GEBible — Godless Engineer's Bible App
You offer polluted bread on my altar. You say, ‘How have we polluted you?’ In that you say, ‘Yahweh’s table is contemptible.’ When you offer the blind for sacrifice, isn’t that evil? And when you offer the lame and sick, isn’t that evil? Present it now to your governor! Will he be pleased with you? Or will he accept your person?” says Yahweh of Armies.
“Now, please entreat the favor of God, that he may be gracious to us. With this, will he accept any of you?” says Yahweh of Armies.
Malachi 1:7-9 sits inside this longer paragraph.
“A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If I am a father, then where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is the respect due me? Says Yahweh of Armies to you, priests, who despise my name. You say, ‘How have we despised your name?’ You offer polluted bread on my altar. You say, ‘How have we polluted you?’ In that you say, ‘Yahweh’s table is contemptible.’ When you offer the blind for sacrifice, isn’t that evil? And when you offer the lame and sick, isn’t that evil? Present it now to your governor! Will he be pleased with you? Or will he accept your person?” says Yahweh of Armies.
“Now, please entreat the favor of God, that he may be gracious to us. With this, will he accept any of you?” says Yahweh of Armies.
You offer polluted bread on my altar. You say, ‘How have we polluted you?’ In that you say, ‘Yahweh’s table is contemptible.’
When you offer the blind for sacrifice, isn’t that evil? And when you offer the lame and sick, isn’t that evil? Present it now to your governor! Will he be pleased with you? Or will he accept your person?” says Yahweh of Armies.
“Now, please entreat the favor of God, that he may be gracious to us. With this, will he accept any of you?” says Yahweh of Armies.
Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the LORD is contemptible.
And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the LORD of hosts.
And now, I pray you, beseech God that he will be gracious unto us: this hath been by your means: will he regard your persons? saith the LORD of hosts.
Ye offer polluted bread upon Mine altar. And ye say: 'Wherein have we polluted thee?' In that ye say: 'The table of the LORD is contemptible.'
And when ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it no evil! And when ye offer the lame and sick, is it no evil! Present it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee? or will he accept thy person? saith the LORD of hosts.
And now, I pray you, entreat the favour of God that He may be gracious unto us! — This hath been of your doing. — Will He accept any of your persons? saith the LORD of hosts.
30 distinct cross-references across this passage (31 total citations).
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv7–9 It was indeed the office of the priests to…
It was indeed the office of the priests to place bread daily on the table; but whence could bread be obtained except some were offered? Now nothing was lost to the priests, when they daily set bread before God, for they presently received it; and thus they preferred, as it was more to their advantage, to offer bread well approved, made of fine flour: but as I have said, their own convenience interposed, for they thought that they could not prevail with the people — “If we irritate these men, they will deny that they have anything to offer; and thus the temple will be empty, and our own houses will be empty; it is then better to take coarse bread from them than nothing; we shall at least feed our families and servants with this bread, after having offered it to the Lord.” We hence see how the fault belonged to the priests, when the people offered polluted bread, and unapproved victims.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv7–9 Ye receive all manner offerings for your own greediness,…
Ye receive all manner offerings for your own greediness, and do not examine whether they be according to my Law, or no.
Not that they said thus, but by their doings they declared no less.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv7–9 Mal 1:7 Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar;…
Mal 1:7 Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the LORD [is] contemptible.
Ver. 7. Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar] Bread, that is, sacrifices and oblations (so Rabbi David expounds it out of Lev 21:6; Lev 3:3 Num 28:2); for the Hebrews call all kind of meat by the name of bread, though it be flesh of ox, lamb, or goat, offered in sacrifice to God, whom they made account that they feasted in their sacrifices. Hence that of the Psalmist in the person of God, "Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?" Psa 50:13. Now the bread was reckoned polluted when it was neither lawful nor acceptable, but prohibited, and therefore abhorred, as much, every whit, as Ezekiel’s bread prepared with man’s dung, Eze 4:13, of which he saith, Eze 4:14 "Ah Lord God! behold, my soul hath not been polluted; neither ever came there abominable flesh into my mouth." What sacrifices God had flatly forbidden, see Lev 22:20-22, &c. Take we heed that we despite not the Lord with seeming honours: we pollute him with our sacrifices, while either for the matter for them we resent him with will worship; as those of old that sacrificed their children (in a foolish imitation of Abraham’s offering his son Isaac), and the Papists at this day in their unbloody sacrifice for the living and the dead, and many other unwarranted fopperies. Or else, when for the manner devotion is placed more in the massy materiality of the outward works than purity of the heart, from which they proceed. This made God complain, Isaiah that all his five senses, nay, his very soul, was offended and vexed at their hypocritical performances, Isa 1:11-15, their very incense, that precious perfume, that was made up of so many sweet spices and pure frankincense, stank in his nostrils. God’s sharp nose easily discerns, and is offended with the stinking breath of the hypocrite’s rotten lungs, though his words be never so scented, and perfumed with shows of holiness. Never did the five cities of the plain send up such poisonous vapours to God as the prayers and other performances of a corrupt and carnal person. And God, not able to abide these ill scents, sends down upon such a counterpoison of fire and brimstone. Good actions from bad men displease: as a man may speak good words, but we cannot hear them, because of his stinking breath; sad as we abhor to taste of a dainty dish if brought to table by a foul nasty sloven, that hath been tumbling in a jakes or wallowing in a quagmire. The very heathens, as they were very curious in the choice of their sacrifices, that they were every way sound and of the best, so they carefully shut out all profane persons; Procul hinc este profani, the priest cried out τις τηδε, who is here. those that were present at the sacrifice answered, πολλοι τ αγαθοι τε παρεισι, here are many, and those all good men. And hence it was that Jehu sees and searches that no servant of Jehovah be crept into the throng of Baal’s worshippers. Well might this search have bred suspicion, were it not that in all those idolatrous sacrifices the first care was to avoid the profane. Even Baal will admit no mixture: how should the true God abide it? Let all Cainists take heed how they draw nigh to him: so Luther calleth offerentes non personam, sed opus personae, all those that offer to God the work done, but do not offer themselves withal. We may fitly call those also Cainists that offer polluted bread, as if God’s table were contemptible; that think anything good enough for God that comes next hand, as Cain did, when Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock, and so offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, God testifying of his gifts, Gen 4:4 Heb 11:4; as likewise Christ did of Mary’s spikenard of great price, defending her against Judas, the thief, that held it waste; whereas he secretly taxeth those rich wretches of baseness, who cast their brass money into the treasury χαλκον, Mar 12:41, as holding the worst piece they had good enough for God and his poor. Surely Papists, with their vowed presents for the very best they have to their he-saints and she-saints; and Turks, with their mosques or temples stately built, when their private houses are low and homely; shall rise up in judgment and condemn such sordid Christians, as cannot give God the best of the best. Solon, the Athenian lawgiver, appointed that their sacrifices should be chosen and selected εκκριτα ειρεια, that the sacrificers should purify themselves some days before, and that none should serve God obiter, in passing, slightly and slenderly, but in all best manner, and with the best preparation they could make beforehand, οικαθεν παρασκευασμενοι. Numa Pompilius, King of the Romans would not have them worship their gods, παρεργψ και αμελως, for fashion and dissolutely; but freed from all other cares and cumbers, σχολην αγοντας απο των αλλων: in the time of Divine service the priests, to prevent distraction, cried out often to the people, Hoc agite, mind the business you are about. So in the primitive times of the Church, the deacons called often upon the people, Sursum corda, Lift up your hearts. And again, Oremus, attendamus, Let us pray, let us attend. For what reason? Prayer without attention and hearing without attention is as a body without a soul. This sentence is written in Hebrew upon the walls of the Jewish synagogues, et si nullibi minus intentionis sit quam in ipsorum precibus, &c., saith mine author, though there is as little true devotion to be seen among them in their services as among any people, unless it be among the Papists, of whom perhaps they learned it, whose devotions are prized more by tale than by weight of zeal, whose holiness is the very outward mark itself, being a brainless head and soulless body. In the isle of Sardinia, as they give way, in the very time of their mass, to vain talking and toying and tumults, so after mass done, they fall to dancing in the midst of the Church, singing in the mean time songs too immodest for an ale house. Henry III, King of France, processiones religiosas non intermittit, at tepidius celebrat, saith the Chronicler, would not neglect their religious processions, but showed little devotion at them. For between him and his cardinal there went at the same time a jester, whose work was to make sport then, when the business required greater seriousness. How much better the Great Turk, who, when he comes into his temple, lays aside all his state, and hath none to attend him but a professor of their law, whose office is to proclaim, before they begin, that nothing be done against religion!
Read full note →
And ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee?] They well understood that by offering polluted sacrifices they polluted God himself (as much as in them lay), and that the dishonour done to God’s service reflected upon himself, and was a despising of his name, Mal 1:6, whereof his true worship is a part, Mic 4:5 1Ki 5:3; 1Ki 5:5. Hence they say not, wherein have we polluted thine altar? but "wherein have we polluted thee?" This is much more done under the New Testament by all unworthy communicants, and unhallowed worshippers, that present the great God with dough baked duties, slubbered services, careless and customary performances which they turn over as a task, holding a certain daily stint of them, as malt horses do their pace: or mill horses their round, merely out of form and for fashion’ sake. These do enough to pollute the God of purity, and to cast contempt upon him from the sons of men; who will be apt to conclude that he is a contemptible God, since he will be content to take up with such contemptible sacrifices and services. But more especially those that come hand over head and without due preparation to the Lord’s supper are guilty of polluting God’s holy things, and of crucifying afresh the Lord of glory, putting him to an open shame. Dum enim sacramenta violantur, ipse cuius sunt Sacramenta, violatur said Jerome. When the sacraments are violated he also, whose the sacraments are, is no less violated. And as these in the text are said to pollute God, in that they offered polluted sacrifices, though they never touched God himself so unworthy receivers are guilty of the Lord’s body and blood, 1Co 11:27, although they never touched either his body or blood with their impure mouths. They are as very kill Christs as Judas was in a proportion; and look whatsoever blasphemies, irrisions, scorns, contumelies, reproaches, the miscreant Jews belched forth and practised corporally against Christ the same are spiritually repeated and reiterated by the unworthy receiver; who polluteth the very outward elements that he toucheth, and so offereth indignity to Christ, whom they represent. Like as he that doth rend, deface, trample under foot and villanously abuse the image, seal, or letter patent of a prince or state, is guilty of high treason; so is it here. The Donatists that cast the holy elements to dogs, did it to the disgrace of Christ; and by a just judgment from him were themselves afterwards devoured of dogs Dr Morton reports a story of his own knowledge of one Booth, a Bachelor of Arts, in St John’s College in Cambridge, who, being Popishly at fected, at the time of the communion took the consecrated bread, and forbearing to eat it, conveyed and kept it closely for a time, and afterwards threw it over the college wall. But a short time after, not enduring the torment of his guilty conscience, he threw himself headlong over the battlements of the chapel; and some few hours after ended his life. God seemeth to say of every one that cometh to the supper of his Son, as sometimes Solomon said of Adonijah, "If he will show himself a worthy man, there shall not a hair of him fall to the earth; but if wickedness shall be found in him, he shall die," 1Ki 1:52.
In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible] God’s infinite patience in vouchsafing not only to reply to these malapert priests, but thus to rejoin, and to approve the assumption of the last syllogism, which they so shamelessly denied, is much to be admired. How justly might he have answered them with blows instead of arguments; and have dealt with them as he did with Pharaoh, that sturdy rebel, that proudly asked, "Who is the Lord?" Hereunto God made a large reply by a great many plagues, one after another, till Pharaoh was forced to answer himself, "The Lord is righteous, but I and my people are wicked." And as God’s patience appeareth in his proceeding with these priests in the text, so his wisdom too, in his thus instancing in particulars of their sins, that he might the sooner evict them, and bring them to a saving sense and sight thereof. Thus he dealt by our first parents in Paradise; and afterwards by Cain. Whereas, without any more ado, the Lord God said unto the serpent, "Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou," &c., Gen 3:14. He was not so much as questioned, or convinced, because God meant him no mercy; but presently doomed, because of mere malice he had offended.
Ye have said] i.e. Ye have thought, as Psa 32:5; Psa 30:7; and as good ye might have spoken out; for I hear the language of your hearts; I understand your thoughts long before, or at a great distance, Psa 139:2.
The table of the Lord] That is, the altar of burnt offerings, see Eze 41:22, which is therefore called a table, because by their sacrifices God did as it were feast the Lord, as is above noted. And as God prepared the Israelites a "table in the wilderness," so they also in a sense prepared him a table: hence Moses tells Pharaoh, that they must go to keep a feast to the Lord, Exo 5:1. And how God accepted of their kindness, see Hos 9:10. I found Israel, saith he, like grapes in the wilderness; which, to a wearied, parched traveller, how welcome are they! And how the good soul still entertaineth her Christ, as Esther once did Ahasuerus at the banquet of wine, is sweetly set forth in many passages of Solomon’s Song. See Mal 1:12. {See Trapp on "Mal 1:12"}
Is contemptible] Or, lightly set by. Some are poor, and cannot; others are profane, and care not to cover God’s altar with their sacrifices. Hence the whole ministry is slighted, because impoverished. For ad tenuitatem beneficiorum, necessario sequitur contemptus sacerdotum, Lean benefices make contemptible incumbents; and Nil habet infelix paupertas, &c. (Horat.), Poverty rendereth men ridiculous. Or thus, The table of the Lord is contemptible, so they esteemed it, because the fat and blood poured upon the altar were things but base and despicable in themselves; and they considered not for what end God had appointed these sacrifices, and how they were to be led to Christ by them. For the ceremonial law was or ought to have been their gospel, it was Christ in figure. And this, if these buzzards had seen, they would never have counted the "table of the Lord contemptible"; as holding forth the Lord Christ unto them, that pearl of price, who is better than rubies; and the altar or table, that typified him, or presented him to his people, was not an oysterboard, as the Papists in King Edward VI’s time scornfully termed our communion table; but far more precious than either that rich table sent by Ptolemy Philadelphus to Eleazar, the Jews’ high priest, or that costly communion table, that had in it all the riches of land and sea, offered up by Justinian, in the temple of Sophia, in Constantinople.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv7–9 Ye offer polluted bread; you through covetousness take any…
Ye offer polluted bread; you through covetousness take any the people bring, whether such as the law requires or no. If it answer not the perfection of the law, yet you first make it serve me, through your contempt of me, and then to serve your turn to feed you and yours.
Polluted; either by ill-managing it, and misordering what is good and allowable, or accepting what is disallowed and forbidden, because of its blemishes.
Read full note →
Bread; either the shew-bread, of which Exo 25:30; or meat-offerings, Exo 29:41; Le 2; Num 28:5; or, in a more large sense, all that was to be offered unto God, sacrifices and oblations.
Upon mine altar: by this it appears bread is to be expounded here of sacrifices, and not to be confined to the narrow bounds of this one kind.
And ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? they stand upon their own justification, and proudly contend with God, either implying they did not offer such polluted things, or if they were defective, and in law sense polluted, yet that this did redound to God, or affect him no more than the perfection of them could add to him.
In that ye say; perhaps in words, however by your deeds you speak your thoughts and judgment; you think so, and then act so.
The table; before it was altar, now it is table, not to be opposed each to other, but comprehending both, and all that was offered unto God on both.
Is contemptible; as if they measured sacrifice and oblation by the splendour and riches of the temple and altar; the first were more pompous than the second, and these priests probably thought they might abate in the qualities of the offerings, as this temple abated in its splendour; they contemned this, and then contemn those offerings.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv7–9 Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar,.... Which some…
Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar,.... Which some understand of the shewbread, mention being afterwards made of a "table", as Jerom; who observes that it was made of wheat, which the priests themselves sowed, reaped, ground, and baked, and so could take what they would out of it: as for their sowing it, it does not seem likely that they should be employed in such service, whatever may be said for their reaping; since the sheaf of the first fruits was reaped by persons deputed from the sanhedrim (w); though of the reaping of that for the shewbread, I find no mention made; but as for grinding, sifting, kneading, and making it into loaves, and baking it, and taking it out of the oven, and putting it upon the table of shewbread, all this was the work of the priests (x); and those of the house of Garmu (y) were appointed over that work: now, this bread might be said to be polluted, when they set upon the table such as was not made of fine wheat flour, and had not pure frankincense put upon or by each row, as the law required, Lev 24:5 nor is it any material objection to this sense, that it is an altar, and not a table, on which this bread was offered; since, as the altar is called a table, Eze 41:22, as this is in a following clause, the table may be called an altar; though it may be observed, that the shewbread is never said to be offered, but to be set, or put upon the table: indeed the burning of the frankincense set by it is called an offering made by fire unto the Lord, Lev 24:7 wherefore others interpret this of the daily meat offering, which went along with the daily sacrifice of the lambs, and part of which was burnt on the altar, Exo 29:40 or rather this designs sacrifice in general, sometimes called "bread", Lev 3:11 and so the Targum here,
"ye offer upon my altar an abominable offering;''
Read full note →
such as had blemishes in them, were blind or lame, as after mentioned; and had not the requisites of a sacrifice in them; or were offered not in a right manner, or by bad men, and with a wicked mind:
and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? thy bread offering or altar; as if their offerings were pure, and they themselves, and their consciences pure from sin. The answer is,
In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible; either the shewbread table, which yet was covered with gold, and all the vessels of it made of gold; or the altar, as in Eze 41:22 their actions spoke so loud, and declared that the table or altar of the Lord was a contemptible thing, since they cared not what was offered upon it: or the reason why it was had in contempt, as some think, was because there was not that holiness in the second temple as in the first: or, as Abarbinel and Kimchi say, because of the fat and the blood which were offered on the altar, which they esteemed contemptible things; not observing the end for which the Lord commanded them to be offered.
(w) Misn. Menachot, c. 10. sect. 3. (x) Maimon. Hilchot Tamidin, c. 5. sect. 6. (y) Misn. Shekalim, c. 5. sect. 1.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv7–9 Bread - Either the meal-offerings, or rather in a…
Bread - Either the meal-offerings, or rather in a more large sense, all sacrifices and oblations. Ye say - Perhaps in words; at least your deeds speak your thoughts. The table - This comprehends all that was offered to God.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv7–9 Verse 7. Ye offer polluted bread] The priests, probably…
Verse 7. Ye offer polluted bread] The priests, probably to ingratiate themselves with the people, took the refuse beasts, c., and offered them to God and thus the sacrificial ordinances were rendered contemptible.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv7, 9 Mal 1:7-8. Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar…
Mal 1:7-8. Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar — By this seems to be meant, the bread-offering, or the cake of fine flour, which was to be offered with the continual sacrifice in the morning and evening of every day. By being polluted is to be understood, that it was not such as the law required. They diminished something, either in the quality or quantity of what the law commanded them to offer; either the bread was not made of good flour, or mixed with the required quantity of good oil. And ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? — Or dishonoured, or had thee in contempt? The answer is ready, In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible — You pretend, as a cover for your avarice, that the table or altar of the Lord is despised among the people, and that therefore they do not bring to it, by way of offering, that quantity of flour and oil which they should. Or the meaning is, By your actions you declare how little value you have for the worship of God, since you care not in how slight and contemptuous a manner it is performed. And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? — The beasts to be offered were required to be perfect and without blemish, Lev 22:21-22. Offer it now to thy governor; will he be pleased with thee? — Wilt thou be acceptable or welcome unto him, bringing him such a worthless present? It argues a great contempt of Almighty God, when men are less careful in maintaining the decencies of his worship than they are in giving proper respect to their superiors.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv7–9 Offering polluted bread upon Mine altar - This, continuing…
Offering polluted bread upon Mine altar - This, continuing on the words, “despisers of My Name,” , is the answer to their question, “Wherein have we despised Thy Name?” “Bread” might stand, in itself, either for the showbread, or for the מנחה minchāh, meal-offering, which was the necessary accompaniment of sacrifices and sometimes the whole.
But here the “polluted bread” cannot be the showbread, since this was not put upon the altar, but upon its own table; and although the altar is, as here, also called “a table” , in regard to the sacrifice hereon consumed, “the table” of the showbread is nowhere called “altar.” The prophet then means by “bread,” either the meal-offering, as representing the sacrifice, or the offerings by fire altogether, as in Ezekiel Eze 44:7, “When ye offer My bread, the fat and the blood;” and in Leviticus “the offerings of the Lord, made by fire, the bread of their God, do they offer;” and of the “peace-offering Lev 3:11, the priest shall burn it upon the altar; the bread of the offering made by fire unto the Lord:” and specifically, of animals with blemish, as these, it is forbidden Lev 22:25, “Neither from a stranger’s hand shall ye offer the bread of your God of any of these, because their corruption is in them, blemishes in them: they shall not be accepted for you.” It was, as it were, a feast of God with man, and what was withdrawn from the use of man by fire, was, as it were, consumed by God, to whom it was offered.
Read full note →
It was “polluted,” in that it was contrary to the law of God which forbade to sacrifice any animal, “lame or blind” or with “any ill blemish,” as being inconsistent with the typical perfection of the sacrifice. Even the Gentiles were careful about the perfection of their sacrifices.
“Blind is the sacrifice of the soul, which is not illumined by the light of Christ. Lame is his sacrifice of prayer, who comes with a double mind to entreat the Lord.” “He offereth one weak, whose heart is not established in the grace of God, nor by the anchor of hope fixed in Christ. These words are also uttered against those who, being rich, offer to the Creator the cheaper and least things, and give small alms.”
“And ye say, Wherewith have we polluted Thee?” It is a bold expression. Yet a word, to which we are but too ill-accustomed, which expresses what most have done, “dishonor God,” comes to the same. Though less bold in expression, they are yet like in meaning Eze 13:19. “Will ye pollute Me anymore among My people?” or Eze 20:9, Eze 20:14, Eze 20:22, “that My Name should not be polluted before the pagan Eze 43:7. My holy Name shall Israel no more defile Eze 39:7, “I will not let them pollute My Name anymore.” “Much more in the new law, in which the Sacrifice is Christ Himself our God, whence the Apostle says expressly 1Co 11:27, “Whoso eateth this bread and drinketh this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” “For when the sacraments are violated, Himself, whose sacraments they are, is violated.” God speaks of our acts with an unveiled plainness, which we should not dare to use. “As we are said to sanctify God, when we minister to Him in holiness and righteousness, and so, as far as in us lies, show that He is holy; so we are said to pollute Him, when we conduct ourselves irreverently and viciously before Him, especially in His worship, and thereby, as far as in us lies, show that He is not holy and is to be dishonored.”
“In that ye say, the table of the Lord is contemptible,” literally “contemptible is it,” , and so any contemptible thing might be offered on it. They said this probably, not in words, but in deeds. Or, if in words, in plausible words. “God doth not require the ornamenting of the altar, but the devotion of the offerers.” “What good is it, if we offer the best? Be what we offer, what it may, it is all to be consumed by fire.” “The pretext at once of avarice and gluttony!” And so they kept the best for themselves. They were poor, on their return from the captivity. Anyhow, the sacrifices were offered. What could it matter to God? And so they dispensed with God’s law.
“So at this day we see some priests and prelates, splendid in their tables and feasts, sordid in the altar and temple; on the table are costly napkins and wine; on the altar torn linen and wine-mace rather than wine.” “We pollute the bread, that is, the Body of Christ, when we approach the altar unworthily, and, being defiled, drink that pure Blood, and say, ‘The table of the Lord is contemptible;’ not that anyone dareth to say this, but the deeds of sinners pour contempt on the table of God.”
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv7–8 Bread, including all the victims, &c., Leviticus iii. 11.,…
Bread, including all the victims, &c., Leviticus iii. 11., and Numbers xxviii. 2. (Calmet) --- By vile presents they shew their contempt of God. (Worthington)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv7–9 ye offer, &c.--God's answer to their challenge (Mal 1:6),…
ye offer, &c.--God's answer to their challenge (Mal 1:6), "Wherein have we despised?"
polluted bread--namely, blemished sacrifices (Mal 1:8, Mal 1:13-14; Deu 15:21). So "the bread of thy God" is used for "sacrifices to God" (Lev 21:8).
Read full note →
polluted thee--that is, offered to thee "polluted bread."
table of the Lord--that is, the altar (Eze 41:22) (not the table of showbread). Just as the sacrificial flesh is called "bread."
contemptible-- (Mal 1:12-13). Ye sanction the niggardly and blemished offerings of the people on the altar, to gain favor with them. Darius, and probably his successors, had liberally supplied them with victims for sacrifice, yet they presented none but the worst. A cheap religion, costing little, is rejected by God, and so is worth nothing. It costs more than it is worth, for it is worth nothing, and so proves really dear. God despises not the widow's mite, but he does despise the miser's mite [MOORE].
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv7, 9 7, 8. The insult consists in the presentation upon…
7, 8. The insult consists in the presentation upon Jehovah’s altar of gifts and sacrifices which they would not dare to offer to an earthly ruler.
Ye offer — The priests. They should have refused to accept improper offerings from the worshipers (Lev_22:17-25), and should have instructed them in their duties (Mal_2:7), but they did not guard the interests of Jehovah.
Read full note →
Bread — Or, food. Here in the more specific sense of food of the Deity, that is, sacrifice, which is called bread of God (Lev_21:6; Lev_21:8; Eze_44:7).
Polluted — Or, unclean. The sacrifice is so called because (1) it was offered in a spirit of hypocrisy; (2) the animals presented were blemished and therefore unfit for sacrifice (Mal_1:8; Mal_1:12; compare Lev_22:17-25). This accusation also is resented.
Wherein have we polluted thee? — The idea underlying the question is that to touch or eat anything unclean makes a person unclean (compare Eze_13:19; Hag_2:13). The question does not follow naturally upon the preceding accusation, which already supplies an answer to it, nor is the succeeding clause a suitable answer. LXX. gives a preferable reading, “Wherewith have we polluted it?” that is, the bread which the prophet has called polluted. To which the prophet replies, By saying that the table of Jehovah is contemptible. This they have said not in words but by the actions described in Mal_1:8.
Table — As sacrifice is called food, so the altar may be called a table.
Contemptible — In the sense that anything is good enough for it.
In 8a the prophet points out how they show their contempt for the altar and for Jehovah.
If — Better, R.V., “when.”
Ye offer the blind — Therefore unfit for sacrifice (Lev_22:22).
Is it not evil? — Better, R.V., “it is no evil!” The words are used ironically; according to their own notions it is no evil.
Lame and sick — Also unfit for sacrifice (Lev_22:20-25; Deu_15:21). Would they dare to present such gifts to an earthly governor? But if not, how can they justify themselves for presenting them to one greater than he?
Offer — R.V., “Present,” as a gift. The sacrifices are gifts presented to Jehovah.
Thy governor — At this time probably a Persian, whose favor might be bought; but he would refuse to have anything to do with a present of little or no value, and with the person presenting such gift.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv7–9 7. Ye offer polluted bread] i.e. sacrifices. The word…
7. Ye offer polluted bread] i.e. sacrifices. The word is often used in this sense and rendered food; e.g. Lev_3:11; Lev_3:16. Elsewhere the sacrifices are called, the bread or food of God. Lev_21:6; Lev_21:8; Eze_44:7.
Their duty, as expounders of the Law (ch. Mal_2:7), was to refuse to offer such sacrifices when they were brought to them, and to teach the people that they were expressly forbidden. Lev_22:17-25; Deu_15:21. “Sacerdotes debuerant illa omnia rejicere, et potius claudere Templum Dei, quam ita promiscue admittere quæ Deus sibi offerri prohibuerat.” Calvin.
Read full note →
polluted thee] Comp. “ye have profaned me,” Eze_13:19, R.V. “It is a bold expression. God speaks of our acts with an unveiled plainness, which we should not dare to use.” Pusey.
ye say] by your conduct, if not in words.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv7–9 (7) Ye offer.—Literally, offering.
(7) Ye offer.—Literally, offering.
Bread.—This is not the shewbread, which was not offered upon the altar. The word rendered “bread” means in Arabic “flesh;” in Hebrew, “food generally.” This word is applied (Lev_3:11; Lev_3:16) to the fat portions of the peace offerings, which were burned, and is there translated “food.” (See references there.) In Lev_21:6; Lev_21:8; Lev_21:17; Lev_21:21-22; Lev_22:25, it is used of the sacrifices generally, but is there inconsistently translated “bread.”
Read full note →
Polluted.—The Hebrew word does not occur in this sense in the Pentateuch, but we have it in Dan_1:8 in the reflexive conjugation: “to allow himself to be defiled” with food, and in the active (“polluted thee”) in this verse. The context shows that the words “polluted bread” means “food unfit to be offered.” “Polluted me” is the same as “profaned [my name]” (Mal_1:12); for in the Hebrew Scriptures “God” and “God’s name” are often equivalent expressions (Comp. Mal_2:5). Keil takes the words, which he wrongly translates, “ye that offer polluted bread,” as parallel to the words “despisers of my name,” and to a certain degree explanatory of them; while he finds the actual answer to the questions, “Wherein have we despised?” “Wherein have we polluted?” is given in the words, “In that ye say,” &c. He renders the passage thus:—
Saith the Lord of hosts unto you,
“Ye priests, who despise my name!”
And yet say, “Wherein have we despised thy name?”
“Ye who offer on mine altar polluted food.”
And yet say, “Wherein have we polluted thee?”
(Ans.) [Ye have despised my name and polluted me], in that ye say, “The table of the Lord is contemptible.”
The error of this rendering consists in supposing that “offering polluted food,” which is anathrous, can be parallel to “Ye priests who despise my name,” which is defined by the definite article. In truth, the English Version is perfectly correct. We will repeat it with only the slightest possible verbal alterations. and with such parenthetical explanations as are required to make it quite intelligible:—Saith the Lord of hosts unto you, “O priests, that despise my name!”
[This is the commencement of a prophetic rebuke to the priests; but they, in accordance with the prophet’s graphic style of writing, are supposed to catch him up at the first clause of his utterance.]
“But” [despisers of God’s name!] say ye, “wherein have we despised thy name?”
(Ans.) “Offering [as ye do] polluted food upon mine altar.”
“ But,” say ye, “wherein have we polluted thee?”
(Ans.) “When, now, ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil?” &c.
Say—i.e., show by your conduct that such is your feeling. “This was their inward thought . . . he puts these thoughts into abrupt, bold, hard words, which might startle them for their hideousness, as if he would say, this is what your acts mean. He exhibits the worm and the decay which lay under the whited exterior.”—Pusey.
Table—i.e., altar, as in Eze_41:22 : “The altar . . . this is the table that is before the Lord.” (Comp. Ezek. 49:16.)]
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv7–9 Ye offer polluted bread (food) upon mine altar. The…
Ye offer polluted bread (food) upon mine altar. The prophet answers the priests simply by detailing some of their practices. The "bread" (lechem) is not the shewbread, which was not offered on the altar, but the flesh of the offered victims. (see Lev_3:11, 16 21:6 22:25) This was "polluted" in that it was not offered in due accordance with the ceremonial Law, as is further explained in the next verse. Wherein have we polluted thee? They did not acknowledge the truth that (as St. Jerome says) "when the sacraments are violated, he himself, whose sacraments they are, is violated". (comp. Eze_13:19 Eze_20:9 Eze_39:7) The table of the Lord is contemptible. This was the thought of their heart, if they did not give open expression to it in words. The "table of the Lord" (ver. 12) is the altar, on which were laid the sacrifices, regarded as the food. of God, and to be eaten by the fire. (Eze_41:22 Eze_44:16) They showed that they despised the altar by fancying that anything was good enough for offering thereon, as the next verse explains.
Vers. 7, 8. Irreverence its causes and signs.
Read full note →
Notice how in many places Malachi puts the thoughts of sinners into bold and bald words. He interprets their conduct in speech, that they may see the offensiveness of their thoughts and acts. Sins of the heart may sometimes be best exposed by translating them into unsubmissive or even impious prayers. They cannot endure the light when they are paraded in speech under the scrutiny of our fellow men. Still less can they tolerate the brightness that proceeds from the throne of grace, where God seeth in secret, that he may answer him "that setteth up his idols in his heart" "according to the multitude of his idols". (Eze_14:3, Eze_14:4) In this section the irreverence of the priests and people is exposed y the prophet calling things by their right names. Note
I SOME OF THE CAUSES OF IRREVERENCE.
1. Inadequate views of the holiness of God and the sinfulness of men. We forget the names and titles of the God with whom we have to do "Lord of hosts," "Master," "Father," "a great King," "glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders," etc. We forget our own utter sinfulness and unworthiness as "dust and ashes," "the imagination of whose heart is evil from our youth," to have any intercourse with the Thrice-holy One. (cf. Job_40:3-5) If it is hard to appreciate this, we may be helped by the contrast between what we see in the characters of Christ and of ourselves. Illust.: Peter. (Luk_5:8)
2. Familiarity with sacred things. It may "breed contempt." The altar and its offerings were regarded as commonplace or even despicable objects. The worship of God, the table of the Lord, the most sacred acts and objects may be observed and resorted to without the slightest expectation of gaining good. They might be means of grace, but familiarity makes them contemptible.
3. The indolence which shrinks from the effort needed to stir up ourselves to take hold of God. (Isa_64:7) Worship must be a spiritual service; it may be a "conflict" an agwn . (Col_2:1) Indolence may beget irreverence, and will, in its turn, be a sign of it.
II SOME OF THE SIGNS OF IRREVERENCE. We may copy the evil example of the Jews in bringing blind, lame, sick, or polluted offerings.
1. Formal and half-hearted services. "Blind is the sacrifice of the soul which is not illumined by the light of Christ. Lame is his sacrifice of prayer who comes with a double mind to entreat the Lord". (Jerome; Mat_15:8)
2. Superstitious services; e.g. blind obedience to a man claiming to be a priest, which may save the trouble of searching for God with all the heart. Unintelligent worship, perhaps in an unknown tongue, as though a lesson learned by rote would suffice for the Divine Teacher.
3. Offering to God what we should not dare to offer to an earthly superior (ver. 8). As though we would say, "God is not very particular." Yet he requires the very best service we can render. Such conduct is virtual dishonesty, for the intention to sacrifice to God at all implies the sacrificing of our best. Illust.: David (2Sa_24:24; cf. Mat_22:37). Note how the revelation of God in Christ shows still more impressively his claims on our highest services. "The Lamb that was slain" is worthy to receive everything and the best of everything we can offer to him. (Rev_5:12)
4. Still grosser forms of irreverence are seen in the Corinthians feasting at the Eucharist, and thus despising the Church of the living God, (1Co_11:22) and making the table of the Lord contemptible; or in men celebrating a sacred rite as a passport to some secular office; or in getting rid of a base coin at a collection, like "the deceiver" in ver.
14.
Learn:
1. The many subtle forms of a deep-seated sin of the heart. (Jer_17:9)
2. The need of radical remedies such as Divine power alone can employ. (Luk_6:43 45 Psa_19:12-14)
Polluted bread; or, priestly sins.
What was consumed upon the altar was regarded as God"s portion, and may, in a figure, be called "the bread of God." "The offerings of the Lord made by fire, and the bread of God, they do offer: therefore they shall be. (Lev_21:6) By "polluted bread" we are to understand maimed and blemished sacrifices. The Divine reproach is that the priests show how little value they have for the worship of God, since they do not care in how slight and contemptuous a manner it is performed. The Prophet Malachi deals very largely with the unfaithfulness, the unpriestliness, of the priests of his day. It was at once a sign of a sad condition of morals and religion when the priests failed of their duty; and the way to recover the nation to righteousness, when the priests were recalled to the sense of their obligations.
I SOCIETY REVEALED IN THE UNFAITHFULNESS OF THE PRIESTS. These may be taken as representing the clergy of the Christian generations. It has always been true that society is reflected in the moral standard of the clergy. This is embodied in the saying, "Like priest, like people;" and it is a wider and more searching truth than is usually apprehended. The clergy are the moral barometers by which the atmosphere of an age is discovered. The priests of Malachi"s time declare the moral and religious degeneracy of the people. "The saddest sign of all was the degeneracy of the priesthood which Malachi, though perhaps himself a priest, was specially commissioned to denounce. The lack of all real faith and moral soundness in the very order which ought to have kept alive among the people the essential elements of the spiritual life, was eating like a cancer into the heart of the national sincerity" (Farrar). It may be shown that priestly indifference and unfaithfulness are products and results of neglected personal religious life. So long as priestly duties are instinct with spiritual feeling they will be worthily performed. When personal godliness fails, they become perfunctory, and then if in seeming they are kept up, in reality they deteriorate. It is in maintaining the personal religious life that priests lead the nations.
II SOCIETY IS RECOVERED BY THE RECOVERY OF THE PRIESTS. Therefore Malachi appeals to them. It may be that the priests are the last to yield to the society evils; but they must always be the first recovered. They must become forces on the side of Cad in the restoration of moral health to a nation. Revivals are always hopeless things unless their first effect is the spiritual revival of the clergy. R.T.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv7–9 Ye offer polluted bread upon Mine altar.
Mal_1:7
Ye offer polluted bread upon Mine altar.
Read full note →
The sacrament polluted
What closeness of attention, what concentration of thought does it not require of us, if we consider the great and comprehensive views, which animated the Saviour of the world when He instituted the sacrament of the Supper! Behold Him prepared to finish the great work, which heaven has given Him to do. He comes to substitute Himself in the room of those victims whose blood could do nothing towards the purification of guilty man. What shall He do to support Himself in the prospect of such tremendous arrangements? Love formed the generous design of the sacrifice which He is ready to offer up; and love will carry Him through the arduous undertaking. He says to Himself, that the memory of this death, which He is going to endure, shall be perpetuated in the churches, even to the end of the world. He Himself institutes the memorial of it. Malachi severely censures the priests of his day, because called, as they were, to maintain good order in the Church, they calmly overlooked, or avowedly countenanced, the open violation of it. He reproaches them for this misconduct, by the example of what a son owes to his father, and a servant to his master. (James Saurin.)
The table of the Lord profaned
1. Let us state the parallel between the altar of burnt-offerings, the table of the shew-bread, and the sacramental table of the Lords Supper; the offerings which were presented to God on the first, and those which we still present to him on the second. The viands presented on both the one and the other are the meat of God, or the bread of God. The sacred ceremonies are destined to the same end, and represent the same mysteries, namely, the intimate union which God wishes to maintain with His Church and people. The august ceremony of the holy sacrament is a mystery of reconcilia tion between the penitent sinner and the God of mercy. What made the ancient Jews profane the table of the Lord How came they to say, The table of the Lord is contemptible? It was--
(1) Because they formed not just ideas of the end which God proposed to Himself, when He enjoined the observance of these solemnities.
(2) It arose from their unwillingness to fulfil the moral engagements which the ceremonial observance imposed.
(3) It proceeded from their wanting a just sense of the value of the blessings communicated by these. The sources of unworthy communicating in the Christian world are the same--want of illumination; want of virtue; want of feeling. Apply to those who, on reviewing their former communion services, see cause to consider themselves as chargeable with the guilt which God imputed to the Jews who lived in the days of Malachi. Reflect on the shortness of the time usually devoted to preparation for partaking of the Lords Supper. And on the slightness of the changes which these solemnities produce. Do not deceive yourselves. Study to know and feel the whole extent of your felicity and let a sense of the benefits with which God hath loaded thee, kindle the hallowed flame of gratitude in your hearts. (James Saurin.)
The profession ant the practice of religion
1. These should always be in accord. Any discrepancy between them is morally unnatural. Our conduct should accord with our creed, our deeds with our doctrines. These priests showed--
(1) A lawless spirit.
(2) A niggardly spirit.
(3) A captious spirit.
(4) A thoughtless spirit. (Homilist.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On v8
Malachi
BLEMISHED OFFERINGS
Read full note →
Mal 1:8.
A word of explanation may indicate my purpose in selecting this, I am afraid, unfamiliar text. The Prophet has been vehemently rebuking a characteristic mean practice of the priests, who were offering maimed and diseased animals in sacrifice. They were probably dishonest as well as mean, because the worshippers would bring sound beasts, and the priests, for their own profit, slipped in a worthless animal, and kept the valuable one for themselves. They had become so habituated to this piece of economical religion, that they saw no harm in it, and when they offered the lame and the sick and the blind for sacrifice they said to themselves, ‘It is not evil.’ And so Malachi, with the sudden sharp thrust of my text, tries to rouse their torpid consciences. He says to them: ‘Take that diseased creature that you are not ashamed to lay on God’s altar, and try what the governor’-the official appointed by the Persian Kings to rule over the returned exiles-’will think about it. Will an offering of that sort be considered a compliment or an insult? Do you think it will smooth your way or help your suit with him? Surely God deserves as much reverence as the deputy of Artaxerxes. Surely what is not good enough for a Persian satrap is not good enough for the Lord of Hosts. Offer it to the governor, will he be pleased with it? Will he accept thy person?’
Now, it seems to me that this cheap religion of the priests, and this scathing irony of the Prophet’s counsel need little modification to fit us very closely. You will bear me witness, I think, that I do not often speak to you about money. But I am going to try to bring out something about the great subject of Christian administration of earthly possessions from this text, because I believe that the Christian consciousness of this generation does need a great deal of rousing and instructing about this matter.
I. We note the startling and strange contrast which the text suggests.
The diseased lamb was laid without scruple or hesitation on God’s altar, and not one of these tricky priests durst have taken it to Court in order to secure favour there. Generalise that, and it comes to this-the gifts that we lavish on men are the condemnation of the gifts that we bring to God; and further, we should be ashamed to offer to men what we are not in the least ashamed to bring to God. Let me illustrate in one or two points.
Let us contrast in our own consciences, for instance, the sort of love that we give to one another with the sort of love that we bring to Him. How strong, how perennially active, how delighting in sacrifice and service, what a felt source of blessedness is the love that knits many husbands and wives, many parents and children, many lovers and friends together! And in dreadful contrast, how languid, how sporadic and interrupted, how reluctant when called upon for service and sacrifice, how little operative in our lives is the love we bring to God! We durst not lay upon the altar of family affection, of wedded love, of true friendship, a love of such a sort as we take to God and expect Him to he satisfied with. It would be an insult if offered to ‘the governor,’ but we think it good enough for the King of kings. Here a gushing flood, there a straitened trickle coming drop by drop; here a glowing flame that fills life with warmth and light, there a few dying embers. Measure and contrast the love that is lavished by men upon one another, and the love that is coldly brought to Him. And I think we must all bow our heads penitently.
Contrast the trust that we put in one another, and the trust that we direct to Him. In the one case it is absolute. ‘I am as sure as I am of my own existence that so-and-so will always be as true as steel to me, and will never fail me, and whatever he, or she, does, or fails to do, no shadow of suspicion, or mist of doubt, will creep across the sunshine of our sky.’ And in contrast to the firm grasp with which we clasp an infirm human hand, there is a tremulous touch, scarcely a grasp at all, which we lay upon the one Hand that is strong enough always to be outstretched for our defence and our blessing. Contrast your confidence in men, and your confidence in God. Are we not all committing the absurdity of absolutely trusting that which has no stability or stay, and refusing so to trust that which is the Rock of Ages? God’s faithfulness is absolute, our faith in it is tremulous. Men’s faithfulness is uncertain, our faith in it is entire.
We might contrast the submission and obedience with which we follow those who have secured our confidence and evoked our love, as contrasted with the rebellion, the reluctance, the self-will, which come in to break and mar our submission to God. Men that will not take Jesus Christ for their Master, and refuse to follow Him when He speaks, will bind themselves to some human teacher, and enrol themselves as disciples in some school of thought or science or philosophy, with a submission so entire, that it puts to shame the submission which Christians render to the Incarnate Truth Himself.
And so I might go on, all round the horizon of our human nature, and signalise the difference that exists between the blemished sacrifices which each part of our being dares to bring to God and expects Him to accept, and the sacrifices, unblemished and spotless, which we carry to one another.
But let me say a word more directly about the subject of which Malachi is speaking. It seems to me that we may well take a very condemnatory contrast between what we offer to God in regard to our administration of earthly good, and what we offer on other altars. Contrast what you give, for directly beneficent and Christian purposes, with what you spend, without two thoughts, on your own comfort, indulgence, recreation, tastes-sometimes doubtful tastes-and the like. Contrast England’s drink bill and England’s missionary contribution. We spend ?10,000,000 on some wretched war, and some of you think it is cheap at the price, and the whole contributions of English Christians to missionary purposes in a twelvemonth do not amount to a tenth of that sum. You offer that to the spread of Christ’s kingdom. ‘Offer it to your Government,’ and try to compound for your share of the ten millions that you are going to spend in shells and gunpowder by the amount you give to Christian missions, and you will very soon have the tax-gatherer down on you. ‘Will he be pleased with it?’
This one Missionary Society with which we are nominally connected has an income of ?70,000 a year. I suppose that is about a shilling per head from the members of our congregations. Of this congregation there are many that never give us a farthing, except, perhaps, the smallest coin in their pockets when the collecting-box comes round. I do not suppose that there is one of us that applies the underlying principle in our text, of giving God our best, to this work. I am not going to urge you. It is my business now simply to state, as boldly and strongly as I can, the fact; and I say with all sadness, with self-condemnation, as well as bringing an indictment against my brethren, but with the clearest conviction that I am not exaggerating in the smallest degree, that the contrast between what we lavish on other things and what we give for God’s work in the world, is a shameful contrast, like that other which the Prophet gibbeted with his indignant eloquence.
II. And now let me come to another point-viz., that we have here suggested and implied the true law and principle on which all Christian giving of all sorts is to be regulated.
And that is-give the best. The diseased animal was no more fit for the altar of God than it was for the shambles of the viceroy. It was the entire and unblemished one that would be accepted in either case. But for us Christian people that general principle has to be expanded. Let me do it in two or three sentences.
The foundation of all is ‘the unspeakable Gift.’ Jesus Christ has given Himself, God has given His Son. And Jesus Christ and God, in giving, gave up that we might receive. Do you believe that? Do you believe it about yourself? If you do, then the next step becomes certain. That gift, truly received by any man, will infallibly lead to a kindred {though infinitely inferior} self-surrender. If once we come within the circle of the attraction of that great Sun, if I might so say, it will sweep us clean out of our orbit, and turn us into satellites reflecting His light. To have self for our centre is death and misery, to have Christ for our centre is life and blessedness. And the one power that decentralises a man, and sweeps him into an orbit around Jesus, is the faithful acceptance of His great gift. Just as some little State will give up its independence in order to be blessedly absorbed into a great Empire, on the frontiers of which it maintains a precarious existence, so a man is never so strong, never so blessed, never so truly himself, as when the might of Christ’s sacrifice has melted down all his selfishness, and has made it flow out in rivers of self-surrender, self-absorption, self-annihilation, and so self-preservation. ‘He that loseth his life shall find it.’
Then the next step is that this self-surrender, consequent upon my faithful acceptance of the Lord’s surrender for me, changes my whole conception as to what I call my possessions. If I, in the depths of my soul, have yielded myself to Jesus Christ, which I shall have done if I have truly accepted Him as yielding Himself for me, then the yielding of self draws after it, necessarily, and without a question, a new relation between me and all that I have and all that I can do. Capacities, faculties, means, opportunities, powers of brain and heart and mind, and everything else-they all belong to Him. As in old times a nobleman came and put his hands between the King’s hands, and kneeling before him surrendered his lands, and all his property, to the over-lord, and got them back again for his own, so we shall do, in the measure in which we have accepted Christ as our Saviour and our Guide. And so, because am His, I shall feel that I am His steward to administer what He gives me, not for myself, but for men and for God.
Then there follows another thing, and that is, that Christian giving, not of money only, but of money in a very eminent degree, is only right and truly Christian when you give yourself with your gift. A great many of us put our sixpence, or our half-crown, or our sovereign, into the plate, and no part of ourselves goes with it, except a little twinge of unwillingness to part with it. That is how they fling bones to dogs. That is not how you have to give your money and your efforts to God and God’s cause. Farmers nowadays sow their seed-corn out of a machine with a number of little conical receptacles at the back of it and a small hole in the bottom of each, and as the thing goes bumping along over the furrows, out they fall. That drill does as well as, and better than, the hand of the sower scattering the seed, but it does not do near as well in the Christian agriculture in sowing the seed of the Kingdom. Machine-work will not do there; we have to have the sower’s hand, and the sower’s heart with his hand, as he scatters the seed. Brethren! apply the lesson to yourselves, and let your sympathies and your prayers and your wishes to help go along with your gifts, if you intend them to be of any good.
And there is another thing, and that is that, somehow or other, if not in the individual gifts, at all events in their aggregate, there must be present the fact of sacrifice. ‘I will not offer unto the Lord burnt offerings of that which doth cost me nothing,’ said the old king. And we do not give as we ought, unless our gifts involve some measure of sacrifice. From many a subscription list some of the biggest donations would disappear, like the top-writing in one of those old manuscripts where the Gospel has been half-erased and written over with some foolish legend, which vanishes when the detergent liquid is applied to the parchment, if that thought were brought to bear upon it. God asks how much is kept, not how much is given.
Now, dear friends, these are all threadbare, elementary, ‘A.B.C.’ truths. Are they the alphabet of our stewardship and administration of our possessions?
III. One last suggestion I would make on this text is that it brings before us the possible blessing and possible grave results of right or wrong Christian giving.
‘Will he be pleased with it? Or will he accept thy person?’ Will the governor think the hobbling creature, blind of an eye, and infected with some sickness, to be a beautiful addition to his flock? Will it help your suit with him? No!
It is New Testament teaching that our faithfulness in the administration of earthly possessions of all sorts has a bearing on our spiritual life. Remember our Lord’s triple illustration of this principle, when He speaks about faithfulness ‘in that which is least,’ leading on to the possession of that which is the greatest; when He speaks of faithfulness in regard to ‘the unrighteous Mammon’ leading on to being intrusted with the true riches; when He speaks of faithfulness in our administration of that which is another’s-alien to ourselves, and which may pass into the possession of a thousand more-leading on to our firmer hold, and our deeper and fuller possession of the riches which, in the deepest sense of the word, are our own. One very important element in the development and advance of the religious life is our right use of these earthly things. I have seen many a case in which a man was far better when he was a poor man than he was when a rich one, in which slowly, stealthily, certainly, the love of wealth has closed round a man like an iron band round a sapling, and has hindered the growth of his Christian character, and robbed him of the best things. And, God be thanked! one has seen cases, too, in which, by their Christian use of outward possessions, men have weakened the dominion of self upon themselves, have learned the subordinate value of the wealth that can be counted and detached from its possessor, and have grown in the grace and knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Dear friends, God has given all of us something in charge, the faithful use of which is a potent factor in the growth of our Christian characters.
It is New Testament teaching that our faithful administration of earthly possessions has a bearing on the future. Remember what Jesus Christ said, ‘That when ye fail they may receive you into everlasting habitations.’ Remember what His Apostle says, ‘Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.’ Let no fear of imperilling the great truth of salvation by faith lead us to forget that the faith which saves manifests its vitality and genuineness, by its effects upon our lives, and that no small part of our lives is concerned with the right acquisition and right use of these perishable outward gifts. And let us take care that we do not, in our dread of damaging the free grace of God, forget that although we do not earn blessedness, here or hereafter, by gifts whilst we are living or legacies when we are dead, the administration of money has an important part to play in shaping Christian character, and the Christian character which we acquire here settles our hereafter.
Brethren! we all need to revise our scale of giving, especially in regard to missionary operations. And if we will do that at the foot of the Cross, then we shall join the chorus, ‘Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive riches,’ and we shall come to Him ‘bringing our silver and our gold with us,’ rejoicing that He gives us the possibility of sharing His blessedness, ‘according to the word of the Lord Jesus which He spake, It is more blessed to give than to receive.’
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On v8 When you offer blind animals for sacrifice, is that…
When you offer blind animals for sacrifice, is that not evil?
Here Yahweh uses a question to rebuke the people. AT: "You know very well that it is evil for you to offer blind animals for sacrifice!" (See: Rhetorical Question)
Read full note →
When you offer the lame and sick, is that not evil?
Here Yahweh uses a question to rebuke the people. AT: "And you know very well that it is evil for you to offer lame and sick animals!" (See: Rhetorical Question)
Present that to your governor! Will he accept you or will he lift up your face?
The command in the first sentence functions as a hypothetical condition. AT: "If you present that to your governor, will he accept you or will he lift up your face?" (See: Imperatives - Other Uses and Hypothetical Situations)
Will he accept you or will he lift up your face?
Here Yahweh asks this question in order to remind the people that their governor would never accept defective animals from them. AT: "If you do those things, you know that the governor will not accept you. He will not lift up your face." (See: Rhetorical Question)
will he lift up your face
Lifting up someone's face refers to accepting him with favor. AT: "will he accept you with favor" or "will he agree to help you" (See: Idiom)
Present
give as a gift to show respect
Now you keep asking the face of God, that he may be gracious to us
Malachi is no longer speaking for God. He is talking directly to the Israelites; he is criticizing them for daring to think that God will have mercy on them.
keep asking the face of God
Here "face" stands for God and also for his presence. AT: "keep asking God in his presence" (See: Synecdoche)
with such an offering in your hand, would he lift up any of your faces?
Here Yahweh is asking a question in order to make a statement of rebuke. AT: "if you offer unacceptable offerings, he will certainly not lift up your faces." (See: Rhetorical Question and Idiom)
with such an offering in your hand
This difficult phrase in Hebrew is interpreted in many different ways by modern versions.
in your hand
Here "hand" stands for the people bringing the offering. AT: "brought by you" (See: Synecdoche)
would he lift up any of your faces
Lifting up someone's face refers to accepting him with favor. AT: "would he accept any of you with favor" or "would he agree to help any of you" (See: Idiom)
translationWords
sacrifice
evil
govern
favor
grace
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv7–8 1:7 defiled the sacrifices?: Ritual uncleanness or contamination disqualified…
1:7 defiled the sacrifices?: Ritual uncleanness or contamination disqualified an object or person from being in the ceremonies of worship to the Lord. The defilement in this case resulted from ignoring the laws concerning acceptable animal sacrifices (Lev 22:17-25; Deut 15:21).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.