched.

But if the other view be more approved, that the enemies of Jeremiah did here rise against him, and alleged the case of Uriah, there is also some appearance of reason in its favor; the king was living, his counsellors were present, as we have said. It might then be, that those who wished the death of Jeremiah, referred to this recent example in order to have him destroyed, — “Why should he escape, since Uriah was lately put to death, for the cause is exactly the same? Uriah did not go any farther than Jeremiah; he seems indeed to have taken the words from his mouth. As, then, the king did slay him, why should Jeremiah be spared? Why should he escape the punishment the other underwent, when his crime is more grievous?” It hence appears that this view can without absurdity be 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; and I do not reject this view. If any approve of the other, that this part was spoken by the advocates of Jeremiah, I readily allow it; but I dare not yet reject wholly the idea, that Jeremiah was loaded 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. (174)

Let us now consider the words; There was also a man who prophesied in the name of Jehovah, etc. If we receive the opinion of those who think that Jeremiah’s enemies speak here, then the name of Jehovah is to be taken for a false pretense, as though they had said, “It is a very common thing to pretend the name of God; for every one who claims to himself the office of teaching, 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 pretend God’s name, as Uriah, of whom they spoke, had also professed most loudly that he was God’s prophet, that he brought nothing as his own, and that he had a sure call. But if this part is to be ascribed to God’s true worshippers, whose object it was to protect and defend Jeremiah, to speak in the name of Jehovah, as we said yesterday, was not only to glory on account of the prophetic office, but also to give evidence of faithfulness and of integrity, so as really and by the effect to prove that he was God’s prophet, such as he wished to be thought.

They then added, he prophesied against this city and against this land according to all the words of Jeremiah If the adversaries of Jeremiah were the speakers, we see that he was so overpowered, that it was afterwards superfluous to know anything more of his cause; for another had already been condemned, whose case was in no way dissimilar or different; “He spoke according to the words of Jeremiah, and he was condemned, why then should we now hesitate respecting Jeremiah?” We see how malignantly they turned against Jeremiah this example, as though he was condemned beforehand in the person of another. But if these were the words of the godly, they are to be accounted for in another way; what is intimated is, that if Jeremiah was slain, God’s vengeance would be provoked; for it was more than enough to shed the innocent blood of one Prophet.

(174) There are two other views taken of this subject; some say that the second example, that of Uriah, was introduced by the writer of the narrative, whether Jeremiah himself or Baruch, and that this was mentioned to shew, that according to this precedent, Jeremiah would have been killed, had it not been for the interposition of Ahikam. This is the view taken by Gataker and Blayney.

But what appears most consistent with the whole passage is the view given by Venema; he considers that the 17 verse (Jer 26:17) has been removed from its place between the 19 and the 20 th (Jer 26:19), and that the “princes” mentioned the case of Micah in favor of Jeremiah, and that “the elders of the land” adduced the case of Uriah against him, and that notwithstanding this it is at last added, that Ahikam, one of the princes, succeeded in his deliverance. That chapters have been transposed in this book is indubitable; the same thing may also have happened as to verses.

Then the passage would read thus, —

16. Then said the princes and all the people to the priests and to the prophets, “Against this man there is no judgment of death, for in

18. the name of Jehovah hath he spoken to (or against) us. Micah the Morasthite was a prophet in the days of Hezekiah, the king of Judah, and he spoke to all the people of Judah, saying, ‘Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, Sion, being a field, shall be plowed, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house like the heights of

19. a forest.’ Slaying, did Hezekiah, the king of Judah, and all Judah, slay him? did he not fear Jehovah and intreat the favor of Jehovah? then Jehovah repented as to the evil which he had pronounced against them; but we are doing a great evil against our own souls.”

17. Then rose up men from the elders of the land and spoke to the

20. whole assembly of the people, saying, “But there was also a man, who prophesied in the name of Jehovah, Uriah, the son of Shemaiah,” etc. etc.

This arrangement makes the whole narrative plain, regular, and consistent. The conclusion comes in naturally, that notwithstanding the adverse speech of the “elders” Jeremiah was saved by the influence of Ahikam, one of the princes. — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

3. A counter-precedent (Jer. 26:20-23)

TRANSLATION

(20) But there was also a man who was prophesying in the name of the LORD, Uriah the son of Shemaiah of Kiriath-jearim; and he prophesied against this city and against this land just as Jeremiah had done. (21) When king Jehoiakim and all his mighty men and all the princes heard his words, the king sought to kill him. When Uriah heard of it he feared and fled and went to Egypt. (22) But king Jehoiakim sent men to Egypt, Elnathan the son of Achbor and certain men with him to Egypt. (23) And they brought Uriah out of Egypt and brought him unto king Jehoiakim, who smote him with the sword and threw his corpse unto the graves of the common people.

COMMENTS

It is impossible to determine precisely what the original relationship was between this paragraph and the trial of Jeremiah. Some hold that the account of the death of Uriah the prophet is a completely separate episode coming from later in the reign of Jehoakim and inserted here to emphasize the extremely precarious position which Jeremiah had just escaped. However the present writer is inclined to accept the old Jewish interpretation of the passage (found in the Siphre) that this episode was cited by Jeremiahs accusers as a counter-precedent during the trial. Whichever view is adoptedand there are good arguments for boththe incident of Uriah the prophet certainly demonstrates the grave danger that outspoken men of God faced during the reign of the ruthless Jehoiakim.

[235] This Elnathan is again mentioned in Jer. 36:12; Jer. 36:25. If identical with the Elnathan of 2Ki. 24:8, he was Jehoiakims father-in-law.

[236] Some form of degradation is obviously intended by the expression graves of the children of the people. Perhaps the idea is a common graveyard as over against a family sepulcher.

Why did Uriah flee from Jehoiakim? Was this not sinful cowardice on his part? It should be remembered that Elijah fled from the wrath of wicked Jezebel (I Kings 1918). Jeremiah and Baruch hid on another occasion from this same Jehoiakim (Jer. 36:19; Jer. 36:26). Joseph and Mary took the infant Jesus and fled to Egypt to escape the slaughter ordered by Herod (Mat. 2:13-23). John relates that Jesus hid himself from those who would have stoned him on one occasion (Joh. 8:59). Paul secretly escaped from the city of Damascus to avoid those who were waiting to slay him (Act. 9:23 ff.) One is reminded of the advice which Jesus gave to his disciples: When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another (Mat. 10:23). From all of these references the principle emerges that a man of God should not knowingly place his life in jeopardy while he still has a mission to perform.

One other question with regard to the Uriah incident needs to be answered. Why was it that Jehoiakim was so easily able to secure the extradition of Uriah from the land of Egypt? Why could not or did not the king of Egypt grant asylum for the Judean fugitive? The answer probably lies in the fact that Jehoiakim of Judah was the vassal of Pharaoh Necho and a treaty must have existed between the two kings. Such treaties usually included a provision for reciprocity with regard to fugitives. The Uriah episode must have taken place during the first three years of Jehoiakims reign when he was an Egyptian vassal. In his fourth year Jehoiakim became a vassal to Nebuchadnezzar.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(20) And there was also a man that prophesied . . .The verses that follow, seeing that they state a fact which tends in the opposite direction, cannot be regarded as part of the argument of the elders of Jer. 26:17. Nor is there any sufficient reason for supposing, in the absence of any statement to that effect, that the case of Urijah was alleged in a counter-argument by the priests and prophets. Jer. 26:24 shows rather that Jeremiah, or the compiler of the book, wished to record the fact that he did not stand absolutely alone, and that at least one prophet had been, as an Abdiel,faithful found among the faithless,who had courage to follow his example. He took up the strain of Jeremiah, and reproduced it. Of this Urijah we know nothing beyond what is here recorded. It is, perhaps, worth noting that the history of his native place may in some measure have influenced his thoughts, as presenting, like Shiloh, the history of a sacred place that had lost its sanctity (1Sa. 7:1; 2Sa. 6:2), and that its position on the border of the tribe of Benjamin may have brought him into contact with the prophet of Anathoth. The distance between the two towns was but a short days journey.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

THE FATE OF URIJAH THE PROPHET, Jer 26:20-24.

20. The case of the prophet Urijah is here cited, but whether by the elders, in continuation of their speech, or by Jeremiah himself, as the historian, has been disputed. Its close connexion with the preceding and its general agreement as to subject-matter, favours the former view; but the essential incongruity of the two histories as to their apparent bearing on the case of Jeremiah, and the difficulty, if not impossibility, of finding time for this history of Urijah in the reign of Jehoiakim before this time, which, as stated in Jer 26:1, was “in the beginning” of his reign, seem well-nigh conclusive in favour of the latter, it would seem, then, that Jeremiah added this incident in order to perfect the contrast between Hezekiah and Jehoiakim, and thus still more perfectly illustrate the difficulties and dangers by which he was environed. The phrase according to all the words of Jeremiah falls in and confirms this view.

As to the history itself, this passage is alone. We have no other information about this man Urijah than is given here. But the passage shows that Jeremiah did not stand absolutely alone in his work, but that other men sympathized with, supported, and, as in this instance, actually assisted. So true is it that that extreme sense of loneliness sometimes exhibited by such men as Jeremiah and Elijah is not warranted.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

The Case Of Uriah, The Son Of Shemaiah, Another Faithful Prophet ( Jer 26:20-24 ).

It is quite clear that this was not a part of the defence put forward by the elders, for it presents the opposite picture to that of Micah, and seeks a different verdict. In the case of Uriah, the king and his courtiers did not hear and repent, they remorselessly hunted him down. It may thus be that this was the counter-argument put forward by Jeremiah’s opponents, countering the argument of the elders. However, as Jeremiah’s trial appears to have occurred at the beginning of Jehoiakim’s reign it is probable that the incident with respect to Uriah had not yet happened. And so alternately we may see this simply as an example introduced by the writer paralleling Jeremiah’s own case and illustrating the danger that he was in, for that also happened during the reign of Jehoiakim. It may thus be seen as basically passing judgment on Jehoiakim who had behaved in a way which was so unlike Hezekiah. It illustrates therefore the very real danger that Jeremiah was in, but also the fact that Jeremiah was not ‘alone among the prophets’ in his ministry. There were other men of God who stood with him.

Jer 26:20

“And there was also a man who prophesied in the name of YHWH, 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,”

Uriah had, in the Name of YHWH, prophesied in precisely the same way as Jeremiah. he too had prophesied ‘against the city and against the land’. ‘According to all the words of Jeremiah’ may simply indicate similarity of message, or it may be an indication that he obtained much of his message from Jeremiah and his prophecies. Uriah is otherwise unknown but came from Kiriath-jearim which was a priestly city on the Benjamin-Judah border and had previously been a chief city of the Gibeonites in the days of Joshua. It is one of the comparatively few sites that have been definitely identified without doubt.

Jer 26:21

“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 to Egypt,”

Uriah’s words had especially upset Judah’s fighting arm (if we take ‘mighty men’ as soldiers) or Judah’s rich aristocracy (if we take ‘mighty men’ as signifying men of great wealth). Both alternatives would have seen their positions as undermined by Uriah’s words. And the result was that they had sought to put him to death, at which Uriah had, in alarm, fled to Egypt (just as Jeremiah himself would at one stage go into hiding – Jer 36:26).

Jer 26:22

“And Jehoiakim the king sent men to Egypt, namely, Elnathan the son of Achbor, and certain men with him, to Egypt, and they fetched forth Uriah out of Egypt, and brought him to Jehoiakim the king, who slew him with the sword, and cast his dead body into the graves of the common people.”

But he had not been safe there, because Jehoiakim was a vassal of Egypt, and sent his men there to obtain Uriah’s extradition. And they brought Uriah to the king who had him executed and then buried ‘among the common people’ that is in the graveyard where the poor were buried (2Ki 23:6) in unmarked graves. He was determined that Uriah would not be remembered. (It is of interest to note that Jehoiakim himself would subsequently suffer worse ignominy on his death – Jer 22:18-19).

Elnathan may have been Jehoiakim’s father-in-law (2Ki 24:8). He was one of the princes who had listened to Jeremiah’s scroll being read and had responded from his heart, seeking to dissuade Jehoiakim from burning it (Jer 36:12. ff).

Jer 26:24

‘But the hand of Ahikam the son of Shaphan was with Jeremiah, that they should not give him into the hand of the people to put him to death.’

In contrast Jeremiah was protected from the king’s wrath and the wrath of the people as a result of the activity of Ahikam the son of Shaphan. He was clearly someone in high authority who took Jeremiah’s side and arranged for his protection. God often has His representatives in high places. He was one of the five who, as a young man, went with his father to Huldah the prophetess on behalf of Josiah when the law book was found in the Temple (2Ki 22:12). He was also the father of Gedaliah who would later become governor of Judah after Jerusalem was destroyed.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jer 26:20. There was also a manUrijah The discourse of the elders being finished, a history of those times is here added, and, as many think, by Jeremiah; hence it was plain in how great danger he was under a wicked king. Others think that this example of Urijah was produced by the enemies of Jeremiah, to counteract what was said in his favour from the example of Micah. See Houbigant and Calmet.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Jer 26:20 And there was also a man that prophesied in the name of the LORD, Urijah the son of Shemaiah of Kirjathjearim, who prophesied against this city and against this land according to all the words of Jeremiah:

Ver. 20. And there was also a man. ] This seemeth to be the plea of the adverse party, producing an example opposite to the former, and showing what the way was now, whatever it had been heretofore. New lords, new laws.

According to all the words of Jeremiah. ] Whose contemporary he was, and his memory was yet fresh bleeding.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Jer 26:20-23

20Indeed, there was also a man who prophesied in the name of the LORD, Uriah the son of Shemaiah from Kiriath-jearim; and he prophesied against this city and against this land words similar to all those of Jeremiah 21 When King Jehoiakim and all his mighty men and all the officials heard his words, then the king sought to put him to death; but Uriah heard it, and he was afraid and fled and went to Egypt. 22Then King Jehoiakim sent men to Egypt: Elnathan the son of Achbor and certain men with him went into Egypt. 23And they brought Uriah from Egypt and led him to King Jehoiakim, who slew him with a sword and cast his dead body into the burial place of the common people.

Jer 26:20 Uriah Jer 26:20-22 function as a parenthesis (cf. TEV, NET). The time frame is uncertain. Apparently Micah is used as an example of a prophet who spoke judgment against the temple and was spared. The priests brought up the example of another prophet who preached judgment against Jerusalem and was executed by the civil leadership.

It is also possible that the reaction of Hezekiah to YHWH’s prophet is shown to be different from Jehoiakim’s reaction to YHWH’s message (cf. NASB Study Bible footnote, p. 1099).

Uriah is otherwise unknown. He was either (1) a disciple of Jeremiah or (2) another prophetic voice about YHWH judging Judah. However, Jehoiakim had him killed! Judah was about to kill another prophet!

Jer 26:22 Elnathan the son of Achbor He is part of a group of godly leaders who (Jer 36:11-19)

1. gave Baruch and Jeremiah warning to hide (Jer 36:19)

2. encouraged King Jehoiakim not to burn Jeremiah’s prophecies (Jer 36:25)

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

And = But. Said in reply to the friends of Jeremiah by his adversaries. See the Structure above.

Urijah. This incident is not recorded in the historical books, but it illustrates Jer 26:5.

Kirjath-jearim. Now ‘Khan ‘Erma, or Kuriet el ‘Enab, four miles west of the hill overlooking Beth-shemesh, and about twelve miles from Jerusalem.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Jer 26:20-23

ARREST AND EXECUTION OF URIAH

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.

Uriah…

(Jer 26:20). This prophet’s name is spelled Urijah in the older versions. Why did not God spare his life also? We do not know; but it could have been because of his fear, and his flight into Egypt, from which place he would no longer be able to prophesy against Judah as God had commanded him.

It is clear enough, as Graybill stated it, that, “This account of how Jehoiachim vented his spleen upon a lesser adversary suggests his intense hatred of Jeremiah, and gives us reason to believe that he was behind Jeremiah’s persecution here.” F12

Elnathan…

(Jer 26:22). This man was probably the king’s father-in-law (2Ki 24:8), making the delegation to extradite Uriah from Egypt an impressive one. The circumstance that favored the success of their mission derived from the fact that Jehoiachim himself was a vassal of the king of Egypt and thus was likely to have enjoyed the advantage of the right to extradite wanted persons from Egypt.

Uriah…

(Jer 26:23). Nothing is known of this individual except what is revealed in this tragic account of his death. Kiriath-jearim, with which Uriah’s name was connected, was located nine miles west of Jerusalem on the road to Jaffa. The ark of the covenant was once deposited there for a period of twenty years.

The graves of the common people…

(Jer 26:23). The king Jehoiachim dishonored the corpse of Uriah by denying it the honor due to the bodies of true prophets in order to keep the people from regarding him as a true prophet. The prophets had a separate cemetery, as indicated in Mat 23:29. Jehoiachim was busy doing those things that would earn for him the burial of an ass. (Jer 22:19).

3. A counter-precedent (Jer 26:20-23)

It is impossible to determine precisely what the original relationship was between this paragraph and the trial of Jeremiah. Some hold that the account of the death of Uriah the prophet is a completely separate episode coming from later in the reign of Jehoakim and inserted here to emphasize the extremely precarious position which Jeremiah had just escaped. However the present writer is inclined to accept the old Jewish interpretation of the passage (found in the Siphre) that this episode was cited by Jeremiahs accusers as a counter-precedent during the trial. Whichever view is adopted-and there are good arguments for both-the incident of Uriah the prophet certainly demonstrates the grave danger that outspoken men of God faced during the reign of the ruthless Jehoiakim.

Nothing is known of Uriah apart from that which is recorded here. The text relates that (1) he was the son of Shemaiah; (2) that he was from the city of Kiriathjearim seven miles north-west of Jerusalem; (3) that he prophesied against Judah and Jerusalem in the same manner as did Jeremiah; (4) that he fled to Egypt when his life was threatened by Jehoiakim; (5) that he was extradited from Egypt through the instrumentality of an Elnathan; This Elnathan is again mentioned in Jer 36:12; Jer 36:25. If identical with the Elnathan of 2Ki 24:8, he was Jehoiakims father-in-law. (6) that Jehoiakim slew him or had him slain with a sword; (7) that he was buried in the graveyard of the common people (Jer 26:23). Some form of degradation is obviously intended by the expression graves of the children of the people. Perhaps the idea is a common graveyard as over against a family sepulcher.

Why did Uriah flee from Jehoiakim? Was this not sinful cowardice on his part? It should be remembered that Elijah fled from the wrath of wicked Jezebel (1Ki 19:1-8). Jeremiah and Baruch hid on another occasion from this same Jehoiakim (Jer 36:19; Jer 36:26). Joseph and Mary took the infant Jesus and fled to Egypt to escape the slaughter ordered by Herod (Mat 2:13-23). John relates that Jesus hid himself from those who would have stoned him on one occasion (Joh 8:59). Paul secretly escaped from the city of Damascus to avoid those who were waiting to slay him (Act 9:23 ff.) One is reminded of the advice which Jesus gave to his disciples: When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another (Mat 10:23). From all of these references the principle emerges that a man of God should not knowingly place his life in jeopardy while he still has a mission to perform.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Kirjathjearim: Jos 15:60, Jos 18:14, 1Sa 7:2

Reciprocal: 1Ki 13:4 – Lay hold 1Ki 18:10 – whither my lord 2Ki 23:37 – he did 2Ki 24:2 – according Neh 9:26 – slew Isa 30:10 – say Jer 2:30 – your own sword Jer 36:19 – General Jer 39:16 – Behold Mic 2:6 – Prophesy ye Mar 8:35 – will save Mar 12:3 – they Luk 20:10 – beat

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Jer 26:20. Another case in point was cited that took place in the days of Jehoiakim. Urijah prophesied according to which means he prophesied in a similar way as did Jeremiah against the place.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Jer 26:20-23. And there was also a man There are three different opinions respecting the following passage. The first ascribes it to an opposite party, who, by a contrary precedent to the foregoing, urged the condemnation of Jeremiah, a precedent in which the speaking such words as he had spoken was adjudged treason. But against this view of the passage it is objected that such a transition of the speakers would have had some mark of distinction prefixed. Others suppose that this instance was alleged by the same persons that adduced the former, and with an intent to mark the different consequences that had ensued, and to caution the people and government against taking another step of a similar kind, and thereby adding sin to sin. As if he had said, Hezekiah, who had protected Micah, prospered; but did Jehoiakim, who slew Urijah, prosper? No: they all saw the contrary: one prophet had been slain already, let them not fill up the measure of national iniquity by slaying another. But Blaney thinks the least exceptionable opinion is, that the elders concluded their speeches Jer 26:19, and that the writer of the narrative goes on here to observe, in his own person, that notwithstanding the precedent of Micah, there had been a later precedent in the present reign, which might have operated very unfavourably to the cause of Jeremiah, but for the influence and authority of Ahikam the son of Shaphan, which was exerted to save him.

Who prophesied against this city, &c., according to all the words of Jeremiah The prophets of the Lord agreed in their testimony, and one would have supposed that this circumstance should have caused their word to be regarded. And the king sought to put him to death Being, with his courtiers, greatly exasperated against him on account of the faithful testimony which he bore, and the true predictions of approaching judgments which God commissioned him to utter. But when Urijah heard it, he was afraid, and fled In this, it seems, he was faulty, and that through the weakness of his faith: he was too much under the power of that fear of man which brings a snare, and did not sufficiently confide in the power of God to protect him in the faithful execution of his office. And Jehoiakim sent men into Egypt, &c. One would have thought Jehoiakims malice might have been satisfied with driving him out of the country; but they are blood-thirsty that hate the upright, Pro 29:10. It was the life, the precious life, that Jehoiakim hunted after, and nothing less would satisfy him. So implacable is his revenge, that he sends a party of soldiers into Egypt, (there being a strict alliance between him and Pharaoh-nechoh,) some hundreds of miles, and they bring him back by force of arms unto Jehoiakim, who slew him with the sword Some think, even with his own hands, but this appears improbable. Neither did even this satisfy the kings insatiable malice, but he loads the body of the good man with infamy, would not allow it the decent respects usually and justly paid to the remains of persons of distinction, but cast it into the graves of the common people As if he had not been a prophet of the Lord. Thus Jehoiakim hoped both to ruin Urijahs reputation with the people, that no heed might be given to his predictions, and to deter others from prophesying in like manner: but in vain. Jeremiah bears the same testimony. There is no contending with the word of God. Herod thought he had gained his point when he had cut off John the Baptists head, but found himself deceived when, soon after, he heard of Jesus Christ, and said in a fright, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Another prophet, Uriah ben (the son of) Shemaiah from Kiriath-jearim, about 8 miles west of Jerusalem, preached against Judah and Jerusalem in the Lord’s name, as Jeremiah did.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles