Malachi 1:11: How can Protestant type of worship fullfil this passage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So what?

Are you telling me that Malachi doesn’t go from the time of Israels’s Blemished sacrifices to a time of the gentiles when sacrifice will be offered all over the Earth–that has absolutely Nothing to do with the former Jewish sacrificial system and everything to do with the coming gentile worship of God?!

Every place does not equate with Israel!

Saying it does is engaging in Negation exegesis!

What is literal or inerrant about that?

And how advanced is the concept of prophecy referring not only to the time that is given but also to a future time?
 
If Aug misinterprets the text as you point out, then yes I am laughing at his misapplication of scripture too.

Read the text in context. It is speaking about Animal Sacrafices that are corrupt vs acceptable Animal Sacrafices.

👍
 
Places all around the world has nothing to do with Israel either–is that concept too dificult to understand?

Does the one track mind limit itself to only one era at a time, too?
 
Malachi 1: 1 An oracle: The word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi.
 
Daniel_Marsh said:
If Aug misinterprets the text as you point out, then yes I am laughing at his misapplication of scripture too.

Read the text in context. It is speaking about Animal Sacrafices that are corrupt vs acceptable Animal Sacrafices.

👍
Click to expand...
I think this is a good point, but would like to add that according to (almost) universally accepted Christian theology, the only truly suficient sacrifice to reconcile us to God was that of Jesus on the cross. Jesus IS the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Jesus is the ONLY uncorrupted sacrifice, so how could it not refer to Calvary, especially if all of the New Testament is hidden in the old and all of the Old Testament is fulfilled in the new ?

I think that to obstinately refuse to consider that this passage points to anything outside of Jewish ritual animal sacrifices is a little presumptuous.
 
joshua_b said:
I think this is a good point, but would like to add that according to (almost) universally accepted Christian theology, the only truly suficient sacrifice to reconcile us to God was that of Jesus on the cross. Jesus IS the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Jesus is the ONLY uncorrupted sacrifice, so how could it not refer to Calvary, especially if all of the New Testament is hidden in the old and all of the Old Testament is fulfilled in the new ?

I think that to obstinately refuse to consider that this passage points to anything outside of Jewish ritual animal sacrifices is a little presumptuous.
Click to expand...
I agree. The problem I see is too many people try to force an either/or position onto Scripture. From our stand point, as Catholics, it’s not an either/or position, it’s a both and position. I don’t see why it can not be speaking about both the “current” (for the time) animalistic sacrifices in Jerusalem and the pure future sacrifice, which we see as the Mass. After all isn’t Scripture supposed to have many layers to it? Why limit yourself to only one layer of meaning?
 
Back to the original question…

I “swam the Tiber” on Divine Mercy Sunday, '06. I can shed some light on this.

Protestants believe with us that Jesus was the only pure sacrifice. They think, however, that our Eucharist re-offers His sacrifice, crucifying Him again and again. They do not understand that the Eucharist is a continuation of His work on the Cross.

Some of them base this on a very narrow reading of Heb 6:6. “… crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and making him a mockery.” That’s the Douay-Rheims; the RSV-CE does not have “again.”

Read the whole passage (Heb 6:4-7) to get a better understanding!

They do not take the incense (in Mal 1:11) literally - and neither do we. In the US, anyway, its use in the Liturgy is optional. (Just for the record, I love the “smells and bells.”)

A good verse that shows incense as prayers is Rev 8:4: “And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel.”

Again, I’m using the D-R, because the RSV-CE has “the smoke of the incense rose *with *the prayers of the saints…”
Rev 8:4 (RSV) (Most Protestants refer to all Christians on earth as “saints.” )

And, yes, we should all have a working knowledge of the OT. So much of what Jesus said quotes directly from it; to understand the OT context is to gain a fuller understanding of His teaching.

Did you know that the Jews, as children, memorized the whole Torah? One type of memory drill was for the Rabbi to say the first few words of a passage, and the students would fill in the rest. This drill did not end with childhood; a Rabbi would use it with his disciples, too, to make a point. So He might say, “The Lord is my shepherd” and expect the rest of that Psalm to be understood.

This gave me a whole new slant on Matt 27:46:
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, la’ma sabach-tha’ni?” that is, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (RSV)

I used to wonder why Jesus despaired so - but those are the first words of Psalm 22. That’s the one that prophesies the Crucifixion; it ends thusly:

Posterity shall serve him;
men shall tell of the Lord to the coming generation,
****and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn,
that he has wrought it.
Psalms 22:30-31 (RSV)

So it is not despair, at all, but a statement of His victory!

Your sister in Christ,

Ruthie
 
Ruthie said:
Back to the original question…

I “swam the Tiber” on Divine Mercy Sunday, '06. I can shed some light on this.

Protestants believe with us that Jesus was the only pure sacrifice. They think, however, that our Eucharist re-offers His sacrifice, crucifying Him again and again. They do not understand that the Eucharist is a continuation of His work on the Cross.

Some of them base this on a very narrow reading of Heb 6:6. “… crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and making him a mockery.” That’s the Douay-Rheims; the RSV-CE does not have “again.”

Read the whole passage (Heb 6:4-7) to get a better understanding!

They do not take the incense (in Mal 1:11) literally - and neither do we. In the US, anyway, its use in the Liturgy is optional. (Just for the record, I love the “smells and bells.”)

A good verse that shows incense as prayers is Rev 8:4: “And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel.”

Again, I’m using the D-R, because the RSV-CE has “the smoke of the incense rose *with *the prayers of the saints…”
Rev 8:4 (RSV) (Most Protestants refer to all Christians on earth as “saints.” )

And, yes, we should all have a working knowledge of the OT. So much of what Jesus said quotes directly from it; to understand the OT context is to gain a fuller understanding of His teaching.

Did you know that the Jews, as children, memorized the whole Torah? One type of memory drill was for the Rabbi to say the first few words of a passage, and the students would fill in the rest. This drill did not end with childhood; a Rabbi would use it with his disciples, too, to make a point. So He might say, “The Lord is my shepherd” and expect the rest of that Psalm to be understood.

This gave me a whole new slant on Matt 27:46:
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, la’ma sabach-tha’ni?” that is, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (RSV)

I used to wonder why Jesus despaired so - but those are the first words of Psalm 22. That’s the one that prophesies the Crucifixion; it ends thusly:

Posterity shall serve him;
men shall tell of the Lord to the coming generation,
****and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn,
that he has wrought it.
Psalms 22:30-31 (RSV)

So it is not despair, at all, but a statement of His victory!

Your sister in Christ,

Ruthie
Click to expand...
All good (name removed by moderator)ut Ruthie, and I agree with everything you posted. I feel this thread is starting to derail (or at least switch tracks) to the Eucharist. (Not directed at you Ruthie, that just seems to be the flow of conversation here.)

I think the whole point of the OP is that (and I’ve said this many times before) if you read the Bible, you find that God had His own ideas about what worship should look like and consist of. Really, God has His own ideas about what really IS “worship” in the first place, and many faith traditions seem to either not comprehend, or plain ignore these things.

First and foremost, true “worship” according the the Bible involves sacrifice, and the ONLY sacrifice pleasing to God was His Son. I understand the Protestant thinking on the Mass and “re-sacrificing” Christ…I’ve heard it many times. I certainly don’t agree with it, and think it is a fatally flawed misconception based on a very shallow understanding of the nature of Calvary, the redemptive applications of Calvary and the essence of God and His being, but I do understand it.

Maybe THAT is the ultimate point, all of the “smells and bells” aside (I agree with you…I LOVE the high mass)…without a sacrifice acceptable to God, can you really label what you are doing as “worship” as it is defined in accord with Scripture and the historical evidence of salvation history ?
 
The text in context is speaking of making a propper animal sacrafice, it is not speaking of Jesus at all.
 
That is a bold faced lie because Israel and the Jews would never offer sacrifice all over the Earth.

Time to leave the one track mind and advance to the two track mind.
 
Calm down Jerry-Jet…breathe my friend. Now…

We have already been over the “in context it is speaking of animal sacrifices” point. I think this is not quite the case. It talks about animal sacrifices, true, but ultimately, I believe it is dealing with worship. Why else would we offer a sacrifice of any kind ?
 
Daniel_Marsh said:
The text in context is speaking of making a propper animal sacrafice, it is not speaking of Jesus at all.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree. And I have to agree again with St. Augustine, that this refers to the priestly sacrifice of the New Testament and in the Catholic Church today.

Referencing animal sacrifice was Malachi’s way of saying “improper” worship. Here’s why:

It’s the same as throughout the book of Romans. When Paul says circumcision means nothing, what he really means is that salvation is open to Jews (those circumcised) and Gentiles (those who weren’t). It is not a book so much focused on circumcision as it is about Jews and Gentiles.

The same way, Malachi is talking about proper sacrifices and improper ones. First, as jerry-jet notes, the pure sacrifice will take place “from the rising of the sun to its setting” and “in every place” and “among the nations” (v. 11). Which means throughout time, everywhere on earth.

This is reinforced in chapter 2. Remember, chapter and verse separations came much later than the original writings.

Here’s how I understand it. In Malachi 2:4-8 God commends the priestly nature of His covenant with Levi (the Levites are a priestly order…see v. 7 and Dt. 18:7)

A little farther, in Malachi 3:2-4, Jesus is foretold as being a purifier of “the sons of Levi” (i.e. priestly descendants) and they will “offer sacrifices to the Lord in justice.” (v. 3) The RSV-CE reads: “they present right offerings to the Lord.”

So in full context, Malachi 1:11 is not about animal sacrifice. It is about improper sacrifice, as illustrated through improper animal sacrifice. But the prophecy clearly speaks of the future perfect offering that will exist once Jesus roams the earth as described in Malachi 3.
 
MarcoPolo said:
I am not fully convinced by the “present tense” nature of this passage meaning that it doesn’t reference the future, because prophets sometimes spoke in present tense.
Click to expand...
Isaiah even spoke in the past tense:
Isaiah 53:
3 Despised, and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with infirmity: and his look was as it were hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows: and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way: and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was offered because it was his own will, and he opened not his mouth: he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be dumb as a lamb before his shearer, and he shall not open his mouth. 8 He was taken away from distress, and from judgment: who shall declare his generation? because he is cut off out of the land of the living: for the wickedness of my people have I struck him.
Click to expand...
This was written in the past tense about 700 years before Our Lord was born, yet I don’t know of anyone who would deny that this is a prophecy concerning His passion.
 
mtr01 said:
Isaiah even spoke in the past tense:This was written in the past tense about 700 years before Our Lord was born, yet I don’t know of anyone who would deny that this is a prophecy concerning His passion.
Click to expand...
Great point!
 
bump…(I can’t believe that noone is wanting to get in on this)
 
I once watched a video of a talk given by a former Protestant minister who converted to Catholocism. He commented in the discussion of his journey home that Protestant ministers LOVE Malachi 3, but his response to the question “have you ever read Malachi 1 ?” (as a Protestant minister) was “There’s a Malachi 1…???”.
 
SyCarl said:
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.
(Hebrews 13:15 NASB)
Click to expand...
How does that relate to Malachi? And how does Jesus pure sacrifice on the cross play into that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top