Biblical Hebrew Forum

[ben.crick AT argonet.co.uk (Ben Crick)]

On Sun  9 Jan 2000 (20:44:20), rhutchin AT aol.com wrote:
> In context of the chapter, Israel seems to have reduced worship of God
> to the  giving of the specified offerings and sacrifices as one might
> pay a tax.  We  might conclude that the writer, in the above verses,
> does not mean to argue that God did not actually command that offerings
> and sacrifices be given but that God required much more than just
> offerings and sacrifices.  God required  obedience of which the giving of
> offerings and sacrifices were a consequence.
> 
> The translations differ on v 22, with some emphasizing this idea while
> others do not.  A literal translation of the verse seems awkward.
> Can someone explain how v 22 should be translated and why?

 Dear Roger,

 You have hit upon one of the five OT passages which are used to illustrate
 an alleged "Prophetic Revolt" against the Priesthood and the Cultus.
 Jonathan Safren already drew attention to Amos 5:25 in his helpful reply.

 The five passages often quoted in this connection are:
 Amos 5:21-25
 Hosea 6:6
 Isaiah 1:11-16
 Micah 6:6-8
 Jeremiah 7:21-23

 It will be apparent from these passages that the prophets are not against
 the Cultus as such, but against the *abuse* of the Cultus in the way you
 describe (as a sort of "licence to sin": sin now; pay later). You'll find
 that the NIV hits off the rhetorical force of Jeremiah's words admirably.

 Amos can only expect the answer "Yes" to his question in Amos 5:25 (Did
 you bring unto Me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness 40 years?).
 But construed a different way, the 'He Interrogative' is asking a rhetorical
 question: "Was it ONLY sacrifices and offerings that you brought near to
 Me in the wilderness 40 years?". This might expect the answer "No". More
 than sacrifices and offerings was required; *obedience to the Law* was
 required. Sacrifices were to atone for lapses in lawkeeping; not as a
 permissive tariff or licence for law-breaking. There was no sacrifice for
 deliberate sin. Notice the personal pronouns: *your* burnt-offerings, etc.
 are unacceptable if offered in this spirit.

 Hosea is stating categorically "For I desired mercy and not sacrifice:
 and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings". Compare 1 Samuel 15:22
 "To obey is better than sacrifice: and to hearken than the fat of rams".
 A linguistic parallel construction to Hosea 6:6 is found in Proverbs 8:10,
 "Receive my instruction and not silver: and knowledge rather than choice
 gold".

 Isaiah 1:11-16 starts with an emphatic LaMMaH-LiY... "What use *unto Me*
 are your sacrifices, etc...". God says "I am fed up with your offerings...
 I don't want the blood of your bulls and lambs and he-goats". Verse 12
 characterises their "auto-pilot" worship as a "trampling of My courts".
 He won't have their "empty oblations" (gifts of nothing). All this smell
 of burning flesh is an abominable incense. Vv 13b-14 appear to attack the
 Sabbaths as well as the New Moons; but Isaiah would be going against the
 Decalogue if that is really what he meant. The repudiation is not of the
 Cultus, but of the *misuse* of the Cultus. Does verse 15 condemn Prayer
 also?  Not at all; only the hypocritical prayers of those whose hands are
 "full of blood" i.e. of Sin:  Y:DeYKeM DaMiYM MaL'uW. Sin invalidates the
 Cultus. The remedy is to "wash" them (verse 16). They must accompany
 ritual purity with *ethical* purity.

 Micah 6:6-8 appears to denounce the cultus; but it is a *caricature* of
 the cultus in verse 7. The child-sacrifice worship of Moloch is in view
 here (Omri and Ahab, verse 16). The real requirement is in verse 8; the
 purpose of the cultus is to provide for our failure to achieve this, not
 to license wilful disobedience.

 So finally to Jeremiah 7:21-23. The Burnt-offerings are wholly for God;
 none of them are to be eaten. The Peace-offering were for the worshippers
 to eat; but now God says "You can eat them all for all I care". Read
 verse 22 "For I did not speak to your fathers, or give them commands on
 the day I brought them out of Egypt, *for the sake of* getting 
burnt-offerings
 or sacrifices" `aL-DiB:ReY `oWLaH WaZaBaX. What God wanted them to do
 KiY 'iM-'eT-HaDDaBaR  was to obey his voice, etc., and be His people with
 Himself as their God.

 Wow!  that took a long time; but we've got there.

 Does this help any?

 Shalom,
 Ben
-- 
 Revd Ben Crick, BA CF
 <ben.crick AT argonet.co.uk>
 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)
 http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm