For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them concerning burnt-offerings and sacrifices, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt;
Jeremiah's message strikes at the temple itself: the building the people trusted would not save them. Then comes a line that has puzzled readers ever since — at the exodus, burnt offerings were not what God spoke about, so what does this verse deny?
One writer traces the argument of the whole chapter. Watch what the temple has turned into.
Jeremiah 7 begins a new prophecy, focused especially on the temple. The people had no conscience about it, and wanted the temple to be their protection. Instead, it had become a further demonstration of their sin. They were to remember Shiloh, because the house of God would likewise be overthrown... He required obedience and not sacrifice, and if the people came into His house while they were practising idolatry, they only defiled it.
The point turns on timing. At the exodus itself, God asked for something other than offerings — and one writer answers a claim critics build on this verse.
He brands their sacrifices as worthless. He gave no command concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices in the day He brought them out of Egypt. Destructive critics have built a childish argument on this verse. They use it to prove that Moses did not give the law of sacrifices, and that it came in many centuries later. When the Lord first led them out of Egypt, He gave them no laws about sacrifices, but asked obedience. They did not listen; nor did they in Jeremiah's day.
One writer sets down the words God did speak at that moment, and what they asked for.
In Exodus the word of the Lord to Moses is, "This is what you shall say: You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to Myself." Then: "Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice," and so on. And all the people answered together, "All that the Lord has spoken we will do." I am not speaking here of their ability to keep their promise. I am speaking of the principle of obedience — the only principle on which God could deal with man, or man walk with God.
The verse does not cancel Leviticus. One commentator explains what the offerings were for, and what they were never for.
God did command such sacrifices in Exodus and Leviticus. But He did not command them because He desired such things. He commanded them simply to illustrate that these were all symbols of the one future sacrifice of Christ. Israel should at least have realised that they were only symbols. What they were symbols of, Israel no doubt did not know.
There is a historical side too. What did Israel actually bring to God in the wilderness?
As to history, we have no proof that anyone brought a single offering during the whole time they were in the wilderness. Burnt offerings were always voluntary. Given the state of Israel, it is just as likely they never gave it a thought. They sinned without any regret, and they certainly had never circumcised their children, so they really had no right to offer any sacrifice... Indeed Amos 5:25 complains that they did not offer sacrifice to Jehovah, but took Moloch and Chiun for their gods.
These worshippers kept the outward forms. One writer asks what that means for us now.
The Lord had said that He hated their appointed feasts. Why was this? Was it not because of the formal, empty way the people kept the feasts, while they themselves were defiled with sin and going on with evil? Do you not think you and I can learn a very valuable lesson from this for ourselves today? Suppose the heart is away from God, the hands are defiled with sin, and the feet are not walking in the truth. Do you think the Lord likes a correct form and fine outward worship any better?
- Temple — the building was no shelter. Like Shiloh, it would be overthrown, and worship there alongside idolatry only defiled it.
- First — at the exodus God asked for obedience, not offerings. The verse denies that sacrifices came first, not that God ever gave them.
- Symbol — God never wanted the offerings for their own sake. They pictured the one sacrifice of Christ still to come.
- Unused — Israel's wilderness years bear this out. There is no proof of offerings then, and they carried other gods instead.
- Now — the same swap is alive wherever a correct outward form covers a heart away from God and feet not walking in the truth.
but I commanded them this thing, saying, Hearken unto my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.
Jeremiah preached these words at the temple gate, to people who thought the building itself would save them. God points them back to what He asked for when He first brought Israel out of Egypt: not offerings, but a listening ear.
The verse looks back to the day Israel left Egypt and states what God commanded then. One writer points out what God asked for first, and answers a wrong conclusion critics have drawn from it:
He brands their sacrifices as worthless. He gave no command concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices in the day He brought them out of Egypt. Destructive critics have built a shallow argument on this verse. They use it to prove that Moses did not give the law of sacrifices, and that it came in many centuries later. When the Lord first led them out of Egypt, He gave them no laws about sacrifices, but asked obedience. They did not listen; nor did they in Jeremiah's day.
The people in Jeremiah's day were still bringing sacrifices. The problem was what they were bringing them for:
The rest of Jeremiah 7 reminds the people that obedience was what the Lord claimed, not burnt offerings to hide their sins and stubborn wickedness.
The same misplaced confidence, one writer observes, did not die with Judah:
Their worship was only external. They trusted in the temple of the Lord, as if the house itself carried some blessing and would shield them from disaster… The same false trust in outward forms and ceremonies is only too clear in the Christian world as well. Crowds of unsaved people go through their religious routines and think this protects them and guarantees the Lord's help and blessing.
One writer goes back to what God said to Moses after the Exodus, and to how the people answered:
In Exodus the word of the Lord to Moses is: "Thus you shall say, You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice," and so on. And all the people answered together, "All that the Lord has spoken we will do." I am not speaking here of their ability to keep what they promised. I am speaking of the principle of obedience — the only principle on which God could deal with man, or man walk with God.
The same principle reappears in judgment on a king, in the life of Christ, and in the calling of the believer:
When Saul turned away from God in 1 Samuel 15, judgment rested on the same ground — "Why then did you not obey the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice." We see the same principle, in perfection, in our Lord's constant walk. It is also the character of the believer's sanctification — sanctified to obedience and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:2). This is the purpose, the object, of his sanctification.
"I will be your God, and you shall be my people" is the heart of the offer. One writer weighs what this promise means for Israel and what it means for Christians now:
Next, "I will be their God, and they shall be my people." As this will be Israel's portion in that day, so it is ours now. More than this is ours, because we can say by the Spirit "Abba, Father," Christ's Father and our Father, Christ's God and our God. As before, it will no longer be an imposed ordinance or a possibly empty title of relationship. All is now made real, intrinsic and lasting by His grace.
The closing clause ties wellbeing to walking in the whole way God commands. One writer separates how a person is saved from how much blessing that person enjoys:
If the people honoured the Lord by submitting to His word, He would bless them in the way described — in the land, and with earthly blessings that matched the covenant they lived under. It is different with Christians. Pure unconditional grace saves them. But once saved, their blessing and their enjoyment of spiritual blessing depend on their walk, on obedience to the Word. We must always insist on this. They do not obey to be saved… but God has brought them to Himself through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and their blessing during their stay in this world depends on their subjection to the mind and will of God.
- Voice first. At the Exodus God asked for a listening ear, not for offerings. Sacrifices were never meant to cover disobedience.
- Voice as the only ground. Obedience is the one principle on which God could deal with man, or man walk with God — broken in Saul, perfect in Christ, and the aim of the believer's sanctification.
- Voice refused, form kept. Judah's worship was external; they treated the temple as a shield. Writers apply the same warning to religious observance today.
- Voice answered by relationship. The promise attached is God Himself: not an imposed ordinance or an empty title, but a bond made real and lasting by grace.
- Voice obeyed, wellbeing enjoyed. Christians are not saved by obeying. But their subjection to God's word decides how much of their blessing they enjoy.