Jeremiah's Actions Produce A Violent Response From The Religious Authorities, Resulting In Jeremiah Prophesying What Would Happen To His Adversaries Because Of Their Behaviour (Jeremiah 20:1-6).
The response to Jeremiah's words was instantaneous and violent. He was arrested by the Temple authorities, physically abused and put in ‘the stocks', an instrument probably designed to cause extreme discomfiture. Then on the next day he was brought out of the stocks and stood before the authorities, no doubt in order to be called to account. But Jeremiah was not to be intimidated by this and boldly declared to his adversaries what YHWH intended to do to them
‘Now Pashhur, the son of Immer the priest, who was chief officer (paqid nagid - superintendent nagid) in the house of YHWH, heard Jeremiah prophesying these things.'
This Pashhur must be distinguished from the one in Jeremiah 21:1. He was clearly of high authority in the Temple, and may have been the father of the Gedaliah spoken of in Jeremiah 38:1 (one of the ‘princes' (sarim) who opposed Jeremiah). ‘Immer' may have been the name of Pashhur's father or it may have been that of his priestly family (1 Chronicles 24:14). The term ‘nagid' was a typically Hebrew designation and had been used of the earliest kings of Israel (regularly translated ‘prince, ruler'), especially at their anointing or special ‘appointment' (1 Samuel 9:16; 1 Samuel 10:1; 1 Kings 1:35 with 39; 1 Samuel 13:14; 1 Samuel 25:30; 2 Samuel 6:21). It is used of the High Priest in 1 Chronicles 9:11; 2 Chronicles 31:13 as ‘nagid of the house of God'. Its use in the singular is, with only one exception, limited to Israelite dignitaries and its close connection either with anointing or official appointment seemingly indicated that the title was an expression of a special appointing and anointing by YHWH. (The only exception is when it was uniquely ‘borrowed' by Ezekiel in sarcastically describing the King of Tyre as highly exalted and as an ‘anointed one' (Jeremiah 28:2; Jeremiah 28:14) and thus as a pseudo-nagid. Its use in Daniel 9:25-26 was almost certainly of an Israelite anointed ‘prince' for elsewhere he uses nagid of Israelite princes and sarim or melek of foreign rulers). It thus here indicates a leading priest in the Temple, possibly second only to the High Priest. He was probably responsible for maintaining order in the Temple which would explain why he became personally involved in Jeremiah's case..
‘Then Pashhur smote Jeremiah the prophet, and put him in the stocks which were in the upper gate of Benjamin, which was in the house of YHWH.'
This Pashhur publicly humiliated Jeremiah by ‘smiting' him. The verb does not necessarily indicate a public beating, but may possibly include it. Indeed it may be argued that he examined Jeremiah (who was engaged in controversy with the other prophets) on the basis of Deuteronomy 25:1 and found him guilty and sentenced him to forty lashes. That would explain the mention of Jeremiah as ‘the prophet'. But however that may be it certainly does indicate at a minimum a deliberate act of violence with the intention of humiliation. It may simply have been a backhanded blow across the face intended to show the victim as in the wrong (compare what happened to Jesus at his appearance before Annas. The idea that it made Him appear to be in the wrong would explain why Jesus challenged it rather than turning the other cheek - John 18:22). Afterwards he was put in ‘the stocks' (the same thing was done by Asa to another prophet - 2 Chronicles 16:10 where the same word is translated prioson-house). The word is a rare one and indicates some position of confinement which also probably involved physical restraint and distortion. The idea would be to subject him to considerable discomfiture. It could have been an instrument of retainment something similar to stocks or it could have been a cell providing limited space like those in the walls of a castle which were so small that the occupant was kept in a cramped position. It was seemingly continually maintained as a kind of religious punishment for it was to be found ‘in the house of YHWH'. The excuse for such treatment would be that it was for ‘bringing men to their senses', (although usually doing the opposite). The genuine object, however, was to cow them into submission.
‘Jeremiah the Prophet'. This is the first use of the term ‘prophet' of Jeremiah. It may have been used here in order to bring out the appalling nature of Pashhur's behaviour (he was mistreating a prophet of YHWH!) It may possibly be a sneering appellative given by Pashhur signifying ‘or so he calls himself'. Or as mentioned above he may have been answering a charge of being a false or disruly prophet.
‘And it came about on the next day, that Pashhur brought Jeremiah out of the stocks. Then Jeremiah said to him, “YHWH has not called your name Pashhur, but Magor-missabib.”
No doubt feeling that after a night in the stocks this ‘Jeremiah the Prophet' would have learned his lesson Pashhur, on the following day, had him brought out from his miserable situation to be again arraigned before him. We are not told what occurred at the arraignment for what was considered as important was the use that Jeremiah made of it, for, no doubt to his horror and chagrin, Pashhur, who would have seen himself as the judge, discovered that it was as though he himself was on trial as Jeremiah pronounced judgment against him.
Jeremiah's forthright opening words are significant. “YHWH has not called your name Pashhur, but Magor-missabib.” Jeremiah was pointing out to Pashhur that whatever his parents might have called him God had now officially called him “Magor-missabib (fear is round about).” This particular phrase meaning ‘fear is round about' was seemingly a standard saying at the time, and is used by Jeremiah a number of times. In Jeremiah 6:25 it indicates general uncertainty among the populace. In Jeremiah 20:10 it indicates Jeremiah's own position of apprehension in the face of persecution. In Jeremiah 46:5 it indicates the terror of the Judean forces in the face of a rampant Egyptian army. In Jeremiah 49:29 it refers to the Arabians fleeing in terror from Nebuchadnezzar. It is also found in Psalms 31:13. In the Psalm it is used by the Psalmist at a time when the authorities took counsel against him and were scheming to take away his life. It was thus very appropriate in this case. The idea is therefore that Pashhur and his behaviour will be the catalyst which will result in terror of all kinds for Judah.
But we should note something further about this phrase. The idea of YHWH/God ‘calling your (his) name --' occurs elsewhere only at times of high significance. It was used of the naming of Adam and Eve as ‘Adam', that is as the head of the human race (Genesis 5:2). It was used of the renaming of Jacob as ‘Israel' (Genesis 35:10). And it was used in Jeremiah 11:16 of the renaming of Israel as Zayith-ra‘anan-yephe-peri-to'ar (an olive tree green, beautiful and with luscious fruit). Thus we may see this naming by YHWH of Pashhur as signifying an equally important turning point in Israel/Judah's history, although this time a negative one. That YHWH should so officially name a leading Temple official as ‘fear is round about' was the final indication that its end was near.
“For thus says YHWH, Behold, I will make you a terror to yourself, and to all your friends, and they will fall by the sword of their enemies, and your eyes will behold it, and I will give all Judah into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he will carry them captive to Babylon, and will slay them with the sword.”
By bearing that name ‘Fear is round about' from then on, a name given by YHWH and therefore undiscardable, Pashhur was being made ‘a terror to himself and to his friends'. From then on all who saw him would be reminded of the judgment of Jeremiah and of YHWH that was coming and would shiver in apprehension. It was a reminder that soon, within his own lifetime (and he was probably getting on) they would fall by the sword of their enemies, and Judah would be given into the hands of the King of Babylon who would carry them into exile or slay them with the sword. This is the first specific indicator in Jeremiah of who the invaders would be. It is almost certainly referring to the first full scale invasion of 597 BC in the last days of Jehoiakim when the first major deportation took place of the cream of the inhabitants.
“Moreover I will give all the riches of this city, and all its gains, and all its precious things, yes, all the treasures of the kings of Judah will I give, into the hand of their enemies, and they will make them a prey, and take them, and carry them to Babylon.”
And with the people would also depart their wealth. All the riches of the city, and all its gains (mainly from trading), and all the precious things that it possessed, even all the treasures of the kings of Judah, would be given into the hands of the Babylonians who would take them ‘as a prey' and as spoil. This had been destined from Hezekiah's day and was only temporarily delayed by Josiah's reforms (compare here Isaiah 39:6; 2 Kings 22:19-20). But if it was only the first major deportation that was in mind then some of the Temple treasures would be allowed to remain (for they were taken in 587 BC) and the descriptions must not be applied too strictly.
“And you, Pashhur, and all who dwell in your house will go into captivity, and you will come to Babylon, and there you will die, and there will you be buried, you, and all your friends, to whom you have prophesied falsely.”
What was more, Pashhur himself and all his household including his family and servants, would go into captivity and would be taken to Babylon (in chains) and would die there and be buried along with all his friends. So much for the prophecies of deliverance, and the expectancy of a quick return emphasised by the false prophets (who were of course only recognised by the majority as false once their prophecies had failed). Thus Pashhur had made himself the symbol of all the terrors coming on Judah.
The ‘you' in ‘to whom you have prophesied falsely' probably indicates ‘you in the Temple', referring to the Temple prophets under the Temple's aegis rather than to Pashhur himself, with Pashhur and the priesthood taking full responsibility because they gave the prophecies their full backing. On the other hand it may be that Pashhur also claimed prophetic gifts.