How is this prophecy of Malachi understood from a protestant perspective.

[joe370]

A question for non-Catholics:

The Catholic Church of the first 3 centuries viewed the breaking of the bread as a true sacrifice. The early Church (CC) - recognized the Eucharist as a fulfillment of a prophecy of Malachi. Here is the passage:

“I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts; neither will I accept any sacrifice from your hands, For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.” (Malachi 1: 10-11)

How is this prophecy of Malachi understood from a protestant perspective, and does that perspective align with what the ECF’s taught and believed? Lastly, did the ECF’s have another interpretation of the prophecy of Malachi that I am unaware of, and if so, could you please provide the quote? Thanks…

Justin does not seem to pull any punches here in his interpretation of Malachi’s prophecy.

Justin Martyr (AD 100 -165):

“And the offering of fine flour, sirs, which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will. Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord: but you profane it.’ Malachi 1:10-12 [So] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it].” (Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 41) [3]

The Eucharist below, is referred to as an “oblation” (which is common in the writings of the Early Church Fathers), and although Irenaeus describes many oblations done by Christians “in spirit and in truth” and not according to the Law of Moses (which was nailed to the cross with Christ, Him having fulfilled it), nevertheless we can see a specific “oblation in the new covenant” (the Eucharist) - which is linked here to the prophecy of Malachi which we have been focusing on.

Irenaeus ( born somewhere between AD 115-142, martyred ? sometime post AD 190 – early 3rd century):

“Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to [the declaration of] Malachi the prophet. For, ‘from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice;’ Malachi 1:11 as John also declares in the Apocalypse: ‘The incense is the prayers of the saints.’ Then again, Paul exhorts us ‘to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.’ Romans 12:1 And again, ‘Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips.’ Hebrews 13:15 Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it; Colossians 2:14 but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God ‘in spirit and in truth.’ John 4:24 And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal.” (Fragments, chapter 37) [4]

Augustine does not seem to mince his words either in what is foretold in this prophecy - namely that the sacrifices of the Old Covenant would be replaced by the sacrifice of the New. The former foreshadowing the latter as we learn in the letter to the Hebrews.

Augustine (AD 354 – 430):

“’’From the rising of the sun even to its setting My name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place sacrifice is offered to my name, a clean oblation; for My name is great among the Gentiles,’ says the Lord Almighty (1.)’ What do you answer to that? Open your eyes at last, then, any time, and see, from the rising of the sun to its setting, the Sacrifice of Christians is offered, not in one place only, as was established with you Jews, but everywhere; and not to just any god at all, but to Him who foretold it, the God of Israel. . . . Not in one place, as was prescribed for you in the earthly Jerusalem, but in every place, even in Jerusalem herself. Not according to the order of Aaron, but according to the order of Melchisedech.” (Sermon Against the Jews) [5]

 

[Cat_Herder]

This should be interesting.

Of course, there’s only one “pure offering” that has ever been sacrificed – Jesus Christ. On that every Christian should agree.

But Malachi prophesied that this sacrifice would be continuously offered–not just on Mount Calvary and in the Cenacle, but by every nation, at every place and at every time, with incense.

Sound familiar?

 

[joe370]

This should be interesting.

Of course, there’s only one “pure offering” that has ever been sacrificed – Jesus Christ. On that every Christian should agree.

But Malachi prophesied that this sacrifice would be continuously offered–not just on Mount Calvary and in the Cenacle, but by every nation, at every place and at every time, with incense.

Sound familiar?

Agreed.

 

[SyCarl]

I would refer to Hebrews.

Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name. And do not neglect doing good and sharing, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.

(Heb 13:15-16 NASB)

Eucharist itself means thanksgiving. I have no trouble regarding it as the type of sacrifice referred to by Paul. I do have problems in viewing it as a propitiary sacrifice and none of the fathers you quote refer to it as such.

You should go farther in your reading of Justin.

Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind, whose name the high priests of your nation and your teachers have caused to be profaned and blasphemed over all the earth.

(Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 117)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.cxvii.html

Augustine also speaks of sacrifice as part of worship elsewhere.

. With all this, you venture to denounce the sacrifices of the Old Testament, and to call them idolatry, and to attribute to us the same impious notion. To answer for ourselves in the first place, while we consider it no longer a duty to offer sacrifices, we recognize sacrifices as part of the mysteries of Revelation, by which the things prophesied were foreshadowed. For they were our examples, and in many and various ways they all pointed to the one sacrifice which we now commemorate. Now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and has been offered in due time, sacrifice is no longer binding as an act of worship, while it retains its symbolic authority.

(Contra Faustum, Book 6, Paragraph 5)
newadvent.org/fathers/140606.htm

 

[Cat_Herder]

I have no trouble regarding it as the type of sacrifice referred to by Paul. I do have problems in viewing it as a propitiary sacrifice and none of the fathers you quote refer to it as such.

Here you go.

Eucharist itself means thanksgiving.

Hence you are twisting Justin’s words to say thanksgiving doesn’t mean thanksgiving just like you twist Christ’s and Paul’s words to say that “is”… well… take it away, Mr. President.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1087&pictureid=7475

 

[joe370]

SyCarl

;7174137]I would refer to Hebrews.

(Heb 13:15-16 NASB)

Eucharist itself means thanksgiving. I have no trouble regarding it as the type of sacrifice referred to by Paul. I do have problems in viewing it as a propitiary sacrifice and none of the fathers you quote refer to it as such.

So, you don’t believe that Augustine was referring to the Eucharist of which Jesus spoke at His last supper? I always try to meet you half way, but that one ain’t gonna fly for me. If that sits well for you then that is all that should matter for you brother.

You should go farther in your reading of Justin.

(Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 117)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.cxvii.html

Augustine also speaks of sacrifice as part of worship elsewhere.

(Contra Faustum, Book 6, Paragraph 5)
newadvent.org/fathers/140606.htm

I’ll check it out and get back to you. Thanks for the links.

 

[SyCarl]

Here you go.

Hence you are twisting Justin’s words to say thanksgiving doesn’t mean thanksgiving just like you twist Christ’s and Paul’s words to say that “is”… well… take it away, Mr. President.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1087&pictureid=7475

Now where did I say anything about what or what does not happen to the elements. I believe in a Real Presence if not the transubstantiation doctrine of the Catholic Church. In any event I believe that God accomplishes what He intends whatever we may believe about the sacrament.

The quotes from the link you provided speak of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, which I admitted in noting Hebrews but they do not refer to it as a propitiary sacrifice ie a sacrifice by which sin is forgiven. I know that the Catholic Church indicates that it is a re-presenation of the original once for all sacrifice of Jesus but then inconsistency seems to appear. Christ’s sacrifice was propitiary for all sin, what the Catholic Church refers to as mortal and venial sins. If it is the same sacrifice it should have the same effects but the Catholic Church does not claim this. Instead it is only said to forgive venial sins, so how can it be the same sacrifice with different results?

 

[SyCarl]

So, you don’t believe that Augustine was referring to the Eucharist of which Jesus spoke at His last supper? I always try to meet you half way, but that one ain’t gonna fly for me. If that sits well for you then that is all that should matter for you brother.

You misunderstand me. I acknowledge that the Eucharist is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. I do not believe it is a propitiary sacrifice, which is a different matter.

 

[Cat_Herder]

You misunderstand me. I acknowledge that the Eucharist is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. I do not believe it is a propitiary sacrifice, which is a different matter.

Since Malachi’s prophecy includes the “pure offering,” of which there is only one (Jesus Himself), the Eucharist is the same sacrifice as Calvary. Agree?

 

[Cat_Herder]

If it is the same sacrifice it should have the same effects but the Catholic Church does not claim this. Instead it is only said to forgive venial sins, so how can it be the same sacrifice with different results?

Two questions here:

1. When are the merits of Calvary (the washing in the Blood of Christ) applied to the sinner?
2. Why does Communion only forgive venial sins?

#1. You’re presupposing that everyone’s sins were automatically forgiven at Calvary, venial and mortal, and then asking why the Eucharist is not the same. But no Christian believes what you claim. The vast majority understand that Baptism is required to apply the sacrifice of Jesus to one’s sins. Then there are the Fundamentalists with their Sinner’s Prayer–even that is an act that is, in their flawed view, necessary to be saved.

#2. God established that repentance is required before receiving Communion. He could have allowed Communion to work like Baptism, to cause the immediate forgiveness of all sins. But He didn’t.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 11:27-30[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[joe370]

The context of Malachi is quite obvious. God is unhappy with the way in which they offer their sacrifices. They were not offering up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name. Agreed?

Because of this God says:

“I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts; neither will I accept any sacrifice from your hands, For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.” (Malachi 1: 10-11)

God is telling the Jewish nation that He refuses to accept any sacrifice from their hands (the priests) - and then God goes on to tell them that someone other than them (Jewish nation) - will be entrusted with the task of bringing sacrifice to His name, and a pure offering…He is juxtaposing the two, and neither of them have anything to do with sacrificing of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name. An actual alter with an actual sacrifice is the context of Malachi 1. Jesus is displeased with the way they are implementing their sacrifices at the alter, and tells them that one day a pure sacrifice on an alter other than their alter, will be made that will please HIM. The question I had to ask myself as a former protestant was:

Where can I go to find the gentiles bringing sacrifice to Gods name, and a pure offering? Well, the answer is: the EOC and the CC. No one else believes in the sacrifice of the alter. I really tried to see this from your perspective. Give some credit brother.

“A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If I am a father, where is the honor due me? If I am a master, where is the respect due me?” says the LORD Almighty. "It is you, O priests, who show contempt for my name.
"But you ask, ‘How have we shown contempt for your name?’

7 "You place defiled food on my altar.
"But you ask, ‘How have we defiled you?’
“By saying that the LORD’s table is contemptible. 8 When you bring blind animals for sacrifice, is that not wrong? When you sacrifice crippled or diseased animals, is that not wrong? Try offering them to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you?” says the LORD Almighty.

9 “Now implore God to be gracious to us. With such offerings from your hands, will he accept you?”-says the LORD Almighty.

10 “Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the LORD Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands. 11 My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD Almighty.

12 “But you profane it by saying of the Lord’s table, ‘It is defiled,’ and of its food, ‘It is contemptible.’ 13 And you say, ‘What a burden!’ and you sniff at it contemptuously,” says the LORD Almighty.
“When you bring injured, crippled or diseased animals and offer them as sacrifices, should I accept them from your hands?” says the LORD. 14 “Cursed is the cheat who has an acceptable male in his flock and vows to give it, but then sacrifices a blemished animal to the Lord. For I am a great king,” says the LORD Almighty, "and my name is to be feared among the nations.

 

[joe370]

Since Malachi’s prophecy includes the “pure offering,” of which there is only one (Jesus Himself), the Eucharist is the same sacrifice as Calvary. Agree?

Cat, that is exactly how I saw it as a former on the fence protestant.

 

[joe370]

You misunderstand me. I acknowledge that the Eucharist is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. I do not believe it is a propitiary sacrifice, which is a different matter.

That’s cool. I respect your right to believe what ever you want to believe.

When Jesus used the word Eucharist, Jesus was not referring to a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. He was giving thanks to what was in His hands which was bread and wine. Why give thanks for mere bread and wine?

As they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks for it, and broke it. …

Jesus was talking about His actual Body and blood under the veil of bread and wine. If Jesus meant what you think He meant, regarding a sacrifice of praise… then why offer up bread and wine? Is your contention that the bread and wine represent the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name? When Jesus handed the cup to His apostles and said, take all of you and drink, this is my blood of the new and everlasting covenant, which will be shed for many for the remission of sin, He was actually referring to a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name?

 

[joe370]

Cat, something else that did not make any sense to me as a former on the fence protestant. How does one eat the bread unworthily if it’s just plain old bread. How is one guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord if the bread wine is not His body and blood…
I use to attempt to finagle my way out of it by saying:

One can eat the bread unworthily by not contemplating on Jesus…by not remembering Him. Do this in remembrance…But that fizzled out quickly…

27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Cat, something else that did not make any sense to me as a former on the fence protestant. How does one eat the bread unworthily if it’s just plain old bread. How is one guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord if the bread wine is not His body and blood…
I use to attempt to finagle my way out of it by saying:

One can eat the bread unworthily by not contemplating on Jesus…by not remembering Him. Do this in remembrance…But that fizzled out quickly…

The other way they try to get around it is by saying the reference to the “body of the Lord” is to the congregation and not the Communion elements. IOW, they are trying to make it into a requirement that a Christian must be a Christian before receiving Communion. However, it’s quite clear that Paul considered everyone to whom the First Epistle to the Corinthians was addressed to already be a Christian:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 1:1-3[/BIBLEDRB]

The people who make this claim are by and large the same ones who say that anyone who “calls on the name of the Lord” (e.g. Sinner’s Prayer) are saved and forever so (“Once Saved Always Saved”)–so if they are right, Paul’s warning is about an impossibility. It would make zero sense for Paul to give a useless warning; moreover, because his warning is Scripture, it must be useful for some teaching purpose. (2 Tim 3:16). A warning about something that can never happen is useless.

So, yeah, it just falls apart.

 

[joe370]

I forgot about that one Cat. That one was never an option for me. That made no sense to me at all. It seems the more I debate with my protestant friends via-a-vis the Eucharist, the more catholic I become. I’m not just trying to be funny either. The reinforce my beliefs…My sister is a perfect example…

The other way they try to get around it is by saying the reference to the “body of the Lord” is to the congregation and not the Communion elements. IOW, they are trying to make it into a requirement that a Christian must be a Christian before receiving Communion. However, it’s quite clear that Paul considered everyone to whom the First Epistle to the Corinthians was addressed to already be a Christian:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 1:1-3[/BIBLEDRB]

The people who make this claim are by and large the same ones who say that anyone who “calls on the name of the Lord” (e.g. Sinner’s Prayer) are saved and forever so (“Once Saved Always Saved”)–so if they are right, Paul’s warning is about an impossibility. It would make zero sense for Paul to give a useless warning; moreover, because his warning is Scripture, it must be useful for some teaching purpose. (2 Tim 3:16). A warning about something that can never happen is useless.

So, yeah, it just falls apart.

 

[Cat_Herder]

The silence is deafening…

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?pictureid=7617&albumid=1087&dl=1287456569&thumb=1

Here’s another question: Why do Protestant churches have altars if there is no sacrifice offered on them?
New Oxford American Dictionary (2d ed):

altar |ˈôltər|
noun
the table in a Christian church at which the bread and wine are consecrated in communion services.
• a table or flat-topped block used as the focus for a religious ritual, esp. for making sacrifices or offerings to a deity.

 

[SnakeMauler]

They have an altar for “alter calls”. Basically they make people feel bad about themselves until they walk up after deciding to “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and savior.”

 

[Cat_Herder]

They have an altar for “alter calls”. Basically they make people feel bad about themselves until they walk up after deciding to “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and savior.”

The dictionary says that an altar is a place for offering sacrifice. Not a podium for speeches.

 

[joe370]

The dictionary says that an altar is a place for offering sacrifice. Not a podium for speeches.

Exactly…Cat, I really didn’t think too many protestants would address this thread for the same reason I avoided the prophecy of Malachi as a former protestant. That’s too bad…