DID GOD REJECT SACRIFICES IN AMOS 5:21-27?

“Taken as a whole, the Hebrew Bible manifests a certain ambivalence regarding sacrifice. In the Pentateuch, it is solemnly enjoined as a positive divine requirement, while other passages seem to articulate God's rejection of the practice as a whole (e.g. Amos 5:21-27; Isa. 1:10-20; Ps. 51:16-17). The latter formulations are best seen as hyperbolic [i.e. exaggerated] reminders of the truth that cultic sacrifice is pleasing to God only when offered by one whose whole whole life is lived in accordance with God's will.” (Begg)

I decided to see what other commentators had to say on the subject in relation to these three passages and whether they agreed with Begg's method of resolving this apparent contradiction.

Amos 5:21-27

“They [the people of Israel] believed that their festivals, their sacrifices, and their songs of praise would be accepted by God and that he in response would pour out his blessings on the nation. The first person verbs in verses 21-23 carry an extremely powerful renunciation of the nation's most significant expressions of love and devotion to God...The expectations of the worshiper are false, God has no pleasure in these rituals. They words are amazingly similar to Isaiah's (Is. 1:10-17)...Amos does not chide the people for not celebrating feasts; he condemns the feasts they did celebrate...In the preceding verses God has rejected temple worship as a means of communicating with himself. Now [in v. 24] God opens the door for true worship in his presence. The jussive form of the verb is an admonition to change the central focus of worship from the performance of the ritual to the establishment of justice and righteousness. This need not imply that the prophet rejects all types of worship as evil or unnecessary; it merely means that justice must have its central place in the lives of all those who wish to enter God's presence. God requires a just and righteous living as a prerequisite of worship (Mic. 6:6-8; Isa. 1:10-17)...If their social and legal relationships to each other, and especially to the poor and weak, are not consistent with the responsibilities outlined in the law of God, they can hardly expect God's approval.” (G.V. Smith)

Carroll R. says that “the emphasis lies with Yahweh's uncompromising moral exigencies [given in v. 24] that should be the foundation of Israel's life... [However] Israel's unacceptable religion, which ignores God's ethical demands (5:7,14-15, 24) even as it celebrates a false Yahweh (5:21-23) and is tempted by other gods (5:26), will bring the darkness of exile (5:18-20, 26-7).”

Isaiah 1:10-20

“Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this diatribe is the questioning of the requirement, written into the so-called “Covenant Code...that adult males present themselves at the state sanctuary three times a year...In Isaiah, as in his near contemporaries Amos and Micah, animal sacrifice seems to have aroused the strongest negative reaction (cf. Amos 5:22; Mic 6:6-7), more than the cereal and incense offerings, and continued to do so long after this time (e.g. Isa 66:1-4), no doubt because it could be so easily exploited to the advantage of temple personnel...As in the passages in Amos 5:24 and Mic 6:8, our poem closes with the contrast between liturgical religiosity on the one hand and justice and righteousness on the other.” (Blenkinsopp)

In addition, Wolf says, “By referring to Sodom and Gomorrah in verses 9 and 10, Isaiah hoped to impress on the people the seriousness of their situation. Their superficial attempt at being religious could not save them. They continued to bring large numbers of sacrifices, but their lack of true devotion vitiated the intended effect of the offerings. God requires his worshipers to have clean hands and a pure heart, and they had neither (Ps. 24:4). The quality of one's worship – not the quantity of good deeds – is most important...There was nothing intrinsically wrong with the sacrificial system or with the special holy days mentioned in verses 13 and 14.., but the activities of the people on those days had become as detestable as the sacrifice of a dog or a pig.”

Psalm 51:16-17

“In these verses of Psalm 51, the psalmist reflects on the nature of sacrifice. Sacrifices are not offered by humanity to appease God. Sacrifices are necessary because humanity needs symbols, acts with which to come before God to restore right relationships. But the symbol is not the sole element of the sacrificial system. Proper sacrifice requires proper attitude; in the case of the singer of Psalm 51, the attitude is a spirit being broken and a heart being broken and crushed. The word translated broken is from the Hebrew root sabar and includes the ideas of 'contrite, sorry, and humble...Verses 16-17 of Psalm 51 are not a polemic against the sacrificial system. They are a polemic against sacrifice of material goods without sacrifice of spirit and heart. In the same way that sin cannot be forgiven without a broken spirit and heart, so proper sacrifice cannot be offered without a proper attitude.” (deClaisse-Walford)

M'Caw and Motyer, keeping in mind David's own personal situation, state, “These verses do not deny the principle and practice of sacrifice. No sacrifice was prescribed in the law for adultery and murder, and therefore none could be offered. David could only rely on God's wisdom to provide such a sacrifice and himself bring that contrite spirit without which all sacrifice for sin is ineffectual.”

Baigent takes the same approach based on the heading to this psalm: “A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came to him, after he had gone into Bathsheba.” He notes that although some scholars doubt that David was the actual author, this psalm obviously had the events in David's life in mind, as recorded in II Samuel 11-12. Thus, as Durham said, “(I)t is best to refrain from dogmatic conclusions concerning this psalm's authorship, either to identify it with David or to deny that it relates to David's experience.”

Modern Application

It is easy for us today to take potshots at the disobedient Jews of the past, but the Old Testament teachings and stories are for our benefit also. I could cite a number of people I have met in church settings, both Protestant and Catholic, who rely almost solely on religious rituals (either one-time acts or repeated ones) to save them in spite of what they might do in their life during the week.