2

For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same My name shall be great among the Gentiles;

And in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: For my name shall be great among the heathen, Saith the Lord of hosts.

Malachi 1:11 (KJV)

I have been looking for Protestant explanation of this and how it is fulfilled in Christ. The only one that I have found suggests that the incense that is offered to God represents prayers and the pure offering is also those prayers. My problem with this interpretation is the Hebrew. It clearly suggests two distinct offerings, incense and a pure offering. Some translations suggest it as a grain offering but the Hebrew text does not support that.

Supporting this offering which is sacrificial in nature is Isaiah 66:21 (KJV), which must be read in the context of the rest of Isaiah 66.

And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD.

Are the Levites something other than ministerial priests who make sacrificial offering to the Lord for the people?

What is the pure offering if not the offering of Christ on the Cross re-presented daily all over the world in the Catholic Church? What is the Protestant version? What is the reference to Priests and Levites if not that of the "priesthood of believers" and "a sacrificial ministerial priesthood" (Catholic Clergy) taken for the first time after the Cross--from outside the Jewish Rabbinical traditions?

How do Protestants say these prophecies have been fulfilled in their churches?

  • I ask this in light of 1 Peter3:15. I have yet to recieve an explanation of these passages of Scripture. The prospects of getting an answer here excite me as I have been very impressed so far by the knowlege of many who participate in this site regardless of their eccliasial associations. – Marc Apr 9 '15 at 13:22
  • The title asks for "non-Catholic" interpretations, but the body of the question asks for "Protestant" explanations. These are not the same. Please edit either the title or the body to clarify whether you are looking for Protestant answers only, or for answers representing any non-Catholic denomination. Thanks. – Lee Woofenden May 19 '15 at 14:44
  • It still has the same problem. The title still says "non-Catholic," and the body still says "Protestant." Approximately 28.8 million, or 13.2% of Christians are neither Catholic nor Protestant. (See Global Christianity – A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Christian Population, especially the chart titled "Major Christian Traditions.") Are you interested only in Protestant answers, or in answers from the perspective of any non-Catholic denomination? – Lee Woofenden May 19 '15 at 15:15
  • 3
    You ask seven questions here, and many of them seem rhetorical. It's difficult to determine which questions you actually want answered and which you present as arguments of your presumtion. I think the quality of your answers will improve if you focus on presenting a single clear question. – Andrew May 19 '15 at 20:57
  • 1
    @Mr. Bultitude I aprove of your edit, thank you for keeping the heart of my question intact. – Marc May 21 '15 at 12:45
1

Unlike in Catholicism, there is no unified and singular Protestant body of doctrine, so a “Protestant answer” to your question cannot be given. I can, however, provide an answer given by the popular Protestant theologian, scholar, and commentator Matthew Henry who in his commentary of Malachi 1, says:

In these verses, they are charged with ingratitude, in that they were not duly sensible of God’s distinguishing goodness to them; and such a charge as this may well be called a burden, for it is a heavy one. God asserts the great kindness he had, and had often expressed, for them (Mal. 1:2): I have loved you, saith the Lord. Thus abruptly does the sermon begin, as if God intended, whatever reproofs should be given them, to reconcile them to his love, and to take care that they should still have good thoughts of him. As many as I love I rebuke and chasten. Thus kindly does the sermon begin. God will have his people satisfied that he loves them and is ever mindful of his love.

Malachi prophesied to the Priests of Israel. The priesthood of the Levites is important; it is a type that precedes the priesthood of the Church in Messiah, the priestly nation. Where the priesthood of the Levites was from patronage and has ended, the priesthood of the Church is from God and lasts forever. As in all things, the priesthood according to the law has passed away, and the priesthood that comes by faith endures, in the same way that Messiah is not a priest in the order of Levi, as he is not a descendant of Levi but of Judah and indeed a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. The Lord was rebuking the priests for the disdain with which they carried out their duties that God gave them as a blessing to them; it was their allotted inheritance.

They question his love, and diminish the instances of it, and seem to quarrel with him for telling them of it: Yet you say, Wherein hast thou loved us? As God traces up all his favours to them to the fountain, which was his love, so he traces up all their sins against him to the fountain, which was their contempt of his love. Instead of acknowledging his kindness, and studying what they shall render, they scorn to own that they have been beholden to him, challenge him to produce proofs of his love that are material, and think and speak very slightly of the instances they have had of his kindness, as if they were so few, so small, as not to be worth taking notice of, and no more than what they had sufficiently made returns for, or at least than he had sufficiently balanced with instances of his wrath.

Henry continues to make his point, which is what I believe you are after here:

He declares his resolution both to secure the glory of his own name and to reckon with those who profane it. Those who put contempt upon God and religion, and think to run down sacred things, let them know that they shall not gain their point. God will magnify his law and make it honourable, though they [the priests to whom Malachi prophesies] vilify it and make it contemptible; for (Mal. 1:11) from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles.

And so The Lord in this prophecy contrasts the contentious priests who are sons of Abraham with the Church, that is the Church of Messiah that is later to come, who are not even sons of Abraham by birth and will yet honor him in the way the he desires. This is how the prophecy is fulfilled in Christ. Malachi is saying to the Levitical priests who will not carry out their allotted inheritance that the Church of Messiah, made up of all the nations, will be faithful in theirs.

  • mathew Henry writes eloquently, however; in his eloquence he has edited out the meat of the scripture. "How have you polluted it. By thinking the Lords table may be despised". It is the pure offering, the Lords super, the Table of which I ask of that makes the Name of the Lord Great among the Gentiles. – Marc May 20 '15 at 3:44
  • I disagree. This table pertains to the recipients of the burden, and is the Table of the Bread of the Presence and to their allowance if the offerings given at the Temple. Here Malachi was not talking about the Eucharist, because he was not prophesying over the Church but the Temple priests. His contrast in the message is of the priests of the temple with those of the Church, which is not burdened by this prophecy. Who will accuse the Church? – Andrew May 20 '15 at 12:11
  • ... As for the priests in the order of Levi, a portion of the temple offerings was theirs, and so the table here is a pun that Malachi uses to point out their disdain not only for their office but also for their provisions, which quite literally come from the Lord's Table in the Temple at that time. These both consist their inheritance, for which they show disdain in their contempt. Now the Temple where that table stood has been destroyed, and the Church does not worship there (John 4:21-24). The Bread of Life remains. – Andrew May 20 '15 at 12:12
  • How does that "Bread of Life"which I assume you agree that it is the "pure offering" metioned by Malichi, become an offering in every place at a future time, how does the Pun fit into the offering of insence and that same pure offering and how does it relate to Isiah's profacy. You to, like Mathew Henry, write eloquently, but I for one would rather hear your answer plainly. At every opportunity, to counter the understanding of the early Church, the answers seems to be,"that was a Pun"This was metaphor" Indeed these tools are used in prophetic writings, however,they should not reverse intent. – Marc May 21 '15 at 13:26
  • 1
    @Marc Let's continue this discussion in chat – Andrew May 21 '15 at 14:47
1

To answer your question one needs not go further than the New Testament itself as the Protestants sought to allow the New Testament to interpret the old. The incense is prayer and the offering is a personal sacrifice of the self, which is a constant teaching of the Old Testament prophets. As for the priesthood who offers, all are priests through the anointing of their baptism and offer this sacrifice.

Revelation 5:8

...and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

Romans 12:1

Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.

1 Peter 2:5

You also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

It is not necessarily a distinctly Protestant answer, either. As you can see, it is in the thought of John, Paul, and Peter; and you can find those interpretations in the early church Fathers as well as Protestants. But since your question is specifically requesting Protestant interpretations, below would be some examples:

John Calvin, Institutes, Bk4,Ch18

"The passage they quote from Malachi resembles one in Isaiah, in which the prophet speaks of three altars to be erected in Assyria, Egypt, and Judea. First, I ask, whether or not they grant that this prophecy is fulfilled in the kingdom of Christ? . . . This is the answer which we give them. . . . although they are miserably deluded in this also, that they acknowledge no sacrifice but that of the mass, whereas in truth believers now sacrifice to God and offer him a pure offering."

Adam Clarke Commentary on Malachi

"From the rising of the sun - The total abolition of the Mosaic sacrifices, and the establishment of a spiritual worship over the whole earth, is here foretold. The incense of praise, and the pure offering of the Lamb without spot, and through him a holy, loving heart, shall be presented everywhere among the Gentiles; and the Jews and their mock offerings shall be rejected."

Ellicott's Commentary "In any case, unless we are to expect some future establishment of a universal offering of material sacrifices, we must understand both expressions in a spiritual sense, which is, in truth, the only reasonable way of interpreting such passages. If, therefore, any Christians would claim this verse as a support for their custom of offering incense in churches, they must conform also with Zechariah 14:16-21, and go up every year to Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. The word “offering,” as in the preceding verse (comp. 1Samuel 2:17; Isaiah 1:13), denotes sacrificial gifts in general, not the flour offerings as distinguished from the flesh offerings. The word “pure” is emphatic, not as signifying the bloodless sacrifice of the Mass (Council of Trent), as distinguished from the bloody sacrifices, but as the converse of “polluted” (Malachi 1:7). The above remarks we have made in no controversial spirit, but simply in the interests of truth; and lest any should suppose us to imply that the above interpretation was originated by the Council of Trent, we refer the reader to Dr. Pusey’s Commentary, in which he shows, by quotations from SS. Justin, Irenæus, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and Augustine, as also from Tertullian, Eusebius, and Theodoret, that it is quod semper, quod ab omnibus, quod ubique. Those, therefore, who prefer so-called authority to the results of calm criticism are bound to disagree with us."

  • Welcome to Christianity.SE. For a quick overview, please take the Site Tour. Thanks for offering an answer here. While it might be a good answer, as it stands it is not clear that this is a Protestant answer, which is what the question asks for. Can you provide any references to Protestant churches or theologians making this particular biblical argument? See: What makes a good supported answer? – Lee Woofenden Nov 28 '17 at 22:42
  • Just to be clear, this is a Q&A site, not a discussion site. Answers must address the specific question asked from the perspective asked for. A general answer—even a biblical answer—to a question that asks for an answer from a particular perspective is considered "not an answer," and will likely be deleted. If you have references showing that Protestant churches or theologians have used these passages in interpreting Malachi 1:11 and Isaiah 66:20-21, that would make your answer an actual answer to the question asked, for the purposes of this site. – Lee Woofenden Nov 28 '17 at 23:43
  • Of course, you would need to edit the answer itself and add those references to it rather than posting them in comments. – Lee Woofenden Nov 28 '17 at 23:43
0

What is the pure offering if not the offering of Christ on the Cross Re-presented Daily all over the world in the Catholic Church?

Some people believe that prophecies about Israel that have not yet been fulfilled are now to be applied to the church. This often requires some degree of allegoricalization to accomplish.

Others consider that there is a future role for Israel and that those prophecies have yet, but will be fulfilled.

If one considers Mark 16 as descriptive of the intended role of Israel (that of advancing the Kingdom of God), one might consider that while much of what is described is not happening (healings, immunity to poison, etc.) now, it was happening in the early church and may happen with a restoration of a faithful remnant of Israel.

Mark 16:17-18 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

The temple referred to in Ezekiel (41-43) has not yet been built and seems particularly detailed to be an allegory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Temple

We know that those nations who refuse to send representatives to Jerusalem will not receive any rain.

Zechariah 14:17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

In context, Malachi seems to be contrasting the worthiness of the offerings that gentiles will offer to the unacceptable offerings of Israel.

Malachi 1:11-13 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith 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, saith 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? saith the LORD.

These future offerings of the gentiles might be made in a future rebuilt temple, at some un-described regional location, it may be a metaphor for worthy worship of the heart, or it may refer to worthy prayers (as had been stated).

The phrase "pure offering" may refer to a specific additional offering, additional offerings in general, may be an additional description of the incense offering, or even a general description of a worthy attitude towards God.

  • Are you suggesting a return to the sacrifical covenant of Moses as though the sacrifice of Christ is not sufficient? Also, you did not address the Ministerial preisthood of the Levites from Isaiah 66, or in Mark 16 that some of the things mentioned here have come to pass by the apostles themselves. Is Christ not the third temple not built with Human hands? I find this answer, all though well presented, lacking sufficientcy. For Christ came to fullfill the Law and the Prophets. Did he not do so? – Marc Apr 9 '15 at 16:05
  • I do not see a problem with a rebuilt temple and restored Levitical activity during the 1,000 year reign of Christ over earth from Jerusalem. I do not see the sacrificial system as an alternative means of salvation. Although the Pharisees mistakenly believed they earned their own salvation by keeping the law, righteousness was only imputed on the basis of faith. I see the sacrificial system as one in which faithful obedience can be demonstrated not one where forgiveness of sins is earned. In Mat. 5:18 it sounds like Jesus says that the law will not end until the new heaven and new earth. – timf Apr 9 '15 at 18:38
  • So, after the Rapture, the Tribulation, the return of Christ (not in secret but the actual) in Glory, after the dead in Christ are raised bodily and those faithful Christians who survived the tribulation are in Glorified Bodies then we have the Thousand year reign where Gentiles will act as Levitic priests in a temple built by Jews whose hearts were hardened yet faithfully participate in the temple sacrifices with non-Jewish high priests. Not fallowing the prescribed ordinances of the OT but some new covenant that is yet to come? – Marc Apr 9 '15 at 23:19
  • Well, yes, in a way. The "new and everlasting covenant" is a restoration of the Abrahamic covenant, not a replacement for it. As Christ said "I come not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." As for the Levitical versus the Melchisedek priesthood, they are both now alive and well in the restored church. – Brian Hitchcock May 20 '15 at 10:26
-1

I was trying to say that The old covenant was simply a Physical shadow of the spiritual truths of the new covenant.

"Heb 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. Heb 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Heb 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things,"

So Levites were consecrated to God so everyone being a Levite would be synonymous with everyone being consecrated to God.

Everytime they ground spices to powder it symbolized the things that crush us. And yet if we can still praise God through those crushing times , it is like incense to God. Rev 8 clearly states the prayers of the saints are incense to God.

The Roman Catholic church is old covenant in that they have priests. In the new Covenant we no longer need priests because we have direct access to God through the blood of Jesus. That is why when Christ was on the cross the veil in the temple was rent signifying a new and living way to God.

  • 1
    You don't seem to understand how this site works. This is understandable especially if you don't read the instructions. You also need to support your claims with references. Also, the question has nothing to do with prayers of saints. I understand your zeal and if you would like to discuss these things in chat I would be happy to, but here is not the place. – Marc Apr 18 '15 at 9:57
-2

Isaiah. Levites were consecrated to God from birth. Num_3:12 And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that opens the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine; They were ministers of the tabernacle Numbers 7:5 Num_18:6 And I, behold, I have taken your brethren the Levites from among the children of Israel: to you they are given as a gift for the LORD, to do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation. Many verses state that Levites were appointed to praise the Lord. 1Ch_16:4 And he appointed certain of the Levites to minister before the ark of the LORD, and to record, and to thank and praise the LORD God of Israel: 2Ch_7:6 And the priests waited on their offices: the Levites also with instruments of musick of the LORD, which David the king had made to praise the LORD, because his mercy endureth for ever, when David praised by their ministry; and the priests sounded trumpets before them, and all Israel stood. Ch_20:19 And the Levites, of the children of the Kohathites, and of the children of the Korhites, stood up to praise the LORD God of Israel with a loud voice on high. 2Ch_29:30 Moreover Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the LORD with the words of David, and of Asaph the seer. And they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed their heads and worshipped. 2Ch_31:2 And Hezekiah appointed the courses of the priests and the Levites after their courses, every man according to his service, the priests and Levites for burnt offerings and for peace offerings, to minister, and to give thanks, and to praise in the gates of the tents of the LORD. Ezr_3:10 And when the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the LORD, they set the priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites the sons of Asaph with cymbals, to praise the LORD, after the ordinance of David king of Israel. Neh_9:5 Then the Levites, Jeshua, and Kadmiel, Bani, Hashabniah, Sherebiah, Hodijah, Shebaniah, and Pethahiah, said, Stand up and bless the LORD your God for ever and ever: and blessed be thy glorious name, which is exalted above all blessing and praise. Neh_12:24 And the chief of the Levites: Hashabiah, Sherebiah, and Jeshua the son of Kadmiel, with their brethren over against them, to praise and to give thanks, according to the commandment of David the man of God, ward over against ward.

Everything in the old covenant is a physical representation of a spiritual truth.The levitical priest ground the spices and then put them on the fire to make an incense offering to the Lord. So when Christians suffer through things in life that would grind them to powder, and when they go thru the fire of trials and tribulations all the time still praising God. That is like sweet incense to the Lord

In Rev_8:3 And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. Rev_8:4 And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand. . This offering would not be for sin but probably a praise offering which is like incense to the Lord.

Heb_10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Heb_10:11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: Heb_10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Heb_10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Also with respect I don't see how having Roman Catholic priests are scriptural. Having a priest to get to God is old covenant. The old covenant is about having priests between man and God. The new covenant is about direct access to God. That is what is symbolized by the veil in the temple being rent in two signifying a new and living way. Heb_10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; At Sanai Israel was offered to be kings and priests of the Melchisedec order like Abraham and David. God wanted them to have a personal relationship with him like he had with Moses and Abraham. But they were rebellious and were afraid to talk to God directly and they wanted to be like other nations having ceremonies and priests. Later they did not want God as their king and they wanted a human king. God allowed this because he allws free will and so people will realize that getting what they want is not always a good thing. So they were burdened down by both ceremonies and taxes. The old covenant did serve as symbols of the spiritual concepts of the new covenant.

Heb 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. Heb 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Heb 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

To go to a man to get to God is so old covenant. Christ died so we could have access to God right in the Holy of Holies.

Also I don't understand how going to the Roman Catholic church which worship idols and who worships the queen of heaven could possibly represent a pure offering. People all over the world worship the Queen of heaven which is an abomination to God. Constantine wanted to have better control over the masses so he blended the queen of heaven worship with Chrisitanity to consolidate the people together. Thus the Roman Catholic church was born. The people still kept coming to worship their pagan idols but they changed the names from pagan queen of heaven to Mary. That is why you see depictions similar to Isis in RC churches.

Jer 7:16 Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make intercession to me: for I will not hear thee. Jer 7:17 See thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger. Jer 7:19 Do they provoke me to anger? says the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?

We see in the Old testament Solomon worshiped Ashtoreth "Astarte ... a Semitic goddess of fertility and sexual love, worshiped by the Phoenicians and others: see also ASHTORETH, ISHTAR." "Ashtoreth ... the ancient Phoenician and Syrian goddess of love and fertility: identified with ASTARTE." "Ishtar ... see ASHTORETH ... the goddess of love, fertility, and war." From whom the RC church gets Easter.

I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee: 1Ki 11:32 (But he shall have one tribe for my servant David's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel:) 1Ki 11:33 Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, ...and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father.

There are many scripture against the worship of Ashtoreth and Baal God hates mixtures so how could the RC church with it's mix of pagan and Christian practices ever provide a pure offering?

  • 1
    Wall of text! Please edit this to improve the formatting. Please put each Bible verse in its own paragraph, and use the quote formatting please. And write out full book names, not 2Ch_31:2 – curiousdannii Apr 17 '15 at 1:17
  • @user20773 I tried to fallow your answer but it is not clear, I would re-evaluate it if you could clear it up and perhaps not ask questions to answer one. My question was a simple one, and requires a simple answer, if there is one. This is just one of many questions that Protestants cannot answer. It is so difficult to support falsehoods and so easy to support truths. – Marc Apr 17 '15 at 11:55
  • @Marc and user20773: Debating the truth of various denominational positions is off-topic, and is not the purpose of this site. See We can't handle the truth. If you're here to try to prove that your church's position is right and other denominational positions are wrong, you've come to the wrong place. – Lee Woofenden May 19 '15 at 15:23
  • Also, personal beliefs and opinions (as compared to denominational positions) are entirely off-topic on this site. See point #6 in this answer on Meta, on the topic, "How we are different than other sites." – Lee Woofenden May 19 '15 at 15:25
  • User20773: I would suggest editing your answer and deleting everything from the paragraph starting "Also with respect I don't see how having Roman Catholic priests are scriptural" onward. It is off-topic for two reasons: 1. It does not answer the question. 2. It is a matter of truth and personal opinion (see my two previous comments). – Lee Woofenden May 19 '15 at 15:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.