How do we bring blemished offerings to God (Malachi 1:8)?

"Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible. And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor: will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the Lord of hosts. And now, I pray you, beseech God that He will be gracious unto us: this hath been by your means: will he regard your persons? saith the Lord of hosts. Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand." (vv. 7-10.)

It should be noted that the altar and the table of the Lord, in this scripture, are one and the same thing. The altar is thus denominated because the sacrifices were termed, as also Christ whom these typified, God's bread. (See Lev. 21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22; Num. 28:2; John 6:33.) Hence the priests here are charged with offering polluted bread upon God's altar in proof that they despised Jehovah's name; for in so doing they plainly showed that they had lost all conception of the holiness of Him to whom they professed to sacrifice, and that the altar was in their eyes but a common thing, saying, by their act, that the Lord's table was contemptible. But the charge against them is even more distinct: they offered the blind, the lame, and the sick for sacrifice, thereby violating, and knowingly violating, one of the most rigid precepts of the Scriptures. In every case the animal offered upon the altar was to be "without blemish" (see Lev. 22:17-25), that it might be a more fitting type of Christ. But this was to give God of their best; and these men, as they surveyed their herds and flocks, lost to all sense of the divine claims, and the meaning of the sacrifices He required, were willing to give Him what was of no use to themselves — their valueless animals, but nothing more, thereby truly despising His name, polluting His altar, and making the Lord's table contemptible. They were thus treating Jehovah as they would not have dared to do with their governor. 'Offer what you offer me, saith the Lord, unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person?' They knew he would not.

Is there no voice to us in this solemn language? Are we never betrayed into offering to the Lord our useless things? When, for example, the opportunity is presented of giving to the Lord of our substance, to minister to His poor, or to have fellowship with His work in encouraging those who go forth, whether at home or abroad, taking nothing of the Gentiles, in what way do we act? Do we give of our best, of our first-fruits, or of our superfluities or useless things? Do we lay, so to speak, upon the altar as much as we can, or only as much as we may think necessary? Do we, in a word, acknowledge that the Lord's claims — we speak after the manner of men — are first and foremost? Do we begin first with Him or with ourselves? And do we never give more to man, when he asks of us, than we should have done if left to ourselves to act in secret before the Lord? Has not man indeed often more influence upon us in these things, because he is seen, than the Lord who is not seen? We might well search our hearts by the light of such words, that, while learning from them the state of this poor remnant, we may gain practical instruction for ourselves.

3rd. The outward service of the Lord was continued, but the true inward motive for the service was lacking (Mal. 1:7-10). They brought their offerings to the altar, or table of the Lord; they kindled the fire on the altar, and they opened and shut the doors of the temple. But no one would shut the doors for nought. Love of self, and not love to the Lord, was the motive for their service. The result was that, in the service of the Lord, anything would do. The lame and the sick would do for the Lord. Not so would they dare to treat their earthly ruler. Men had a greater place in their eyes than the Lord, and to give them such a place was treating the Lord with contempt. If they treated their ruler thus, would he be pleased with them?

In verse 10 He says, "It is not out of love to me you present offerings, and shut the doors." The priests got the flesh. It was the portion of the Levites. And sometimes, when a priest saw a nice fat animal brought in, he saw it had a blemish - it might be a blind eye; but he knew it would be just as good for him and his family to eat if it were blind; so he passed over the blind eye, and offered the sacrifice; and God comes in and says, "You care for yourself; but what is due to me you pass over, and so you have 'profaned' my name before the Gentiles." (vv. 11, 12.)

God first appealed to the hearts of His people, and afterwards referred to their offerings. The latter might be taken as an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual state. God has so ordered it that the offerings of His people should be regulated by their hearts. It is not to be supposed, therefore, that their offerings would be right in His estimation when their hearts were wrong. Neither is it said, "My son, give Me thy offering," but, "Give Me thine heart." And when the Lord gets possession of the heart, He will not fail to show His appreciation of the offering, "for God loveth a cheerful giver." But the Jewish people at this time were insulting God by offering "the blind and lame" of their herds and flocks for sacrifices upon their altars. They reserved the best they possessed for themselves, and brought the worst to God, as though anything were good enough for Him.

The phrase — "the table of the Lord" — is not unknown to the O.T. In Ezek. 41:22; 44:16, Jehovah speaks of the altar of incense as the table that is before Him. Evidently this is to enforce the fact of its holiness, being in the sanctuary in His immediate presence as well as bearing the offerings made to His name. And in Malachi the phrase is again used, even more strikingly, in connection with the holiness of the altar. Jehovah there expostulates with the priests who offered polluted bread on His altar and profaned His name, saying that the table of Jehovah is contemptible (Mal. 1:7-12). It was the fact that the altar was before Jehovah and that it was called by His name, which made the desecration so terrible. And there was no excuse for ignorance of what was suited to the Lord; for His word of old had plainly forbidden that the blind, the lame, or the sick, should be offered in sacrifice (Lev. 20:11-22). This word however they had deliberately disobeyed (Mal. 1:8). And what they would be ashamed to bring to the governor, they brought to Jehovah. What was this but the most inexcusable levity in the most sacred things? It was despising His name; and therefore the burden of the word of the Lord was against Israel.

The priests, the religious leaders of the people, are described first in their evil ways, and rebuked. But the rebuke includes the entire people, for it is true, "like priests like people." The Lord called Israel to be His firstborn son, and therefore, nationally, He is their Father. He is the Lord, and Israel called to be His servant. But they had not honored Him, as a son should honor the father by obedience; they did not fear Him, but despised His Name. This charge brought forth from the side of the priests another brazen statement, the result of their hypocritical self-righteousness. They answered back, demanding proof of the charge by saying, "Wherein have we despised Thy Name?" They seemed to be hardened in their consciences, though they kept up outward appearances. Such, too, is the religious condition in much of Christendom. Another charge follows, the charge that they offer polluted bread, which brought forth the retort, "Wherein have we polluted Thee?" They had considered the table of the Lord contemptible; instead of offering upon the altar the very best, as demanded in the law, they showed their contempt by bringing the blind, the lame and the sick, a thing which they would never have done to an earthly governor, who would have been sorely displeased at such an insult and rejected their person on account of it. They had treated the Lord of Hosts shamefully in their worship. Is it different in Christendom? Under such conditions, even if they were to pray to Him to be gracious, would He, or could He, regard their persons and listen to their prayers (verse 9)?

That which was absolutely perfect could alone suit the altar and answer to the heart of God. To offer a blemished thing to Him was simply to prove the absence of all true sense of what became Him, and of all real heart for Him. To attempt to offer an imperfect sacrifice was tantamount to the horrible blasphemy of saying that anything was good enough for Him.

Let us hearken to the indignant pleadings of the Spirit of God, by the mouth of the prophet Malachi. "Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible. And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now to thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? says the Lord of hosts. And now, I pray you, beseech God that he will be gracious to us; this has been by your means; will he regard your persons? says the Lord of hosts. Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. For from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name shall be great among the heathen, says the Lord of hosts. But ye have profaned it, in that ye say, The table of the Lord is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat is contemptible. Ye said also Behold, what a weariness is it! and ye have snuffed at it, says the Lord of hosts: and ye brought that which was torn, and the lame and the sick; thus ye brought an offering; should I accept this of your hand? says the Lord. But cursed be the deceiver, which has in his flock a male, and vows, and sacrifices to the Lord a corrupt thing; for I am a great King, says the Lord of hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen." (Mal. 1:7-14.)

From verse 17 to the end of the chapter we have regulations as to offerings which might be brought by the ordinary Israelite or even by a stranger. Here the same intention is seen. Every offerer had to know the holiness of Jehovah to whom the offering was made, and see that no blemish of any kind marked the offering, and that it was not some very small and feeble creature just born. All was to be done as God ordained. They were hallowed, and thus set apart, by Jehovah; and He was to be hallowed in the midst of them.

When we turn to the Book of Malachi, we at once see that the remnant of the people who had returned to the land, were violating these instructions in outrageous fashion. The priests were offering "polluted bread" on the altar of the Lord. They were offering "the blind for sacrifice," and also "the lame and sick." They were challenged to offer such things to the governor and see what he would say. Offered to him it would be an impertinence; offered to God it was a shameful sin. They were treating the statutes of our chapter as though they were null and void. Hence the reminder that the "law of Moses … with the statutes and judgments" (Mal. 4:4), had not lost any of its force though a thousand years had passed since it was given. What God ordains at the beginning of a dispensation stands unaltered and authoritative at the end of it.

The fact was that they were offering to God animals that they would never present to a secular governor; and further, as verse 10 shows, they expected to make some material gain for the simplest things they did in the temple service. They were putting their own things first and treating God's service as subservient to themselves. Has this no voice for us? We believe it has very definitely. The flesh in each of us would naturally and easily put our own earthly interests first, and treat 'the kingdom of God and His righteousness' as something that may conveniently fill up any little gaps left as we pursue our own things. It is all too easy to forget the Lord's words in Matthew 6:32.

The Lord now instructs Moses to address Aaron and his sons and all the children of Israel, to insist that even free will burnt offerings must be free from blemishes. For some might think that, though the compulsory offerings for sin and trespass must be without defect, yet this might not be required if the offering was giving voluntarily. But the burnt offering was offered primarily for God's glory, and no defect was to be allowed (vv. 18-20).

The peace offering might be offered to fulfill a vow, or as a free will offering. No defect was to be allowed in such cases either, except that a bull or a lamb that had a limb too long or too short could be allowed for a free will offering, but not for a vow (vv. 21-23). But no animal that had been bruised or crushed or torn or cut was acceptable for any sacrifice. The same law must be applied to a foreigner who desired to offer anything to God (v. 25).