7<\/strong>. Ye offer polluted bread<\/em> ] i.e. sacrifices<\/em>. The word is often used in this sense and rendered food<\/em>; e.g. Lev 3:11<\/span>; Lev 3:16<\/span>. Elsewhere the sacrifices are called, the bread or food of God<\/em>. Lev 21:6<\/span>; Lev 21:8<\/span>; Eze 44:7<\/span>.<\/p>\n Their duty, as expounders of the Law (ch. Mal 2:7<\/span>), 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<\/span>; Deu 15:21<\/span>. “Sacerdotes debuerant illa omnia rejicere, et potius claudere Templum Dei, quam ita promiscue admittere qu Deus sibi offerri prohibuerat.” Calvin.<\/p>\n polluted thee<\/em> ] Comp. “ye have profaned me,” Eze 13:19<\/span>, R.V. “It is a bold expression. God speaks of our acts with an unveiled plainness, which we should not dare to use.” Pusey.<\/p>\n ye say<\/em> ] by your conduct, if not in words.<\/p>\n Offering polluted bread upon Mine altar – <\/B>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 <\/span> minchah<\/I>, meal-offering, which was the necessary accompaniment of sacrifices and sometimes the whole.<\/P> 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<\/span>, 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<\/span>, 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<\/span>, Neither from a strangers 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 It was, as it were, a feast of God with man, and what was withdrawn from the use of man by fire, was, as it were, consumed by God, to whom it was offered.<\/P> 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.<\/P> 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.<\/P> 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<\/span>. Will ye pollute Me anymore among My people? or Eze 20:9<\/span>, Eze 20:14<\/span>, Eze 20:22<\/span>, that My Name should not be polluted before the pagan Eze 43:7<\/span>. My holy Name shall Israel no more defile Eze 39:7<\/span>, 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<\/span>, 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.<\/P> 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 Gods law.<\/P> 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.<\/P><\/p>\n Mal 1:7<\/span><\/p>\n Ye offer polluted bread upon Mine altar.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n The sacrament polluted<\/strong><\/p>\n 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.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The table of the Lord profaned<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>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–<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> Because they formed not just ideas of the end which God proposed to Himself, when He enjoined the observance of these solemnities.<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> It arose from their unwillingness to fulfil the moral engagements which the ceremonial observance imposed.<\/p>\n (3)<\/strong> 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.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The profession ant the practice of religion<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.<\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>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–<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> A lawless spirit.<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> A niggardly spirit.<\/p>\n (3)<\/strong> A captious spirit.<\/p>\n (4)<\/strong> A thoughtless spirit. (Homilist.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Verse 7<\/span>. Ye offer polluted bread<\/B><\/I>] 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<\/I>.<\/P> <\/p>\n Ye offer polluted bread; <\/B>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. <\/P> Polluted; <\/B>either by ill-managing it, and misordering what is good and allowable, or accepting what is disallowed and forbidden, because of its blemishes. <\/P> Bread; <\/B>either the shew-bread, of which Exo 25:30<\/span>; or meat-offerings, Exo 29:41<\/span>; Le 2<\/span>; Num 28:5<\/span>; or, in a more large sense, all that was to be offered unto God, sacrifices and oblations. <\/P> Upon mine altar:<\/B> 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. <\/P> And ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee?<\/B> 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. <\/P> In that ye say; <\/B>perhaps in words, however by your deeds you speak your thoughts and judgment; you think so, and then act so. <\/P> The table; <\/B>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. <\/P> Is contemptible; <\/B>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. <\/P> <\/p>\n 7. ye offer,<\/B> c.God’s answerto their challenge (Mal 1:6<\/span>),”Wherein have we despised?” <\/P> polluted bread<\/B>namely,blemished sacrifices (Mal 1:8<\/span>Mal 1:13<\/span>; Mal 1:14<\/span>;Deu 15:21<\/span>). So “the bread<\/I>of thy God” is used for “sacrifices<\/I> to God” (Le21:8<\/span>). <\/P> polluted thee<\/B>that is,offered to thee “polluted bread.” <\/P> table of the Lord<\/B>thatis, the altar (Eze 41:22<\/span>) (notthe table of showbread). Just as the sacrificial flesh<\/I> iscalled “bread.” <\/P> contemptible<\/B> (Mal 1:12<\/span>;Mal 1:13<\/span>). Ye sanction theniggardly and blemished offerings of the people on the altar, to gainfavor with them. Darius, and probably his successors, had liberallysupplied them with victims for sacrifice, yet they presented none butthe worst. A cheap religion, costing little, is rejected by God, andso is worth nothing. It costs more than it is worth, for it is worthnothing, and so proves really dear. God despises not the widow’smite, but he does despise the miser’s mite [MOORE].<\/P><\/p>\n Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar<\/strong>,…. 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, Le 24:5<\/span> 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<\/span>, 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, Le 24:7<\/span> 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, Ex 29:40<\/span> or rather this designs sacrifice in general, sometimes called “bread”, Le 3:11<\/span> and so the Targum here,<\/p>\n “ye offer upon my altar an abominable offering;”<\/p>\n 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:<\/p>\n and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee<\/strong>? thy bread offering or altar; as if their offerings were pure, and they themselves, and their consciences pure from sin. The answer is,<\/p>\n In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible<\/strong>; 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<\/span> 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.<\/p>\n w Misn. Menachot, c. 10. sect. 3. x Maimon. Hilchot Tamidin, c. 5. sect. 6. y Misn. Shekalim, c. 5. sect. 1.<\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n (7) Ye offer.<\/strong>Literally, offering.<\/em><\/p>\n Bread.<\/strong>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<\/span>; Lev. 3:16<\/span>) to the fat portions of the peace offerings, which were burned, and is there translated food. (See references there.) In Lev. 21:6<\/span>; Lev. 21:8<\/span>; Lev. 21:17<\/span>; Lev. 21:21-22<\/span>; Lev. 22:25<\/span>, it is used of the sacrifices generally, but is there inconsistently translated bread.<\/p>\n Polluted.<\/strong>The Hebrew word does not occur in this sense in the Pentateuch, but we have it in Dan. 1:8<\/span> 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<\/span>); for in the Hebrew Scriptures God and Gods name are often equivalent expressions (Comp. Mal. 2:5<\/span>). Keil takes the words, which he wrongly translates, ye that offer polluted bread,<\/em> 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:<\/p>\n Saith the Lord of hosts unto you, 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<\/em> my name!<\/p>\n [This is the commencement of a prophetic rebuke to the priests; but they, in accordance with the prophets graphic style of writing, are supposed to catch him up at the first clause of his utterance.] (Ans.<\/em>) <\/em>Offering [as ye do] polluted<\/em> food upon mine altar.<\/p>\n But, say ye, wherein have we polluted<\/em> thee?<\/p>\n (Ans.<\/em>) <\/em>When, now, ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? &c.<\/p>\n Say<\/strong>i.e., show by your conduct that such is your feeling. <\/em>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.<\/em><\/p>\n Table<\/strong>i.e.,<\/em> altar,<\/em> as in Eze. 41:22<\/span> : The altar . . . this is the table that is before the Lord. (Comp. Ezek. 49:16.)]<\/p>\n 7, 8<\/strong>. <\/strong> 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. <\/p>\n Ye offer <\/strong> The priests. They should have refused to accept improper offerings from the worshipers (Lev 22:17-25<\/span>), and should have instructed them in their duties (Mal 2:7<\/span>), but they did not guard the interests of Jehovah. <\/p>\n Bread <\/strong> Or, food. <\/em> Here in the more specific sense of food of the Deity, that is, sacrifice, which is called bread of God <\/em> (Lev 21:6<\/span>; Lev 21:8<\/span>; Eze 44:7<\/span>). <\/p>\n Polluted <\/strong> Or, unclean. <\/em> 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<\/span>; Mal 1:12<\/span>; compare Lev 22:17-25<\/span>). This accusation also is resented. <\/p>\n Wherein have we polluted thee? <\/strong> The idea underlying the question is that to touch or eat anything unclean makes a person unclean (compare Eze 13:19<\/span>; Hag 2:13<\/span>). 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?<\/em> ” 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<\/span>. <\/p>\n Table <\/strong> As sacrifice is called food, so the altar may be called a table. <\/p>\n Contemptible <\/strong> In the sense that anything is good enough for it.<\/p>\n In 8a the prophet points out how they show their contempt for the altar and for Jehovah. <\/p>\n If <\/strong> Better, R.V., “when.” <\/p>\n Ye offer the blind <\/strong> Therefore unfit for sacrifice (Lev 22:22<\/span>). <\/p>\n Is it not evil? <\/strong> Better, R.V., “it is no evil!” The words are used ironically; according to their own notions it is no evil. <\/p>\n Lame and sick <\/strong> Also unfit for sacrifice (Lev 22:20-25<\/span>; Deu 15:21<\/span>). 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? <\/p>\n Offer <\/strong> R.V., “Present,” as a gift. The sacrifices are gifts presented to Jehovah. <\/p>\n Thy governor <\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n Mal 1:7<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>In that ye say, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> Houbigant puts a semicolon at the end of this verse, and begins the eighth thus, And when ye bring the blind for sacrifice, this seems not evil, nor when ye offer the lame and the sick. <\/em>The prophet reproves them for paying no reverence to the altar of God, but admitting victims of every kind, however contrary to the law, that they might make as much gain as possible. <\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Ver. 7. Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar<\/strong> ] Bread, that is, sacrifices and oblations (so Rabbi David expounds it out of Lev 21:6<\/span> ; 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<\/span> . 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<\/span> , of which he saith, Eze 4:14<\/span> “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<\/span> , &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<\/span> , 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,<\/em> the priest cried out , who is here. those that were present at the sacrifice answered, , 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,<\/em> 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<\/span> Heb 11:4<\/span> ; 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 , Mar 12:41<\/span> , 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 , that the sacrificers should purify themselves some days before, and that none should serve God obiter,<\/em> in passing, slightly and slenderly, but in all best manner, and with the best preparation they could make beforehand, . Numa Pompilius, King of the Romans would not have them worship their gods, , for fashion and dissolutely; but freed from all other cares and cumbers, : in the time of Divine service the priests, to prevent distraction, cried out often to the people, Hoc agite,<\/em> mind the business you are about. So in the primitive times of the Church, the deacons called often upon the people, Sursum corda,<\/em> Lift up your hearts. And again, Oremus, attendamus,<\/em> 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., <\/em> 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,<\/em> 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! <\/p>\n <\/p>\n And ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee?<\/strong> ] 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<\/span> , whereof his true worship is a part, Mic 4:5<\/span> 1Ki 5:3 ; 1Ki 5:5<\/span> . 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<\/em> 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<\/span> , 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<\/span> . <\/p>\n <\/p>\n In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible<\/strong> ] 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<\/span> . 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. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Ye have said<\/strong> ] i.e.<\/em> Ye have thought, as Psa 32:5<\/span> ; Psa 30:7<\/span> ; 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<\/span> . <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The table of the Lord<\/strong> ] That is, the altar of burnt offerings, see Eze 41:22<\/span> , 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<\/span> . And how God accepted of their kindness, see Hos 9:10<\/span> . 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<\/span> . See Trapp on “<\/em> Mal 1:12 “<\/em> <\/p>\n <\/p>\nFuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
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.<\/em>) [Ye have despised my name and polluted me], in that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible.<\/p>\n
But [despisers of Gods name!] say ye, wherein have we despised<\/em> thy name?<\/p>\nFuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n