8<\/strong>. if<\/em> ] Rather, When<\/strong>. Their poverty since the return from Babylon might possibly be urged by them as an excuse for this.<\/p>\n Is it not evil?<\/em> ] Rather, It is no evil<\/strong>!, ironically, as in R.V.<\/p>\n offer it<\/em> ] The R.V. renders, present it<\/strong>, with a view no doubt to indicate that it is not the same Hebrew word as is rendered offer<\/em> in Mal 1:7<\/em><\/span> and in the former part of this verse.<\/p>\n thy governor<\/em> ] It is a foreign title, Pechah<\/em>, that is here used, and so a badge of the continued servitude of the nation; though it may have been borne at this time by Jews, as it was by Zerubbabel at the Return from the Captivity. See note on Hag 1:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n accept thy person<\/em> ] i.e. regard thee with favour, as in Mal 1:9<\/em><\/span>, and elsewhere. The phrase, however, often occurs in a bad sense of exercising partiality, e.g. Lev 19:15<\/span>; Psa 82:2<\/span>.<\/p>\n And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? – <\/B>Others, it is not evil, as we should say, there is no harm in it. Both imply, alike, an utter unconsciousness on the part of the offerer, that it was evil: the one, in irony, that this was always their answer, there is nothing amiss; the other is an indignant question, is there indeed nought amiss? And this seems the most natural.<\/P> The sacrifice of the blind and lame was expressly forbidden in the law Deu 15:21<\/span>, and the sick in manifold varieties of animal disease. Whatever hath a blemish ye shall not offer Lev 22:22<\/span>, blind or with limb broken, or wounded or mangy or scabby or scurfy. Perfectness was an essential principle of sacrifice; whether, as in the daily sacrifice, or the sin or trespass-offerings, typical of the all-perfect Sacrifice, or in the whole-burnt-offering, of the entire self-oblation. But these knew better than God, what was fit for Him and them. His law was to be modified by circumstances. He would not be so particular (as people now say so often.)<\/P> Is it then fit to offer to God what under the very same circumstances man would not offer to man? Against these idle, ungrateful, covetous thoughts God saith,<\/P> Offer it now unto thy governor. He appeals to our own instinctive thought of propriety to our fellow creature, which may so often be a test to us. No one would think of acting to a fellow-creature, as they do to Almighty God. Who would make diligent preparation to receive any great one of the earth, and turn his back upon him, when come? Yet what else is the behavior of most Christians after holy communion? If thou wouldest not do this to a mortal man, who is but dust and ashes, how much less to God Almighty, the King of kings and Lord of lords! The words are a reproof to those most negligent persons, who go through their prayers to God without fear, attention, reverence or feeling; but if they have to speak to some great man, prelate or prince, approach him with great reverence, speak carefully and distinctly and are in awe of him. Do not thou prefer the creature to the Creator, man to God, the servant to the Lord, and that Lord, so exalted and so Infinite.<\/P><\/p>\n Mal 1:8<\/span><\/p>\n If ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil?<\/em><\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Imperfect sacrifice<\/strong><\/p>\n The old law demanded that God should be honoured with the sacrifice of a mans best. Every oblation was to be free from spot or blemish. Such laws had their symbolic and spiritual meaning. They asserted Gods right as first and supreme. They embodied the law of sacrifice, which is the law of all holy beings, and they formed a test of the faith and love of those who professed to be worshippers of God. The reality of the test was manifest in the fact that there were those who sought to escape the demand. In their view, anything would do for sacrifice. Are there not multitudes still whose professed worship is nothing more than a mere miserable pretence? Surely our temptations to disobey are just as powerful as ever. Our business now is not with the blasphemer or the infidel, but with those who either render, or fancy that they render, God some service.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>The appeal of the text may be addressed to all whose service does not include the sacrifice of the heart. Many give their souls to the world,–to what remains God is welcome. They are found in Gods house, but though they are present there they do not render any spiritual worship. What is this but offering the blind and lame and sick for sacrifice; and is it not evil? Can it be that it is thus God is content to be served? Not thus would even man be satisfied. It is God only whom we expect to please by a service that lacks every element of thorough heartiness, and is nothing more than a piece of mechanism. Yet is there no other whom it is so utterly hopeless to deceive. He asks the heart, and He knows that, despite all the beauty of our outward rites, the heart is what we absolutely refuse. But such religion is no religion at all<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>The language may be applied to those who purpose to render to God the service of their last hours. They will take thought for the present life, and the soul, with all its immortal interests, they will leave to the uncertain contingencies of a future which may never be theirs. This is bringing the blind, the lame, the sick for sacrifice; and is it not evil? We need not deny the possibility of death-bed repentance; we may not limit the grace of God. But if not impossible, it is in every way improbable that the sacrifice of lifes last hour is what God will accept.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>These words may be addressed to the secret disciple. You will do just so much as is necessary to ensure your salvation, but beyond this nothing more,–there is no love to Jesus constraining devotion, making you rejoice even in the cross which you bear for Him, teaching you, as with a holy ingenuity, to find out modes in which you may glorify Him. And is not this evil?<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>The question may be directed to the half-hearted professor. There are many sharing in our worship who are lacking in all heartiness and fervour. They do not disgrace their profession: they observe with a certain regularity the ordinances; but in all generous, noble, devoted consecration they are found wanting. Let me address myself earnestly to you. Does not the text describe your sacrifice? Everywhere else, if the heart is interested at all, you are full of intense zeal. In religion you are cold and indifferent. Review your own service; compare it with what you do for other lords, and say, does it not correspond with the description of the text? <\/em>(J. G. Rogers, B. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The Divine appeal<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>To the dictates of conscience.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>To the usages of human life.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>We have all failed in the discharge of our duty to God.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Our failure in the discharge of our duty to God is incapable of defence.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>We need a Saviour.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>Our services can be accepted by God only through the mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ. (G. Brooks.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n A strange test<\/strong><\/p>\n They performed solemn duties hypocritically. Malachi would show them their folly by asking them to test their conduct by the way in which the (Persian) governor of the land would regard it.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>How many stand in His presence and profane His name. Let them offer that to their governor.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>How men treat His authority and disregard His commands.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>How many pretend to make sacrifices for His cause, and yet give only that which is worthless, or what they think will bring the man equivalent in temporal good.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>How many render heartless homage and selfish service. Men act in these ways sometimes through<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> Spiritual insensibility;<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong>self-deception;<\/p>\n (3)<\/strong>erroneous conceptions of God; or<\/p>\n (4)<\/strong> covetousness.<\/p>\n God has a right to all that we possess. No earthly governor has such a claim upon us. To act towards Him deceitfully is foolish, ungrateful, and ruinous.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Easily applied.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>One that the humblest can comprehend.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>One that may reveal much.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>One that should be applied honestly.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Just cause to fear.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Need of reformation.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>And of a truer consecration of <\/strong>yourselves and your property to God.<\/p>\n Learn–Our holiest acts need examination. Our sacrifices may be worthless. It is a great sin to act niggardly towards God. <\/em>(W. Osborne Lilley.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Anything good enough for God<\/strong><\/p>\n In <\/em>Malachis time the people seem to have been utterly indifferent as to God, and openly insolent. Behold, said they, what a weariness it is! They thought any thing was good enough for God, and offered Him the refuse of their households. Even the priests had become a set of mercenary hirelings, refusing to do anything without reward. This state of things was a result of living so long in the idolatrous land of Babylon. The people had lost their habits of devotion, and had become accustomed to a life of listlessness and carelessness, and now they found it difficult to submit to the restraints of religion. And these of ours are worldly days. The general <\/strong>idea is that anything is good enough for God. A spare minute, an hour, when we can do nothing else, is all we can devote to God. Notice–<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>There is the heart–penitent, repentant, soft.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>There is the body–a living sacrifice; for use, for work.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Worship.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>Alms.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Spiritless worship. The form without the spirit.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Blind sacrifice. How many crimes have been committed in the name of zeal.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Lame offerings. Professors of religion who live in conformity to the world.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>Sick gifts.<\/p>\n Half-hearted prayers, languid attendance at His house, the hand working without the heart, songs without melody. There are preachers who preach ill and sickly sermons. There are Sunday school teachers who offer sickly lessons. It is a terrible thing to offer to God that which is diseased. (W. R. F.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The true sacrifice<\/strong><\/p>\n Malachi begins with rebuking the unthankfulness of Israel, and ends with a threat of coming and smiting the earth with a curse. Israel gave indeed, a melancholy example of the unthankful heart of man. Gods law was, If there be any blemish therein, as if it be lame, or blind, or have any ill blemish, thou shalt not sacrifice it unto the Lord thy God. Yet they offered the blind, the lame, the sick for sacrifice, and thought to be accepted of God, though they durst not have offered such things to their governor. But this conduct of Israel is only a lively representation of the way in which God, the giver of all good things, is commonly treated by the receivers of His bounty. Men have found Him so overflowing in kindness, so long-suffering, that they have come to think He will take up with anything. They think not, that though God does not speak out He is watching, and preparing to reckon with them. And, however slow He may be, He will set all right on the great day when He will separate the chaff from the wheat, and the tares from the corn. Applying to ourselves, let us remember what the Lord commands us to offer. Paul says, in His name, Present your bodies a living sacrifice. We are to serve <\/strong>in newness of the spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. The living sacrifice of our body is not only keeping its members in all purity, as we would be members of Christs body, but also giving to the Lord that from which all purity must come, a heart devoted to His service, and well instructed for that purpose in all heavenly knowledge and spiritual wisdom. See the particulars of the text.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>If ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? They had plenty of cattle without blemish to offer to the Lord. But they wanted these for themselves. The Christian has a body given him which he may present a living sacrifice unto the Lord, without blemish of sight. In it he has an eye to read the Word of God, an understanding to receive it: an eye to lift up to heaven in prayer, an understanding to offer prayer and praise in the name of the Lord. The eye should be withdrawn from all unholy sights; it should be single and pure. Instead of this, to what service is the eye and understanding commonly devoted! The true and living sacrifice of the body in this particular is the growing in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Never forget that growth in grace and growth in knowledge go together. Instead of using their eye and understanding in the spiritual service of the Lord, men waste their light in the pursuit of vanity and sin, until at last there comes the appointed hour of their departure from earth. Then at length–and often in vain–they turn their eye and their thoughts unto God.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>If ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? The Christian is compared to a runner, and his life to a course. He is to run well, so that he may obtain. But when do men <\/strong>generally begin to set themselves to this race? Just as their course in this world is finishing; when their strength has been wasted in running for earthly prizes. Is not health the season for serving the Lord on every account? Yet many think they have nothing to do with the Lord but in the day of sickness.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Offer it now to thy governor. Men will treat God, their heavenly Sovereign, as they dare not treat man, their earthly sovereign. Some go through life with a fixed purpose of giving to the Lord only the refuse. The man who bows to the ground, and anxiously seeks favour in the sight of his sovereign, and keeps himself continually in his view by doing something which may please, and make his person accepted, will think it a great thing if he kneel in the house of God for a short time once a week. Men who are most particular in wording a petition to be delivered at the <\/strong>throne of their sovereign, and endeavour to turn and polish every sentence, these very men will not trouble themselves to prepare a prayer to be delivered at the footstool of the throne of heaven. Let us all be wise in this, that we fully recognise the high claims of God, and loyally, lovingly, worthily try to meet them. (R. W. Evans, B. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Verse 8<\/span>. Offer it now unto thy governor<\/B><\/I>] pechath<\/I>, a word signifying a lieutenant<\/I>, or viceroy<\/I>, among the Chaldeans, Syrians, and Persians; for neither at this time, nor ever after, was there a king<\/I> in Israel.<\/P> <\/p>\n If ye offer the blind:<\/B> this if<\/I> implies they had done so, it chargeth them with somewhat in matter of practice among them; the lame and sick also they had offered. <\/P> Is it not evil?<\/B> is it not against the express command of God, Lev 22:22-24<\/span>; Deu 15:21<\/span>? The living God should have living sacrifices, and God who is perfect should have perfect sacrifices. But the people bringing such, the priests accepting such, do in effect tell the world they thought such sacrifices good enough for that God they were offered to: so great profaneness runs through this whole carriage. <\/P> Offer it now unto thy governor<\/B>; not their king, for they had none; but governors they had, and these the Jews reverenced, and would not dare do that to them they do boldly with God daily. <\/P> Will he be pleased with thee?<\/B> your governor would not thank you, he would be angry with you, and account it an affront; and shall not the Lord of hosts much more account it an indignity offered unto him? People in bringing, priests in accepting, these blemished oblations, which were not good enough for a man, did sin greatly, and spake their apprehensions of God to be contemptible and slight. <\/P> <\/p>\n 8.<\/B> Your earthly ruler would feelinsulted, if offered by you the offering with which ye put off God(see Lev 22:22<\/span>; Lev 22:24<\/span>).<\/P> is it<\/B><\/I> notevil?<\/B>MAURERtranslates, “There is no evil,” in your opinion, in such anoffering; it is quite good enough for such a purpose.<\/P><\/p>\n And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, [is it] not evil<\/strong>?…. Certainly it is, according to the law in Le 22:22<\/span> or, as Kimchi interprets it, when they bring to you a lamb that is blind for sacrifice to offer it up, ye say, this is not evil; but it is good to offer it up, because the table is contemptible. The sense is, that, however evil this may be in itself, according to them it was good enough to be offered up upon the altar; which proves that they despised the name of the Lord, offered polluted bread or sacrifice on his altar, and had his table in contempt:<\/p>\n and if ye offer the lame and sick, [is it] not evil<\/strong>? verily it is, by the law of God, which forbids the offering of such things, Le 22:21<\/span> this was always observed, in all sacrifices under the law, that they were perfect, and without any blemish, whether of the flock, or of the herd; and this was strictly observed, even by the Heathens themselves: so Achilles, in Homer a, speaks of the perfect lambs and goats they offered in sacrifice; and particularly they were not to be lame, or to halt; such were reckoned choice and excellent sacrifices, which were larger and better fed than others; and which were not lame, nor diseased, nor sickly; for things future could not be known, they say, but from a sound victim b; for they pretended to have knowledge of them, by the entrails of the sacrifices. So Pliny c observes, that this is to be remarked, that calves brought to the altar on men’s shoulders are not to be sacrificed; nor are the gods appeased by one that halts; in short, it is said d, whatever is not perfect and sound is not to be offered to them; and, besides these here mentioned in the text, there were many others, which the Jews especially observed, which rendered creatures unfit for sacrifice. Maimonides e reckons up no less than fifty blemishes, by reason of which the priests under the law might not offer a creature for sacrifice: no doubt but the laws of Moses concerning this matter had a respect to the pure, perfect, and spotless sacrifice of Christ, which the legal ones were typical of; and teach us this lesson, that, without a complete sacrifice, no atonement or satisfaction for sin could be made: or, it is not evil in your eyes, as Aben Ezra glosses it; which is the same as before:<\/p>\n offer it now unto thy governor<\/strong>; to Zerubbabel, who was governor of Judea at this time, Hag 1:1<\/span> for they had no king. The meaning is, offer a lamb or any other creature that is blind, sick, and lame; make a present of it to him that had the government of them; make trial this way, and see how acceptable it would be to him:<\/p>\n will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the Lord of hosts<\/strong>; will he thank thee for it, or have any respect to thee on account of it? but, on the contrary, will he not resent it as an affront to him? and if so it would be with an earthly prince, how can it be thought that to offer the blind, lame, and sick, should be acceptable to the King of kings, and Lord of lords?<\/p>\n a Iliad. I. 1. 66. b Alex. ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 3. c. 12. c Nat. Hist. l. 8. c. 45. d Scholia in Aristoph. Acharn. Act 3. Scen. 3. p. 409. e Hilchot Biath Hamikdash, c. 7. sect. 1. &c.<\/p>\n I have hitherto explained the Prophet’s words with reference chiefly to the shew-bread; not that they ought to be so strictly taken as many interpreters have considered them; for under the name of bread is included, we know, every kind of eatables; so it seems probable to me that the word ought to be extended to all the sacrifices; but one kind is here mentioned as an example; and it seems also that what immediately follows is added as an explanation — ye offer the lame and the blind and the mutilated. Since these things are connected together, I have no doubt but that God means by bread here every kind of offering, and we know that the shew-bread was not offered on the altar; but there was a table by itself appointed for this purpose near the altar. And why God designates by bread all the sacrifices may be easily explained; for God would have sacrifices offered to him as though he had his habitation and table among the Jews; it was not indeed his purpose to fill their minds with gross imaginations, as though he did eat or drink, as we know that heathens have been deluded with such notions; but his design was only to remind the Jews of that domestic habitation which he had chosen for himself among them. But more on this subject shall presently be said; I shall now proceed to consider the words. <\/p>\n Ye offer on my altar polluted bread; and ye have said, In what have we polluted thee? The priests again answer as though God unjustly accused them; for they allege their innocency, as the question is to be regarded here as a denial: In what then have we polluted thee? They deny that they were rightly condemned, inasmuch as they had duly served God. But we may hence conclude, according to what has been before stated, that the people were under the influence of gross hypocrisy, and had become hardened in their obstinacy. It is the same at this day; though there be such a mass of crimes, which everywhere prevails in the world, and even overflows the earth, yet no one will bear to be condemned; for every one looks on others, and thus when no less grievous sins appear in others, every one absolves himself. This is then the sottishness which the Prophet again goads — Ye have said, In what have we polluted thee? He and other Prophets no doubt charged the Jews with this sacrilege — that they polluted the name of God. <\/p>\n But it deserves to be known, that few think that they pollute God and his name when they worship him superstitiously or formally, as though they had to do with a child: but we see that God himself declares, that the whole of religion is profaned, and that his name is shamefully polluted when men thus trifle with him. <\/p>\n He answers, when ye said, literally, in your saying, The table of Jehovah, it is contemptible. Here the Prophet discovers the fountain of their sin; and he shows as it were by the finger, that they had despised those rites which belonged to the worship of God. The reason follows, If ye offer the blind, he says, for sacrifice, it is no evil. Some read the last clause as a question, “is it not evil?” but he, the mark of a question, is not here; and we may easily gather from the context that the Prophet as yet relates how presumptuously both the priests and the whole people thought they could be acquitted and obtain pardon for themselves, “It is no evil thing if the lame be offered, if the blind be offered, if the maimed be offered; there is nothing evil in all this.” (203) We now then understand what the Prophet means. <\/p>\n But the subject would have been obscure had not a fuller explanation been given in these words, The table of Jehovah, it is contemptible (204) God does here show, as I have before stated, why he was so much displeased with the Jews. Nothing is indeed so precious as his worship; and he had instituted under the law sacrifices and other rites, that the children of Abraham might exercise themselves in worshipping him spiritually. It was then the same as though he had said, that he cared nothing for sheep and calves, and for any thing of that kind, but that their impiety was sufficiently manifested, inasmuch as they did not think that the whole of religion was despised when they despised the external acts of worship according to the law. God then brings back the attention of the Jews from brute animals to himself, as though he had said, “Ye offer to me lame and blind animals, which I have forbidden to be offered; that you act unfaithfully towards me is sufficiently apparent; and if ye say that these are small things and of no moment, I answer, that you ought to have regarded the end for which I designed that sacrifices should be offered to me, and ordered bread to be laid on my table in the sanctuary; for by these tokens you ought to have known that I live in the midst of you, and that whatever ye eat or drink is sacred to me, and that all you possess comes to you through my bounty. As then this end for which sacrifices have been appointed has been neglected by you, it is quite evident that ye have no care nor concern for true religion. <\/p>\n We now then perceive why the Prophet objects to the priests, that they had called the table of Jehovah contemptible; not that they had spoken thus expressly, but because they had regarded it almost as nothing to pervert and adulterate the whole of divine worship according to the law, which was an evidence of religion when there was any. <\/p>\n Now it may seem strange, that God one while so strictly requires pure sacrifices and urges the observance of them, when yet at another time he says that he does not seek sacrifices, “Sacrifice I desire not, but mercy,” (Hos 6:6<\/span>\ud83d\ude09 and again, “Have I commanded your fathers when I delivered them from Egypt, to offer victims to me? With this alone was I content, that they should obey my voice.” He says afterwards in Micah, <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Shall I be propitious to you if ye offer me all your flocks? but rather, O man, humble thyself before thy God.” (Mic 6:6<\/span>.) <\/p>\n The same is said in the fiftieth Psalm, in the first and the last chapters of Isaiah, and in many other places. Since then God elsewhere depreciates sacrifices, and shows that they are not so highly esteemed by him, why does he now so rigidly expostulate with the Jews, because they offered lame and maimed animals? I answer, that there was a reason why God should by this reproof discover the impiety of the people. Had all their victims been fat or well fed, our Prophet would have spoken as we find that others have done; but since their faithlessness had gone so far that they showed even to children that they had no regard for the worship of God — since they had advanced so far in shamelessness, it was necessary that they should be thus convicted of impiety; and hence he says, ye offer to me polluted bread, as though he had said, “I supply you with food, it was your duty to offer to me the first-fruits, the tenths, and the shew-bread; and the design of these external performances is, that they may regard themselves as fed by me daily, and also that they may feed moderately and temperately on the bread and flesh and other things given them, as though they were sitting at my table: for when they see that bread made from the same corn is before the presence of God, this ought to come to their minds, ‘it is God’s will, as though he lived with us, that a portion of the same bread should ever be set on the holy table:’ and then when they offer victims, they are not only to be thus stirred up to repentance and faith, but they ought also to acknowledge that all these are sacred to God, for when they set before the altar either a calf, or an ox, or a lamb, and then see the animal sacrificed, (a part of which remains for the priests,) and the altar sprinkled with blood, they ought to think thus within themselves, ‘Behold, we have all these things in common with God, as though clothed in a human form he dwelt with us and took the same food and the same drink.’ They ought then to have performed in this manner their outward rites.” <\/p>\n God now justly complains, that his table was contemptible, as though he had said, that his favor was rejected, because the people, as it were in contempt, brought coarse bread, as though they wished to feed some swineherd, — a conduct similar to that mentioned in Zechariah, when God said, that a reward was offered for him as though he were some worthless hireling, (Zec 2:12<\/span>) — “I have carefully fed you,” he says,” and I now demand my reward: ye give for me thirty silverings, a mean and disgraceful price.” So also in this place, Ye have said, the table of Jehovah, it is polluted. There is an emphasis in the pronoun; for God shows that he by no means deserved such a reproach: “Who am I, that ye should thus despise my table? I have consecrated it, that ye might have a near access to me, as though I dwelt in the visible sanctuary; but ye have despised my table as though I were nothing.” <\/p>\n He afterwards adds, Offer this now to thy governor; will he be pleased with thee? God here complains that less honor is given to him than to mortals; for he adduces this comparison, “When any one owes a tribute or tax to a governor, and brings any thing maimed or defective, he will not receive it.” Hence he draws this inference, that he was extremely insulted, for the Jews dared to offer him what every mortal would reject. He thus reasons from the less to the greater, that this was not a sacrilege that could be borne, as the Jews had so presumptuously abused his kindness; and hence he subjoins <\/p>\n (203) It is rather an ironical language, as it will appear from the following literal version — <\/p>\n 8. And when ye bring the blind for a sacrifice, no evil! And when ye bring the lame and the sick, no evil! Offer, it, I pray, to thy governor; Will he be pleased with thee or accept thy person, Saith Jehovah of hosts? <\/p>\n The whole is in the strain of irony; and the first lines are much more striking than when the interrogative particle is introduced. So is the rendering of the Septuagint, οὐ κακὸν — no evil. It was the Targum that introduced the interrogative form. — Ed. <\/p>\n (204) So ought this sentence to be rendered; and it is thus rendered by Newcome, only for “contemptible” he has “despicable,” while Henderson retains the former, as it is in our version. — Ed. <\/p>\n (8) If<\/strong>.Better, when.<\/em><\/p>\n Blind . . . lame . . . sick.<\/strong>This was contrary to Lev. 22:22<\/span>, &c. And now, to show them the heinous nature of their offence against the majesty of God, the prophet asks them whether they could offer such unsound animals to their civil ruler with any chance of acceptance.<\/p>\n Governor.<\/strong>The word in the Hebrew is probably of foreign origin, but it occurs as early as to refer to the governors of Judah in the time of Solomon (1Ki. 10:15<\/span>). On the date of the book of Kings see Introduction to that book.<\/p>\n DISCOURSE: 1268 Mal 1:8<\/span>. 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<\/em>.<\/p>\n SELF-VINDICATION is natural to fallen man: it began in paradise, as soon as ever sin entered into the world. The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat, was Adams excuse, when exculpating himself at the expense both of his wife and of God himself [Note: Gen 3:12<\/span>.]. Eve, too, excused herself by casting the blame of her transgression upon the serpent who had beguiled her [Note: Gen 3:13<\/span>.]. In all their descendants, the same propensity has shewn itself, and often with a degree of vehemence amounting to indignation and disdain. In the time of the Prophet Malachi it prevailed to an extraordinary degree; or he at least records it with more than ordinary minuteness and force. He was inspired of God, to shew the Jewish people their transgressions: but to every charge which he brought against them, they replied with a degree of petulance savouring of extreme impiety and obduracy. When God addressed by him the priests, as despising his name, they utterly denied the charge; and insolently asked of God himself, Wherein have we despised thy name? And when he told them that they had offered polluted bread upon his altar, they challenged him to tell them when: Wherein have we polluted thee [Note: ver. 6, 7.]? When the prophet complained of them as having wearied the Lord with their words, they immediately asked, in the same contemptuous spirit, Wherein have we wearied him [Note: Mai. 2:17<\/span>.]? Even when God graciously invited them to return to him, saying, Return unto me, and I will return unto you; they deny that there was any necessity for such an invitation, saying, Wherein shall we return [Note: Mal 3:7<\/span>.]? And when God tells them that they had robbed him, they reply, with undiminished effrontery, Wherein have we robbed thee [Note: Mal 3:8<\/span>.]?And when God complains of all this, saying, Your words have been stout against me; they still persist in the same impious strain, What have we spoken so much against thee [Note: Mal 3:13<\/span>.]? In every instance God substantiates his charge, by declaring wherein they had committed the offence imputed to them: but, in the words of my text he does it in a way which nothing but the most inveterate impiety could resist. He appeals to them, Whether they could deny either the conduct of which they were habitually guilty, or the construction which he put upon it? 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.<\/p>\n In opening to you these words, we shall consider,<\/p>\n I.<\/p>\n The appeal of God to man<\/p>\n Nothing can exceed the condescension of Almighty God, in his reasonings with sinful man. He here grounds his appeal to us,<\/p>\n 1.<\/p>\n On the standard which exists in our own consciences<\/p>\n [The Jews knew that God was to be served with the best of their flocks. His express command to them was, If there be any blemish in the firstling of thy herd or of thy flock, as if it be lame, or blind, or have any ill blemish, thou shalt not sacrifice it to the Lord thy God [Note: Deu 15:21<\/span><\/u>]. To go in direct opposition to this command, they knew to be evil: they knew that it would, in fact, be a pouring of contempt on God himself; and justly did God denounce a curse on all who should so presumptuously sin against him [Note: ver. 14.].<\/p>\n Now we know the same, in relation to our spiritual<\/em> sacrifices: we know that God requires the heart: and that whatever we present to him without the heart, is only to mock and insult him. It is an acknowledged truth, that to draw nigh to God with our lips, whilst our hearts are far from him, is to offer him a sacrifice, which he can never accept [Note: Mat 15:7-8<\/span>.].<\/p>\n Let us, then, examine our offerings by this test: and, if the services which we present to him be ignorant, formal, hypocritical<\/em>, what do we, in fact, but commit, as far as we are able, the very same evil which obtained amongst the Jews, when they offered in sacrifice to God the blind, the lame, and the sick? That our services are ignorant<\/em>, is but too clear: for we know not the true character of that God whom we profess to worship; nor how he is to be approached; nor what are the services we should render him. If we were duly enlightened on these subjects, it would be impossible for us to approach him as we do, or to conceive that he could ever he pleased with such services as we render him.<\/p>\n In all our services, we are formal<\/em>. We are punctual, perhaps, in certain observances of mans invention; and should be greatly offended if any one omitted to comply with certain prescriptions relating to the posture of the body. But, as to the prostration of the soul, we are unconcerned about it; and judge that we have done our duty, if we have gone through the appointed round of bodily motions, though our mind have not accorded with the body in any part of the service.<\/p>\n In truth, our services have been hypocritical<\/em> throughout. Had any one come into the house of God, and overheard our confessions, petitions, and thanksgivings, he would have supposed that we were the most humble, spiritual, and devout persons in the universe: but had he been privy to the real state of our souls, how little would he have seen of humiliation in our confessions, or of fervour in our petitions, or of gratitude in our thanksgivings! He would, for the most part, have seen, that the whole was only a solemn mockery; and that, instead of being Israelites indeed, in whom there was no guile<\/em>, we were base hypocrites, in whom was no sincerity<\/em>. Times without number we implore mercy as miserable sinners; but if any man were to express his thoughts of us in accordance with our confessions, we should be full of wrath and indignation against him. And, if God were to offer to hear and answer many of our prayers, especially those which we have presented for the conversion and renovation of our souls, we should be ready to pray them back with ten times more fervour than ever they were uttered. As for our thanksgivings, the whole state of our souls has shewn that we fell<\/em> nothing, and meant<\/em> nothing, at the very time that we professed to mean<\/em> so much and feel<\/em> so much.<\/p>\n Now, let me ask, in the name of God himself, what reason you can have to think that such services should ever be accepted by him? If, indeed, he were like ourselves, and could see only the outward appearance, we might hope, that, being imposed upon and deceived, he would be pleased with us: but, when we bear in mind, that he searcheth the heart, and trieth the reins, and that all things are naked and open before him, we must be sure that our very sacrifices are an abomination in his sight.]<\/p>\n 2.<\/p>\n On the standard which exists between man and man<\/p>\n [We are fond of reducing God and his services to this standard; and to infer, that, because we<\/em> would not act in such or such a way towards each other, God<\/em> can never deal so or so with us. This, however, is no proper standard at all; because we bear a very different relation to God from what any man can bear to us. But yet God condescends, on this occasion, to put himself on a footing with an earthly governor; and to ask, how even such an one would be pleased with the treatment which he receives at our hands? Now let us suppose, that, whilst professing allegiance to an earthly monarch, we were as lukewarm in his service as we are in the service of our God: that we shewed no more zeal for his honour, no more concern for his interests, no more respect for his laws, than we have towards our heavenly Master; would he consider us as good, loyal, duteous, and loving subjects? Would our love to his enemies, and conformity to their wishes, create no jealousy in his mind, especially whilst we thought that our attentions to him were quite equal to his deserts?<\/p>\n Or, to bring the matter more home to ourselves: if a son of ours felt as indifferent towards us, as we do towards our God; or a servant were as little anxious to please us, as we are to please him: if, when he rose in the morning, he thought as little what work he had to do for us; and, when he went through the day, attended as little upon us; and, when he lay down to rest at night, felt as little dissatisfied with himself as we do with our conduct towards God; should we be pleased with him? Should we account ourselves well treated by him? Should we, when he was brought before us, commend him, saying, Well done, good and faithful servant? II.<\/p>\n The obvious and necessary deductions to be made from it<\/p>\n It is plain from hence,<\/p>\n 1.<\/p>\n That our defects are exceeding great<\/p>\n [If every service, of the kind we have been speaking of, is evil, what must we think of our whole lives, which have been spent either in open rebellion against God, or, at best, in a continued series of such services as these? To appreciate your state aright, I will not refer you to your more flagrant sins: I will set before you your very duties, yea, your best duties, your confessions, your prayers, your sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving: and I will take these, not in your private chambers only, where perhaps, from want of suitable helps, you have not been able to express, as you could wish, the feelings of your hearts; but in the very house of God, where all suitable expressions have been provided for you, and put into your mouths, if you had had but a state of mind suited to them: yet even there have the words been repeated by you without one corresponding emotion in your souls, and your Amen been added without the smallest concern whether God ever heard the prayer or not. Tell me, in the review of a life thus spent, what should be your estimate of your state before God? If you would have a very mean opinion of a servant who had so conducted himself towards you, what should be your judgment of yourselves, who have so acted towards God?]<\/p>\n 2.<\/p>\n That all self-justification must be most offensive to God<\/p>\n [Suppose a servant, who had dealt with you as you have with God, were to applaud himself as deserving commendation at your hands; What would you think of him? What would you think of his respect for you, or of his views of his duty towards you? Would you not be offended with his estimate of your character and your rights? What then must God think of you, when, instead of lothing yourselves for your short-comings and defects, you are taking credit to yourselves for your fidelity towards him, and claiming a reward for that very conduct which has excited nothing in his breast but wrathful indignation? You will find in Scripture, that there is no sin whatever marked with more heavy displeasure than self-righteousness and self-applause. It was this, more than any thing else, that sealed up the Jews under guilt and condemnation: they would trust to their own righteousness, instead of submitting to the righteousness of God [Note: Rom 9:30-33<\/span>.]: and therefore they were rejected by God; whilst the idolatrous, but self-condemning, Gentiles were admitted to his favour. So shall you also, yea, and every child of man, find it, both in this world and in the world to come: the self-condemning Publican shall be justified before God; but the self-applauding Pharisee shall be condemned.]<\/p>\n 3.<\/p>\n That without a Saviour we must all perish<\/p>\n [What has any one of us whereon to ground his hopes of acceptance with God? Our works will not even stand the test that we have established for our intercourse with each other; and how much less will they stand before the holy law of God? If, then, we have not a Saviour to make an atonement for our sins, and to work out a righteousness wherein we may be justified, what hope have we? Verily, we have no more hope than Satan himself: for he may as well hope to satisfy divine justice, as we; or to merit heaven by his own works, as we. The very thought of seeking heaven by any righteousness of our own must be put away, as the most fatal delusion: and all of us, the best as well as the worst, must look to Christ alone, as all our salvation and all our desire. Beloved brethren, I charge you before God to remember this: for no man can ever come to God but by Christ; nor is there any other name given under heaven whereby any man can be saved, but the one name of Jesus Christ. In Him must all the seed of Israel be justified; and in Him alone must they glory.]<\/p>\n 4.<\/p>\n That if any service of ours be ever accepted of our God, it must be entirely through our Lord Jesus Christ<\/p>\n [After what has been said respecting the imperfection of our works, can it be hoped that any thing which we can do should ever find acceptance with God? Yes, if it be done for his glory, and not relied upon as a foundation of our hope before him. The services which we render to our governor are not perfect; yet are they pleasing to him, if they be done with a view to his honour and interest: so are the services which we ourselves receive from others most truly gratifying, when they are rendered from a principle of love. And God is infinitely gracious and condescending to accept our poor unworthy offerings, when they are presented to him in humility, and with a sincere desire to please and honour him. This is very strongly marked by God at the very time that be most strongly insists upon the necessity of presenting to him none but perfect offerings. Hear his words, in the 22d chapter of Leviticus: Ye shall offer at your own will a male without blemish, of the beeves, of the sheep, or of the goats. But whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer;<\/em> for it shall not be acceptable for you. And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace-offerings unto the Lord, to accomplish a vow, or a free-will-offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect<\/em> to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein<\/em>. Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scurvy, or scabbed, ye shall not offer these unto the Lord<\/em>, nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar unto the Lord. Here you would suppose, that to present such imperfect offerings as ours were vain: and so it would be, if we relied upon them in the smallest measure for our acceptance with God: but, if we rely altogether on Christs perfect sacrifice for our justification from sin, and then present our imperfect offerings to God, as tokens of our love, they shall come up with acceptance on his altar, and be truly pleasing in his sight. This is what, in the very next words, he has expressly declared: Either a bullock or a lamb that hath any thing superfluous or lacking in its parts, that mayest thou offer for a free-will-offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted. Here you see the very distinction which your necessities require. If you would present any thing to God towards your justification, you must bring only the perfect righteousness of Christ: but if you would do any thing to glorify your God, your own poor services, mean and worthless as they are, shall be accepted of him for Christs sake. And this is the very statement which is so frequently and so fully given us in the Gospel. St. Paul says, By him let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name. But to do good, and to communicate, forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased<\/em> [Note: Heb 13:15-16<\/span>.]. St. Peter also speaks to the same effect: Ye are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ [Note: 1Pe 2:5<\/span>.]. Be not discouraged, then, by the imperfection of your services: for, if only you do indeed set yourselves to seek the Lord, and endeavour to serve him with your whole hearts, he will not be extreme to mark what is done amiss; but will cast a veil of love over your imperfections, and crown you with his applause, saying, Well done, good and faithful servants. Only be steadfast, unmoveable, and always abounding in the work of the Lord; and ye may be assured that your labour shall not be in vain in the Lord.]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Mal 1:8 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.<\/p>\n Ver. 8. And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, &c.<\/strong> ] Their profaneness in polluting God’s altar is here further evinced and evidenced: 1. By the illegality of their practice, while they offered the blind and lame as good enough for such a contemptible altar. 2. By the incivility and indecency thereof; while they presented that to the Emperor of the world, that they would have been ashamed or afraid to present to some petty prince, that had any power to punish such an affront. The law for sacrifices see Lev 22:20 Deu 15:21<\/span> . A blind sacrifice he offereth who worshippeth he knoweth not what, Joh 4:22<\/span> , that is, to seek, and grope in the dark, Act 17:27<\/span> , when they yield not the obedience of faith, bring not to God an intelligible, reasonable service, such as whereof they can render a sound reason out of the word of God, Rom 12:1<\/span> ; who binds us not to any blind obedience, as the Popish padres do their novices. And yet the most people are to this day woefully to seek for the warrant for their worships; resting on that old Popish rule, to follow the drove, and believe as the Church believes. As at Ephesus, so in our Church assemblies, “the more part knew not wherefore they were come together,” Act 19:32<\/span> . They will say in general, to serve God. But who he is, how to be served, wherein and in whom to be served, they know not. There is in a printed sermon a memorable story of an old man, over sixty, who lived and died in a parish where there had been preaching almost all his time. This man was a constant hearer as any might be, and seemed forward in the love of the word. On his death bed, being questioned by a minister touching his faith and hope in God, he made these strange answers. Being demanded what he thought of God? he answered that he was a good old man. And what of Christ? that he was a towardly young youth. And of his soul, that it was a great bone in his body. And what should become of his soul after he was dead? That if he had done well, he should be put into a pleasant green meadow. These answers astonished those that were present to think how it were possible for a man of good understanding, and one that in his days had heard at the least two or three thousand sermons; yet upon his death bed in serious manner thus to deliver his opinion, in such main points of religion, which infants and sucklings should not be ignorant of. But we may be sure this man is not alone; there be many hundreds whose grey hairs show they have had time enough to learn more wit, who yet are in case to be set to their A B C again for their admirable simplicity in matters of religion. Blind they are, and blind sacrifices they offer; never once opening their eyes till death, if then, as Pliny reporteth of the mole; but always rooting and digging in the earth, as if through the bowels of it they would dig themselves a new way to hell. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Is it not evil?<\/strong> ] Or, as some read it, It is not evil, q.d.<\/em> it is good enough, and may serve turn well enough. Or thus, It is not evil in your opinion, who, rather than you would lose any gain, say, Melius est ill quam Nil<\/em> (it is Osiander’s rhyme), better that which is ill and bad than nothing at all. But they which count all good fish that comes to not, will in the end catch the devil and all. The sense is much clearer in the interrogative, “Is it not evil?” It is, it is; and therefore studiously to be declined and avoided as poison in your food, or a serpent in your way. “Abstain from all appearance of evi!,” saith that great apostle, 1Th 5:22<\/span> ; how much more from all apparent evils, such as stare you in the face, and are so directly contrary to the plain word of God! Such are sins with an accent, wickedness with a witness, great transgressions, Psa 19:13<\/span> . <\/p>\n <\/p>\n And if ye offer the lame and languishing<\/strong> ] He offers the lame that brings his sacrifice with a wicked mind, Pro 21:27<\/span> , as Balak and Balaam did, Num 23:1-2<\/span> ; that walks not evenly before the Lord, and with an upright foot, Gen 17:1<\/span> ; that halts between two opinions, as the people did, 1Ki 18:21<\/span> , inter coelum terramque penduli,<\/em> hanging between heaven and earth, as meteors, uncertain whether to hang or fall. Such were Ecebolus, Baldwin, Spalatensis, Erasmus . Cyprian calleth such ancipites, palpatores temporum, in levitate tantum constantes,<\/em> doubtful minded men. St James, Jas 1:8<\/span> , calleth them “double minded men, unstable in all their ways,” as he is that stands on one leg, or as a bowl upon a smooth table. But what said that martyr? If God be God, follow him; if the mass be God, let him that will see it hear it, and be present at it, and go to the devil with it, but let him do what he doth with all his heart. God cannot abide these neuter passives (“I would thou wert either hot or cold,” Rev 3:15 ). He requires to be served truly, that there be no halting, and totally, that there be no halving. To halt between two opinions, to hang in suspense, to be in religion as idle beggars are in their way, ready to go which way soever the staff falleth, how hateful is it! When some took Christ for John Baptist, some for Elias, some for Jeremiah, “But whom say you that I am?” said our Saviour; to teach us that Christ hates to have men stand doubtful and adhere to nothing certainly; to have them as mills, fit to be driven about by the devil with every wind of doctrine; or, as hunting dogs between two hares, running as soon after this, as soon after that; and so losing both. This for point of judgment; and, for matter of practice, the soul is well carried when neither so becalmed that it moves not when it should, nor yet tossed with tempests to move disorderly. A wise man’s course is of one colour, like itself; he is homo quadratus,<\/em> a square stone set into the spiritual building, 1Pe 2:7<\/span> ; he is Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
I. <\/strong>The appeal.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>The lessons the appeal suggests.<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>Men often act towards God as they would not act towards an earthly ruler. Men generally respect human authorities. If gifts are presented to them they are of the best. They humble themselves before human majesty, and fear to insult it. But men act differently towards God.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>Our conduct towards God may be tested by the way in which it would be received by an earthly ruler. Such rulers are not always just. This is a <\/strong>test that is–<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>The displeasure of an earthly governor may reflect the displeasure of God. This is not always the case. Rulers have been displeased with and persecuted the most holy. But the honest displeasure of a ruler against hypocritical pretensions and deceitful gifts is a reflection of the Divine displeasure. Would thy governor be pleased with thee? If not, there is–<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>The Christian sacrifice. Times have changed, but circumstances have not. God does not demand expiatory sacrifice, but He requires spiritual. We are to render Him certain services, and these services are the New Testament sacrifices.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>The imperfections by which these services are blemished.<\/p>\nFuente: 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
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
GODS APPEAL TO SELF-JUSTIFYING SINNERS<\/strong><\/p>\n
Now, if an earthly governor would not accept from us, or we from our own servants, such services as these, how can we suppose that God should be pleased with them? I think we shall scarcely venture to say that God is entitled to less at our hands than we are at the hands of our fellow-creatures: and therefore, according to this lowest of all standards, we are exceeding faulty, and may justly be condemned out of our own mouths.]
If we have nothing to urge in reply to this appeal, let us attend to,<\/p>\n
<\/strong><\/p>\nFuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n