What is the context?
The hearers seize Jeremiah after he finishes and insist that the temple and city warning deserves death. Officials come from the palace and sit to hear the accusation.
The charge treats speaking against the city as itself intolerable. Jeremiah answers by identifying the Lord as the sender and again calling for changed conduct.
He submits himself to their power to decide but warns that killing him will add innocent blood to the city’s guilt. He does not withdraw the warning merely to obtain safety.
The scene contrasts fear for an institution’s reputation with the possibility that its actual wrongdoing needs to change. It does not make every harsh public accusation automatically a true prophecy.
How is this passage commonly understood?
Wesley reads the accusation and defense through the public hearing before officials and people. The accusation must be assessed through these participants’ actions and Jeremiah’s message, rather than a claim that religious office makes either side automatically right.
What is our position?
We don't have a position on this passage yet. When our study reaches a conclusion the text supports, it will appear here.
Where can I study this further?
No deeper study linked yet.