The Bible Says
Jeremiah 43:1-7 Meaning

The Jeremiah 43:1-7 narrative begins by emphasizing, But as soon as Jeremiah, whom the LORD their God had sent, had finished telling all the people all the words of the LORD their God––that is, all these words––(v. 1). The repetition of "all the words" stresses that Jeremiah delivered the message completely and accurately. Nothing was withheld, softened, or altered. This removes any possibility that the people misunderstood God’s will.

The phrase, "whom the LORD their God had sent" (v. 1), reinforces Jeremiah’s prophetic authority. This was not unsolicited preaching but a direct response to a request the people themselves initiated (Jeremiah 42:1-3). The issue that follows is therefore not lack of clarity but refusal to submit.

Jeremiah 43:1 sets up the gravity of what comes next: the people reject God’s word immediately after hearing it in full, reminding us of earlier covenant failures such as Israel’s rejection of God’s command after Sinai (Exodus 32:1-6).

The response in Jeremiah 43:2 comes from leadership figures––the mouthpieces responsible for the nation: Azariah the son of Hoshaiah, and Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the arrogant men said to Jeremiah, "You are telling a lie! The LORD our God has not sent you to say, 'You are not to enter Egypt to reside there';" (v. 2). Azariah appears here for the first time and is listed alongside Johanan, indicating a group of leaders opposing Jeremiah.

The text explicitly identifies Jerusalem's representatives as "arrogant men," which is not merely descriptive but theological. Their arrogance consists in claiming spiritual authority over God’s prophet. By saying "The LORD our God has not sent you" (v. 2), they directly contradict what they had previously affirmed (Jeremiah 42:5-6). Satan used a similar tactic with Eve in the garden by assuming authority over God and rejecting the Creator's words entirely:

"The serpent said to the woman, 'You surely will not die!'"
(Genesis 3:4).

Eve was then deceived by the serpent's appealing pitch for the fruit, because she did not cling to the word of God above all else (Genesis 3:1-6). Just like how the fruit was "good for food...a delight to the eyes, and...was desirable to make one wise" (Genesis 3:6), Egypt was also an enticing haven for God's people, despite specific instruction from Him to stay away. Both the forbidden fruit and the land of Egypt remain as reminders for believers today that sin is appealing and desirable––if we do not know or hold fast to what God has commanded, we too are bound succumb to the pleasures of the world. 

The leaders' accusation against Jeremiah mirrors earlier attacks on his legitimacy (Jeremiah 26:8-11; 38:4). Throughout his ministry, Jeremiah was consistently accused of false prophecy precisely when his message conflicted with political or personal desires. Their denial of him was not based on evidence but on refusal to accept a message that contradicts their plans. God previously said of these people:

"An appalling and horrible thing
Has happened in the land:
The prophets prophesy falsely,
And the priests rule on their own authority;
And My people love it so!
But what will you do at the end of it?"
(Jeremiah 5:30-31).

Had Jeremiah given the leaders a word they wanted hear, a word contrary to what God actually said, he would truly be a false prophet, and the people would love it. God knew and prophesied about the selfish pride that permeated their culture. The people's deaf ears and hard hearts would not turn from their own short-sighted desires.

The arrogant men escalate the accusation in Jeremiah 43:3. by claiming that, "Baruch the son of Neriah is inciting you against us to give us over into the hand of the Chaldeans, so they will put us to death or exile us to Babylon" (v. 3). Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe and close associate (Jeremiah 36:4-18), is used to bear blame. Unable to deny Jeremiah’s prophetic consistency, they attempt manipulation.

This charge is implausible. Jeremiah had preached submission to Babylon long before Baruch appears in the narrative (Jeremiah 21:8-10; 27:12-13). The accusation reveals paranoia and fear rather than rational assessment. It also shows how political anxiety leads to conspiracy thinking.

Scripturally, this mirrors attempts to discredit God’s messengers by attributing their message to hidden motives, as seen when Ahab accused Elijah of troubling Israel (1 Kings 18:17) or when Jesus was accused of acting by demonic power (Matthew 12:24).

The narrator summarizes the outcome: So Johanan the son of Kareah and all the commanders of the forces, and all the people, did not obey the voice of the LORD to stay in the land of Judah (v. 4). This verse states the central sin plainly: disobedience to "the voice of the LORD" (v. 4).

The inclusion of all the people shows that responsibility is communal. While leaders initiated the rebellion, the people followed. This reflects the covenant principle that collective disobedience brings collective consequence (Joshua 7:1; Jeremiah 7:18).

The phrase, "to stay in the land of Judah" (v. 4), highlights the irony: God’s command was not burdensome or extreme. He asked them to remain where they already were and promised protection. Their refusal demonstrates distrust of God’s presence despite clear assurances (Jeremiah 42:10-12).

The narrative continues by describing how, Johanan the son of Kareah and all the commanders of the forces took the entire remnant of Judah who had returned from all the nations to which they had been driven away, in order to reside in the land of Judah–– (v. 5). The phrase, "entire remnant," is important. This group included survivors from earlier deportations who had just begun resettling their homeland.

Ironically, these people had experienced exile firsthand and were now repeating the same pattern of distrust that had led to exile in the first place. Their return to Judah had been a sign of hope (Jeremiah 24:6-7), but fear quickly overrode faith.

This action reverses the restoration trajectory God had offered. Instead of being replanted in Judah, the remnant uproots itself voluntarily, fulfilling the warnings God had just given (Jeremiah 42:16-17).

The text carefully lists those taken: the men, the women, the children, the king’s daughters and every person that Nebuzaradan the captain of the bodyguard had left with Gedaliah the son of Ahikam and grandson of Shaphan, together with Jeremiah the prophet and Baruch the son of Neriah” (v. 6). This demonstrates that the move to Egypt was not limited to combatants but included civilians and royal dependents.

The mention of Nebuzaradan connects this group directly to Babylon’s earlier administrative decision to leave a remnant in the land (Jeremiah 39:10; 40:5-6). By removing them, Johanan effectively dismantles Babylon’s provincial structure and invites further judgment.

Jeremiah and Baruch are included unwillingly. This fulfills the pattern seen earlier where prophets suffer alongside the people they warn (Ezekiel among the exiles, Daniel in Babylon). Jeremiah is not complicit; he is carried along by force.

The passage concludes by stating that they entered the land of Egypt (for they did not obey the voice of the LORD) and went in as far as Tahpanhes (v. 7). The parenthetical explanation leaves no ambiguity: this move is defined explicitly as disobedience. Egypt, once again, becomes the place of false security.

Tahpanhes (also known as Daphnae) was a fortified city in the eastern Nile Delta, often used as a military and political refuge. It symbolized dependence on Egyptian power rather than trust in God. Isaiah and Jeremiah had long warned against seeking refuge in Egypt (Isaiah 30:1-5; Jeremiah 2:18, 36).

Theologically, this return to Egypt represents a reversal of the Exodus. Instead of trusting the God who delivered them from bondage, the remnant chooses the very land from which God had once redeemed Israel (Deuteronomy 17:16). What they believed would bring safety would instead bring the judgments God had already announced (Jeremiah 43:8-13; 44:11-14).