Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jonathan D. Safren" <yonsaf AT beitberl.beitberl.ac.il>]

Ruthy & Baruch wrote:

>
> > The immediate reason for Jeremiah's condemnation of the cult is the
> > hypocrisy of the Judeans, who break God's moral laws, worship idols, and
> > then go the Temple and say "We have been saved" (Things haven't changed
> much
> > since then). But his rejection of the cult is absolute: "Pile your
> > fire-offerings on top of your burnt-offerings and eat [the[ meat]"  The
> Lord
> > doesn't need any of that stuff, maybe you do. He never commanded you in
> any
> > case to sacrifice to him. That was your idea.
> > That's my reading of Jeremiah 7:21-23.
>
> Literally interpreting this passage, you're right.  But I think the context
> of the Judeans' hipocrisy makes it more probable to see it as a rhetorical
> device, such as in Ben's reading in his postthe other day.  Had the cult
> not been opposed to moral laws, it would have been okay, unlike "pagan"
> practices, which are generally condemned on their own.

Isaiah's attack on the cult in Ch. 1 can be interpreted in this way, for he 
elsewhere
(Ch. 2) defends the centrality of the Jerusalem Temple.
But not Jeremiah. He was a revolutionary in many ways. For example, he claims 
that in
days to come there will be no need for a temple, all the world will be his 
Temple.
Therefore, it follows that God doesn't need any sacrifices.
There will be no need for a weritten Covenant, because the Covenant will be 
inscribed
in the hearts of men.
On this analysis of Jeremiah's teachings, saa the Hrbrew article by Moshe 
Weinfeld, in
Iyyunim be-Sefer Yirmiyah, Jerusalem, Qiryat Sefer
Yours,
--
Jonathan D. Safren
Dept. of Biblical Studies
Beit Berl College
Beit Berl Post Office 44905
Israel