DID GOD DENY THAT HE COMMANDED ANIMAL SACRIFICES? (JEREMIAH 7:22)

I found the following provocative statement on the website of the American Humanist Society: “...the Old Testament is contradictory as to whether the Lord commanded the Israelites to sacrifice animals to him. At Jeremiah 7:22, God denies he ever gave the Israelites commandments about animal sacrifices. In contrast, Exodus 29:38-42 and many other verses depict God as requiring the Israelites to offer animal sacrifices.”

We should admit that there are liberal Christian commentators who would agree with the fact that there is a contradiction here. As just one example, Biddle says, “This is inconsistent with other biblical traditions.”

There is no argument with their contention regarding the many passages in which animal sacrifices to God are prescribed for a number of different occasions. So the crux of their argument lies with the passage in Jeremiah in which supposedly “God denies he ever gave the Israelites commandments about animal sacrifices.” Let's consider how various translations render that key verse:

“For in the day that I brought our ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.” (NRSV)

“But when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt, I gave them no commands about whole-offering and sacrifice; I said not a word about them.” (NEB)

“For when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, but I gave them this command: Obey me...” (NIV)

And a close parallel to this verse is found in Amos 5:25 in which God asks, “Did you bring to me sacrifices and offerings the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?” The form of the question obviously implies a negative answer.

There are actually several ways to address this “problem.” Let us first begin by quoting John Bright: “The force of this passage, and others like it (e.g. Amos v 21-25; Hos vi 6; Mic vi 1-8; Isa I 10-17), has been much disputed. It is unlikely, however, that it is to be taken either as a categorical rejection of the sacrificial system as such, or as a statement that there was no sacrifice in the wilderness.” If that is true, then one has the choice of at least the following trains of interpretation for an explanation:

1. Looking at the NRSV above, it opens the door for understanding the Jeremiah passage from a chronological or historical perspective. Thus, if we wish to be literal, it could be strictly talking about the Day of Passover stipulations only. As D.R. Jones says, “Perhaps we should note that what is being referred to is the great act of redemption which was the model of all subsequent redemptive acts, not precisely the legislative work of Moses.”

2. Or it may have been referring to a later exodus event, the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai: “The Decalog is spelled out in Exod. 20:1-17, but at no point is the narrative concerned with cultic details. It was only after the covenant had been ratified (24:1-8) that the cultic details of the tabernacle, the priesthood, and the sacrifices were declared...The repetition of dabar [“command,” vv. 22 and 23] may have been deliberate in which case the phrase in v. 22...may be translated concerning the details of burnt offerings and sacrifices. That was to come later.” (Thompson)

Somewhat similarly, Bright says, “The point lies in the balance between vss. 22 and 23. The words 'Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people' are the formula of covenant (cf. Deut xxvi 16-19): God's essential demands...did not concern ritual matters, but the keeping of the covenant stipulation.”

3. Marshall gives as an alternative interpretation the possibility that “it could mean that the sacrifices were offered not to God, but to other gods. In Stephen's speech the context supports the view that the people offered sacrifices not to Yahweh, but to idols like the calf.” See Acts 7:44 where he quotes from Jeremiah 7:22.

4. An interesting predictive interpretation is offered by Jones when he says regarding Jeremiah, “He is not repudiating what he must have known to be a divine provision of worship. He is envisaging or witnessing a historical situation in which the Lord deliberately strips Judah of the great gifts of the promises. History is God speaking. No Temple, no land, but exile (cf. 8:3). She must pack up her sacrificial worship. Now her sights must be set on one hope only – a new redemption.”

5. But the most popular approach to Jeremiah 7:22 is implied in the NIV translation given above and summarized by Wiseman: “Some would interpret v. 22 as showing ignorance of the fundamental Mosaic laws, but the prophet's present concern is with priorities. Proper sacrifice...is subordinate to, as well as a consequence of, true obedience.” Kaiser puts it this way, “So deceptive was the nation's trust in this hollow worship that Jeremiah later announced that God had wanted more than sacrifices when he brought Israel out of Egypt (Jer 7:22). He had wanted the people to trust him.” This is an attractive interpretation, but the question is whether it can be justified by the text. And in that regard there are at least two pieces of supportive evidence:

    a. “It is possible to resort to the hypothesis of prophetic exaggeration. On this view Jeremiah is really commanding judicious reform. When he says no to this and yes to that, he means that that is more important than this.” (Jones) Huber is a bit more wordy, but expresses the identical idea in saying, “Probably, Jeremiah employs an 'idiom of exaggerated contrast' whereby 'the first of two statements is negated only for the purpose of setting of the second' (Lundbom). In a similar fashion, Amos builds on the implied negation in Amos 5:26 to underscore Amos 5:26-27...The illocutionary force of these statements is not about cultic history or sacrifice per se but rather the relative subordination of cultic duty to covenant obedience (cf. Jer 6:19-20; 7:5-7; 9:23-26).”

    b. Motyer, followed by Cawley and Millard, takes an entirely different route to come to the same conclusion when he says that “closer examination of the Hebrew suggests that the difficulty belongs more to the English translation than to the original. The preposition which the English gives as 'concerning' – the vital word in the whole verse – is the Hebrew 'al-dibre, which can only mean 'concerning' by a radical weakening of its real significance 'because of' or 'for the sake of'...According to this, the verse says that Yahweh did not address Israel either 'because of' sacrifices: that is to say, the performance of sacrifice is not a means whereby pressure may be applied to God; not did He address them 'for the sake of' sacrifices, for the living God stands in no need of anything man can supply...the cult is not a thing which exists on its own but rather for the sake of the spiritual needs of a people committed to obedience to the moral law of God.”