The Pulpit Commentary — Jeremiah — Volume 1 — Section 189

the prnisefnl cxr'.amntions of those who "llty chief care wns not to prescribe rules would bring the sacrifice of t.hanksgil'ing. for holocausts nnd sncrifices, but this is what These passa1'<'S do not contain any state- I commanded thco nbove o.11," viz. moral ment respC'cting the origin of the sacrifieial obc~ie~cc. According to it, the prophet's system; but they do expressly assert thnt demnl 1s not absolute, but relative-relntirn Jehovah contcmplntos that system with that is, to the notion of sacrifices entertaiuC(i plensnre, and npparently thnt he designs it by the Jews whom he addresses. Of course to be permanent among his people Israel. Graf's view, that the deninl is absolute, wili Let us now turn to eh. xxxiii. 17-24. equally well suit the context. The people Here the prophet, in the Name of Jehovah, were surprised at Je1·cmiah's objurgations, dccln.res that there is a Divine covenant because they thought they had fulfilled the " with the Levites, the priests," who shall ?laims of tho covenant. J eremiu.h's purpose nc,er "want a man before me . . . to do 1s equally well fulfilled whether his denial sacrifice continually." A covenant with is qualified or unquu.lified, absolute or the priests impiies a covenant with the relative. Our object has been to separate people, the pri<'.'lts being the representatives the exegesis of our passu.ge from a still of the people. This passnge, therefore, is doubtful controversy, and to offer a tenable more distinct than those previously quoted; view of it, based upon grounds purely it does appear to maintain that the range internal to Jeremiah. It may be suggested, of the Sinaitic covenant included the duties however, to the student of Leviticus, that of the priesthood, i.e. sacrifices. On the even if the Levitical legislation in its other hand, it should be observed that the present form were proved to be of e. post- genuineness of this latter passage is not Exile date, it would still be doubtful beyond dispute, the whole section in which whether any believing temple-worshipper it occurs (eh. xxxiii. 14-26) being omitted could help assuming that Jehovah had, from in the Septuagint. We have now to the first existence of the nation, given his inquire, Is there a real discrepancy between dii·ect sanction to the offering of sacrifices. the words of Jeremiah (strictly speaking, If so, it is comparatively unimportant of Jehovah) in the verse now before us, (except with regard to the progressive interpreted literally, and the passages ad- revelation of the strictness of the law of duced above? Are they more inconsistent truth) whether the Leviticu.l code was given than snch an utterance as eh. vi. 20 (first to Moses at Mount Sinai in its present form half of verse), which appears to deny the or not. utility of sacrifices altogether? If the latter Ver. 23.-But this thing ... Obey my may be explained as a forcible oratorical voice, etc. Comp. Dent. vi. 3, "Hear [the exaggeration, why not also the present verb rendered here 'obey'] therefore, 0 passage? Jeremiah sees the people attach- Israel, and observe to do it; that it may be ing e. pernicious importance to the opus well with thee," etc. The words, I will operatum of sacrifice. On one occasion he be your God; rather, to you a God, etc., tells them that J chovah cares uot for occur in Lev. :u.vi. 12 (comp. Exod. vi. 7; sacrifices ; he meaus, as the context shows, Deut. xxi.x. 13). Walk ye in all the ways, the sacrifices of men without spiritual etc., is not e. citation, but reminds us of sensibilities. On another, that Jehovah passnges like Deut. ix. 12, 16; xi. 28; xxxi. never commanded their fathers to sacrifice; 29. That it may be well unto you is e. he means (may we not presume?) the mere characteristic phrase of Jeremin.h (eh. xiii. outward forms of the ritual, divorced 6; xxxviii. 20; xl. 9); but is also frequent from the sentiment and practice of piety, in Deuteronomy (comp., besides the passage which, as Hosea tells us (vi. 6), Jehovah quoted above, Dent. iv. 40; v. 16; vi. 18; " deligLts in and not [equivalent to xii. 25). 'more than 'J sacrifice." There is, therefore, Ver. 24.-Imagination; rather, stubborn- no fundamental inconsistency between tho ness (see on oh. iii. 17). Went baokwe.rd1 passage before us and the three passages and not forward; rather, turned their back, first quoted, and if so there can be no real and not their face (literally, became baclc- discrepancy with the last-mentioned passage, warde, and not foru,m·de ). for the priests ( as was remarked) perform Ver. 27.-Therefore thou ehalt speak, etc. their functions on 1,chalf of the people, and rather, and though tlum epealc . . . yet will the permanence of Jehova.h's covenant with they not, etc. ; and though tho1, call unto the priests depended on the spiritual life them, yet will they not answer thee. of the people they represented (read eh. Ver. 28.-But thou she.It say; rather, :uxiii. ns a whole). Thie view seems less tltou shalt there/ore say. A nation; rather, o.rLitrary than that of Ewald, who thinks the 11c,lion. "Whnt one nation in the earth tho.t the sa.crifices spoken of in our passage is like thy people, even liko Israol, whom are merely the free-will offerings of the rich; God went to redeem for a people to him- and than t.he.t of nahlAr, who interprets, self?" (2 Sam. vii. 23). And yet "this i~ on. vu. 1-34.] 'l'IIE BOOK. OF '!'HE PROPHET JEREMIAH. 187