From Samaria to Jerusalem, the poison spreads

This unit sits inside Jeremiah’s extended critique of “the prophets” in chapter 23, where the speaker contrasts Yahweh’s own message with the claims and behavior of competing prophetic voices. The passage moves by comparison and escalation: Samaria provides an earlier example of failed prophecy, but Jerusalem is presented as worse and more dangerous because its leaders reinforce evil and export corruption outward. The closing “therefore” introduces a consequence that matches the imagery of contamination: bitter food and poisoned drink, because the prophets’ influence has gone wide.

Jeremiah speaks in the late years of the kingdom of Judah, when Jerusalem was the political and religious center and faced intense pressure from regional empires. “Samaria” recalls the former northern kingdom’s capital, destroyed long before Jeremiah’s day, functioning here as a cautionary precedent of national collapse tied to deceptive leadership and mixed worship. “Jerusalem” names the current center now repeating—and worsening—earlier patterns. The charge assumes prophets were public voices shaping popular behavior and policy, so their failures were not private but land-wide in effect.

Shared ground

The passage presents Yahweh as an active judge of public religious speech: he says he has “seen” what the prophets are doing in Samaria and in Jerusalem (explicit claim). The core accusation is not simply that the prophets are mistaken, but that their speech and conduct misdirect the community (explicit claim). In Samaria, prophets “prophesied by Baal” and led Israel off course (explicit claim). In Jerusalem, the problem is described as deeper and more socially contagious: deceitful living, moral betrayal, and giving support that keeps wrongdoers from turning back (explicit claim).

The text also treats leadership corruption as something that spreads. Jerusalem, the center, becomes a source from which “ungodliness” moves into “all the land” (explicit claim). The judgment image—being fed wormwood and made to drink bitter water—matches the idea of poison entering the body, just as corrupt prophecy poisons the social body (explicit claim plus a close literary link).

Where interpretation differs

“They commit adultery.” Some read this mainly as literal sexual unfaithfulness, highlighting personal moral failure among prophets (inference from the plain wording). Others think Jeremiah is using familiar covenant language where “adultery” also points to religious unfaithfulness—betraying loyalty to Yahweh—especially since idolatry is named in the Samaria comparison (inference from broader Jeremiah themes and the parallel with Baal).

How “wormwood” and “water of gall” function. Many take the language as metaphor for severe judgment—humiliation, misery, and the bitter consequences Yahweh assigns (inference from prophetic imagery). Others think the metaphor may point to concrete historical suffering (hunger, tainted water, siege conditions) that would be experienced as “bitter” and “poisoned” (inference from historical setting), without requiring that the exact substances be literally administered.

What “ungodliness” spreading means. Some interpret the spread primarily as false teaching and spiritual deception moving through the land (inference from the focus on prophecy). Others emphasize behavior and social patterns—leaders normalizing wrongdoing so the community’s moral life decays (inference from v.14’s focus on conduct and enabling evildoers). The text itself links both speech and life.

Why the disagreement exists The passage blends direct accusation (“they prophesied by Baal,” “walk in lies”) with image-heavy language (“wormwood,” “Sodom and Gomorrah”). It also uses terms that can work on more than one level in Jeremiah—especially “adultery,” which can name both sexual betrayal and covenant betrayal in the book’s wider imagery. That mix invites readers to weigh which layer is primary in this specific unit.

What this passage clearly contributes It draws a line from corrupt prophecy to community damage: prophets can cause people to “err,” can make wrongdoing easier, and can block repentance by “strengthening” evildoers (explicit claims). It also intensifies the indictment by moving from Samaria to Jerusalem: the earlier northern failure becomes a warning, while Jerusalem is presented as a worse, land-wide source of corruption (explicit claim). Finally, it frames Yahweh’s response as proportionate to the spread of the harm: the prophets who “poison” the land will receive a “bitter” judgment (explicit claim, with coherent imagery).