The Obscurity of the Familiar:
Content, Context and Connection in Malachi 3:6-12
Section One: Introduction
Most North American Christians coming to Malachi 3:6-12 encounter the obscurity of the familiar. The panacea of Malachi 3:10 has been prescribed by family-counselors-turned-moral-crusaders, by financial advisors lucratively marketing their economics theories, and by pastors whose congregation’s “obedience” gives opportunity (and financing) to build broadcasting and/or publishing empires. A cynic might see one sad consequence, however, as intentional. With interpretation and application pureed, strained and served to them the audience is never bothered to examine the word of God themselves, thus leaving them dependent upon the priests and scribes.
“We all know what that says.” This is the obscurity of the familiar. It haunts many of the most easily understood (often the most difficultly practiced) passages of scripture as well as those that require closer examination. Thankfully, Malachi’s message as a whole appears to be regaining some attention from scholars, especially those who see parallels between the present “post-modern” and/or “post-Christian” era and the environment facing the restoration community of Yehud, the province surrounding Jerusalem, in the latter years of the Persian Period. That increased attention, however, appears to be breeding anything but consensus.
In contrast to the obscurity of the familiar noted above, the most notable theme in Malachi scholarship seems to be, “We don’t know at all what that says.” Perhaps scholars become too familiar dealing with obscurity, but one longs for a definite conclusion or even an “odds-on-favorite” among so many theories. While popularists paint over the richness of Malachi’s message with a broad brush, insisting on a single simplistic application, others find occasion to evade God’s clear command in the confusion and debate over any variety of details that, while important, bear only on the minute specifics of the disobedience of Malachi’s audience, rather than clarifying any ambiguous requirements for the practice of Christians today.
Those who most confidently assert “the truth” of Malachi 3:10 appear reticent to clearly explore even that one verse, much less its context in 3:6-12, and by no means with regard to Malachi’s message as a whole. Others who have so deeply explored the passage under consideration, however, appear to have come only to the confidence that Malachi’s argument, its structure, rhetorical devices, and even concrete cultural referents cannot be definitively explained.
And perhaps they are right. One may be dissuaded by the belief that careful exploration is unnecessary in a passage with which they are so familiar. Others may be hindered by the belief that confident explanation is impossible in a passage with so much uncertainty in the socio-cultural details. This paper seeks to present as objective and inductive a view as possible (within the constraints of the writer’s deadline and available resources, not to mention the reader’s perseverance), questioning each element, its relationship to the passage, this passage’s relationship to Malachi’s argument as a whole (notwithstanding those who view Malachi as presenting no coherent and unified message), and its contribution not only to the overall canon of scripture, but the life and ministry of Christ through His Church today.
For those familiar with scholarship devoted to the book of Malachi, please note that this writer takes the view that there are eight disputations comprising a definite structure to a coherent and unified argument in the text of Malachi as translated in the New American Standard Bible. These disputations are identified as introduced by (and in 1:6 and 3:7 comprised by) the rhetorical questions asked in 1:2, 1:6, 1:7, 2:14, 2:17, 3:7, 3:8 and 3:13.
Section Two: The Theme and Construction of Malachi 3:6-12
The first most important determination in studying any passage of scripture is whether one sees a complete pericope or thought-unit before them. Malachi 3:6-12 having been assigned for consideration, one is initially and equally torn by a desire to push farther than 3:12 (to include the second of two means by which God’s people are commanded to return to Him) and the seeming discontinuity of 3:6 appearing to complete the thought of the previous pericope, and the first of two apparent sections in Malachi. In the structure of Malachi’s argument, however, 3:6 is the crux, reflecting back upon the charges levied against God’s people and priests in the first five disputations (taking an eight disputation view) and setting the tone and foundational assumption for the three disputations that follow (two of which are included in the passage under consideration).
With regard to looking beyond 3:12, in 3:7 God commands His people to return to Him. The resulting disputation, expressed rhetorically as “How shall we return?” is answered with two subsequent instructions. Clearly 3:8-12 is just the first of two means by which God’s people are to return to Him. Still, these seven verses are more than sufficiently rich in content to consume the attentions of this paper.
God speaks through Malachi in 3:6 asserting His own immutability. Given His covenant relationship with Israel, Malachi’s hearers would recognize the pretext of God’s enduring promises, His everlasting faithfulness, and His history of forgiveness and mercy to the nation He calls His own. And yet, in the context of the previous disputations is clear that His people may respond skeptically regarding His assertion of eternal consistency.
And so, He points out the result of such uniformity in His character: “you…are not consumed.” God’s chosen people continue to exist for no other reason than God’s unchanging persistence. To emphasize this reliance on God’s goodness as the only ground of their existence, He calls to them, “O sons of Jacob.” While Jacob would be renamed Israel, Malachi’s reference hearkens back to the character of Isaac’s son, grabbing the heel of his brother, usurping his father’s rights of blessing in order to take the birthright he buys from Esau for a well-timed bowl of red stew. Baldwin quotes the New English Bible’s translation, “I am the Lord, unchanging; and you, too, have not ceased to be sons of Jacob,” and adds, “(that is, wayward),” referring to the people of Malachi’s time as “cheats and supplanters.”
On the basis of this identification, just as Jacob wrestled with God in repentance for restoration to a truly blessed relationship, Malachi’s message continues in 3:7, expanding upon the image of Jacob by saying, “From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from My statutes, and have not kept them.” Given the tone of the previous accusations, one might expect an immediate continuation of condemnation of their current religious and personal practices. Instead, there is a positive command: “Return to Me,” coupled with a direct promise, “and I will return to you.”
Defensively, however, the people (as Malachi rhetorically puts the words into their mouths) refute the underlying assumption of such instruction. In asking, “How shall we return?” one may see either or both these assertions: (1) that they know not how to return, and (2) that they are unable to do so. Perturbingly, God makes it abundantly clear that the means by which they may return are both clearly understood and imminently possible.
In 3:8 He asks, “Will a man rob God?” With the rhetoric of a positively stated question requiring a negative answer, the people would presumably answer, “No!” if allowed to object. But God’s testimony comes swiftly, “Yet you are robbing Me!” Their disputation, “How have we robbed Thee?” may, in fact, reflect some sincerity. They have not broken into the temple. They have not waylaid the priests and Levites. More likely, however, Malachi is portraying them as spontaneously defensive in each of these circumstances.
Since the people have previously wondered aloud (at least through the words of the prophet) how God could possibly love them and yet allow them to struggle with the economic, political and social devastation that continue to afflict Jerusalem, God describes to them the reason for their circumstances in 3:9. “You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me, the whole nation of you!”
The remedy for the curse appears quickly in 3:10. God’s command here appears simple at first reading, yet quite a debate has centered on the question of what exactly is meant in commanding them to “Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse.” For Malachi’s audience, however, one can imagine that each individual knew exactly what the deficiencies were and how to correct them. There may have been other issues in addition to the less-than-adequate sacrificial animals described earlier in Malachi (e.g., 1:6-9), and these possibilities are discussed under the appropriate heading below. Sufficient for our immediate purposes is the knowledge that God is clear about the condition He sets for the removal of the curse. Obey God regarding tithes and offerings. One result, of course, is that there is food for the priests and Levites, as well as the poor supported by the storehouse of the temple. But God is also asking that His people test-drive the faithfulness He has claimed. In terms rich with symbolic heritage, He asserts that blessing will befall them as coming directly from Himself, beyond any measure in which they may attempt to contain it.
In addition to the positive promise of 3:10, the curse of “the devourer” (3:11), which Hurowitz sees as a larval insect causing “your vine in the field [to] cast its grapes” as well as destroying the fruits of the ground, is removed. The result promised to God’s people is to return their land to a condition so fruitful as to be noted among the nations as blessed and delightful (3:12).
The passage under consideration begins the disputation sequence (Disputations Six through Eight) that offers the full and effectual remedy to the charges lodged against the people in the first five disputations. Ending in verse twelve (just before Disputation Eight), it provides only one of the two remedies prescribed to Malachi’s audience. But in establishing the unchanging nature of both God and His people, and presenting its offer of a means by which to return to a relationship of blessing, this passage comprises the crux of Malachi’s argument. As Baldwin states, “There is a close connection between these verses and what has gone before. They form a parenthesis between two sermons concerning God’s justice, the sequence of thoughts being that Israel has the opportunity to question His justice only because He is unchanging in His patient provision of opportunity for repentance.”
God’s people have sinned. When confronted by their sin, they dare to dispute God’s love, His worthiness of respect, His willingness to accept sacrifice for their sins, His desire for a people of purity—untainted by intermarriage—and His justice in allowing the evil to draw breath. In 3:6-12, God reminds them of His nature and theirs. He expresses a willingness to restore them should they return. And He tells them how to (begin to) go about that (explaining the second of the requirements in 3:13-15).
To modern Christians who accuse Him of failing to “love them just the way they are” (i.e., blessing them despite their rebellion), God offers a simple binary choice. Yes or no. Since God’s ways have never wavered, the clear choice His people face is to return to a relationship of blessing with Him, or to continue in their struggles and difficulties without Him. In the face of God’s immutability, if there is to be a change in their circumstance, then it will come only when they change the nature of their relationship to Him.
Section Three: The Effect of Socio-Historical Context on Malachi (especially in 3:6-12)
Dating Malachi
Unlike his contemporaries, Malachi gives us few concrete reference points with which to mark specific dates, or from which to determine his immediate setting. Hugenberger considers the references to the gates and altar in 1:10, the Lord’s return to the temple promised in 3:1, and the demand in the passage under consideration that the tithe be brought into the (presumably temple-located) storehouse (3:8-10) and thus sets the earliest date at 515 B.C. as the completion of the temple’s reconstruction. The parallels between the intermarriages condemned in Ezra and Nehemiah seem to him to set this message as contemporary with those leaders. That this suggests the unlikely scenario in which the people would have subsequently chosen to comply with Ezra’s demands is not something Hugenberger addresses. His additional parallels, “corruption of the priesthood…abuse of the disadvantaged…and the failure to pay tithes” likewise portray elements that show no sign of abating in the intertestamental period. There is little reason nor hope shown in Malachi on which to presume these abuses ceased even after the period of Ezra-Nehemiah.
Hill concludes (citing A. von Bulmerincq’s seven categories of dating arguments for Malachi) that 500 B.C. is the most reasonable date, primarily with regard to linguistic development, but also as suggested by the “typological profiles” he compares to Jeremiah and Ezekiel, “the disputation format of Malachi’s oracles,” and Malachi’s thematic content, putting Malachi “early on in the period of pre-Ezran decline.”
Still, with little consensus among scholars and no concrete temporal references in the text itself, we may only say safely that Malachi’s message was delivered in the post-exilic (or “restoration”) community of Jerusalem, most probably after 515 B.C. While there were developments within this community from the time of Nehemiah onward, the general attitude of the people and the political, religious and social issues all appear to be consistent enough as not to impinge upon our understanding of the prophecy itself.
The Socio-Cultural Background of Malachi
The confident (though vastly divergent) assertions of Malachi’s expositors seem to mirror the instability of Yehud in the late Persian Period. Shifts in economy, politics, social contracts (especially marriage) and religion suggest that there is perhaps less rhetorical sarcasm to be read into the disputation formula here than one might imagine. Given the uncertainties of daily life, involving changes in all these categories, one might see an element of sincerity in questions like, “How shall we return?” since the message is directed at those who had already returned to Jerusalem, and “How have we robbed You?” in light of the sacrifices they had made in order to repatriate themselves and to bring offerings and tithes even to the barely cleared temple site.
Regarding the vagaries of life in Yehud during the period, Hill points out the unstable and uncertain nature of what he describes as an “embryonic” government and bureaucracy in this period, which among other transitional forms included the office of scribe which was in flux from “that of state bureaucrat to Mosaic lawyer.” Thus he notes the addresses to priests and people as to one entity, bound together in their common adherence, not to baalism or other idolatry, but “sheer pragmatism…in response to the depressed local economy.” The economic disaster Malachi’s hearers were experiencing came about through a combination of natural disaster (Hill notes the earthquake mentioned in Haggai 1:6,10), heavy taxation (Nehemiah 5:5), and corruption and graft influenced by “the resident alien population” (Nehemiah 5:3,7-8,15). He sees the sins of the people/priests as “symptoms of the severe economic pressures faced by the province of Yehud.”
Controversy regarding the audience and their circumstances rests primarily in scholars’ varying perspectives on the surrounding historical and cultural setting. Even within the message of Malachi itself, however, O’Brien sees inconsistencies bordering on contradictions. Not the least of these is the identification of the intended audience, whether to priests and then people, or both as synonymous. But she also notes that Malachi portrays the role of Judah as “both God’s erring wife and his son who has married someone else’s daughter, thereby falling under the authority of her father.” Dismissively, she continues, “Even more problematic are the implications of the gender of God.” She notes that God is very likely the wife of Judah’s youth, and so, “In keeping with a marriage metaphor in which God and Judah are supposed to have an exclusive relationship, if Judah is [male] then God has to be feminine, and the ‘wife of youth’ against whom Judah has acted treacherously must be God as well. Devastatingly for Malachi’s argument, if God is feminine, then God is not father at all,” and thus, in O’Brien’s estimation, unworthy of the honor He demands in Malachi 1:6. To use modern sociological terminology, O’Brien portrays the restoration community of Yehud as a Blended Family, overlaid with not only the usual dysfunctions, but apparent gender confusion as well, resulting in a variety of authority and identity issues that today lead warm-hearted, liberal-minded Americans to take pity upon any anti-social or non-conforming behavior expressed by the disadvantaged children sentenced by fate to suffer in such homes. Surely, she implies, we must utterly reject Malachi’s message in its entirety as representing the unyielding and unreasonable demands of an authoritarian Father upon children whose behavior is the natural result of the confusion caused by that Father’s own mismanagement of His family. Unless, of course, one disagrees with O’Brien’s foundational presupposition of singular gender identification regarding God as Father and her subsequently presbyopic analysis. Which this writer does. So onward.
Perhaps one reason for so much speculation without conclusion regarding Malachi is the view of some that there would be little impact from even extraordinary events upon a people whose attentions were more immediately arrested by the need for basic survival. Baldwin describes the socio-economic context of Malachi as, “an uneventful waiting period, when God seemed to have forgotten His people enduring poverty and foreign domination in the little province of Judah.” Hugenberger describes Israel’s experience in this period as one of “spiritual destitution…lacking miraculous evidences of God’s presence.” He states, “In contrast to both Solomon’s temple and the prophetic promise of the restored temple (as in Ezk. 40-43), the actual post-exilic temple was physically and spiritually inferior.” There was, he notes, “no visible manifestation of the glory of God. Though God was certainly alive and well, as revealed, e.g., by his remarkable providences in the book of Esther, it was definitely a period of life ‘after the fireworks.’” That this sad sameness of one’s everyday experience resembles modern churches is not lost on Hugenberger. But his conclusion, “it was a period very much like our own, in which God’s people have to live more by faith than by sight,” seems to accurately identify the effect, but to neglect the cause Malachi presents as resulting in this dull, drab and spiritually dead condition. Perhaps the application to this current era of Christianity should likewise include the demand that His people return to God. Indeed, Hugenberger’s analysis would seem to support this conclusion.
“Malachi’s contemporaries may have been relatively orthodox in their beliefs and free from blatant idolatry (though cf. 2:11), but theirs had become a dead orthodoxy. They were all too ready to make ethical compromises and to dilute the strenuous demands of proper worship. In response to the cynicism and religious malaise of his fellow-Israelites, Malachi’s prophecy comes as a wake-up call to renewed covenant fidelity.”
One would hope that The Church today might hear a similar call sometime very soon. That Malachi’s call appears to have gone unheeded, however, is not due to a lack of skill in presenting the most advanced of rhetorical techniques at their highest level of development.
Rhetorical Developments in Prophetic Literature
Amidst conflicting focuses on and analyses of the developments of the Persian Empire, the province of Yehud, and the challenges of their neighbors’ attitudes and actions, as these affect the fluctuating nature of the political, social and religious structures, several scholars see a clear progression in the development of the prophetic message, especially with regard to the rhetorical devices employed. There is little consensus on how those devices are linked and/or stacked in the structure of Malachi’s message, but the maturation of the prophetic genre is seen here to be at its peak.
Clendenen reviews these developments categorically, beginning by stating that “Prophetic literature typically employs hortatory discourse.” “Hortatory discourse has three essential elements,” he adds, noting that these elements are “situation, change, and motivation.” In other words, Here’s what’s wrong. Here’s what to do about it. And here’s why. This, of course, is not an earthshaking revelation, but as prophecy takes on a more and more hortatory nature in the post-exilic prophets, Malachi’s structure reaches a peak in that development of rhetorical technique in the disputational style. After showing how infrequently scholars have looked beyond the presumably unrelated “six disputations” of Malachi, though, Clendenen encourages other approaches since “inconsistencies and problems with this approach have long been noticed.”
Acknowledging disputation as a rhetorical tool, D.F. Murray points out that there are many questions remaining regarding what is and is not a disputation. Thus the identification of only six disputations in Malachi becomes even more suspect. He says, “There has not, however, been universal agreement, either on terminology or on the definition of the genre.” And, “Not surprisingly, the forms which disputation may take, and the strategies adopted to resolve it, vary quite markedly.” In an attempt to delineate the field, he does require that “Only where the elements thesis, counter-thesis, dispute, are present or clearly implied in the text is use of the term appropriate.” (emphasis mine) This will be further explored regarding the structure of Malachi’s argument. But for the purposes of recognizing the socio-cultural world of Malachi, one must also recognize that for all the lethargy, apathy, confusion and irreligion that so mark this period in Yehud, the final messages (whether Malachi is seen as among them or the very last of them) of the prophets to God’s people before the establishing of the New Covenant were delivered with as great a force of rhetoric as had yet been laid before God’s people.
Section Four: Contextual and Intertextual Effects of Malachi’s Imagery
Beyond the importance of the disputations formula as a rhetorical device, one must also examine the intertextual and cultural referents of the imagery in Malachi 3:6-12 in order to arrive at any conclusion regarding the synthesis and application of study in this passage. Within the overall structure of Malachi, 3:6 is a transitional verse on which the whole of the argument turns. Having confronted the people and priests regarding their past behavior, God will turn in a moment to consider their present and future obedience and blessing. This single verse contrasts the promise of God to come near to them in judgment of their past behavior with the promise of blessings should they abandon their petty grievances and resume their position of faithfulness. Only in this way would God’s consistent character, seen by the people as variable only because of the variable nature of Israel’s behavior toward Him, allow them to see blessings instead of curses. Thus, God’s immutability results in an unchanging stance toward the preservation of His people, despite their characterization as “sons of Jacob” that leads Baldwin to refer to them as “cheats and supplanters.”
The Lord’s word through Malachi expands upon the charges against the “sons of Jacob” in 3:7, accusing them of consistent unfaithfulness. Introducing the second segment of Malachi’s argument God opens this disputation (viewed through the more widely accepted definition of disputations as containing Assertion, Disputation and Proclamation) with the Assertion that His people must return to Him. The second element of a disputation formula, the Disputation itself is clearly stated in the rhetorical question, “How shall we return?” Deconstructing the (positively phrased) rhetorical question into its (complementarily negative) statement, they are claiming, “We cannot, or do not know how to return.” While some collapse this disputation into the next on the grounds that it is incomplete, lacking the third element of Proclamation, the next disputation formula effectively serves as the Proclamation element for this disputation. This becomes even clearer when one considers the overall message of Malachi, the outline he appears to follow, and the resulting placement of these disputations in building his argument.
As the Proclamation of the previous disputation, 3:8 begins with God’s assertion that the people were robbing Him by withholding tithes and offerings. It is at this point in the passage that one begins to encounter specific referents that have elicited impassioned and often contradictory presumptions regarding the meaning of the present passage and its place within the argument of Malachi.
Intertextual and Cultural Referents of the Imagery in Malachi 3:8-10
A great deal is made of Malachi 3:8-10 in popular Christian literature as to the imperative command, the promise of blessing as an immediate result, and a reiteration of the conditionality of that promise as predicated upon the command. The contemporary practice of applying these verses to financial stewardship with little or no regard to their place in Malachi’s argument no doubt colors some of the initial assumptions one brings to the passage. Therefore, a careful examination of the concrete terms he presents should help one better answer, “How would Malachi’s audience have understood this passage?” The most heavily-laden semantics would seem to involve the following terms: “the whole tithe,” “the storehouse,” “food (or meat),” “test (or prove),” and “the windows of heaven.” In addition, it is essential that within the context of testing or proving God in the issue of this obedience that one also consider the somewhat troubling issue of cause-and-effect that leads Hill to criticize those who see God as a “cosmic slot machine.”
“Bring the whole tithe…”
Given the cultural filters of the contemporary church, the semantic construction of bringing “the whole tithe” will almost immediately suggest that there were those who brought something less than the ten percent prescribed (or perhaps even nothing at all). As it is routinely applied by modern authors and preachers, Christians are encouraged to increase their charitable contributions to a full ten percent of their (gross, not net) income. Some have even recommended a gradual increase in percentage until that ten percent is ultimately reached, although this approach has been acerbically criticized as analogous to “recommending to a pickpocket that he pick fewer pockets.”
Among those who actually consider Malachi’s argument, opinions vary on the context in which his emphasis on “the whole tithe” is more likely to have been grounded. Alden’s concerns regarding “storehouse tithing” may initially seem anachronistic, overlaying the more modern concerns described above onto the text. But an argument may be made that Malachi’s audience was, in fact, contributing a total of ten percent, including a variety of other charitable and even personal gifts (a more inclusive view of “offerings”) to other recipients besides the priests, Levites and poor within that total. On this basis, Alden points out that “Any private charity or gifts to Christian friends or institutions should be additional to the basic ten percent demanded by God.”
Another, perhaps more likely consideration is in the correlation of a holy offering constituting a whole offering. Again, the in the context of Malachi’s overall argument, a parallel could easily be drawn to 1:8 in which God castigates the people harshly for bringing sacrificial animals that were blind, lame and sick. While Leviticus 27:33 forbids culling good from bad, by extension this also results in the prohibition of culling bad from good, as Harris notes,
“Some animals are strong and healthy; other are scrawny and poor. An unscrupulous herdsman could easily have given to the Lord the worst, as the priests did later (cf. Mal 1:8). Or an overzealous herdsman could injure his own flock by always giving the best breeders to the tabernacle. The Lord gave a wise provision that every tenth animal regardless of its condition should belong to the Lord.”
Still, Malachi’s audience appears to have been chastised for having selected “the blind…And…the lame and sick” not within, but as their tithe.
As noted above, the nature and purpose of the tithe, as well as its intended recipients has been central to a great deal of debate. Matthews, Chavalas and Walton define for us the clear view of many that the tithe was a temple tax mandated in order to provide sufficient remuneration to the priests and levites.
“During the reign of Xerxes the funding of the temple by the Persian Empire came to an end. This meant that there was a greater burden placed on the people to provide the support for all of the priests, the worship activities and the temple upkeep. This additional financial responsibility created what the people considered a hardship and led to rationalizations for cutting back temple spending.”
In yet another examination of the “whole tithe,” Baumgarten has examined Josephus’ explanations of differences between the levitical and priestly tithes. His conclusions suggest that perhaps bringing the “whole tithe” into the storehouse may be seen as an admonition against “the diversion of the levitical tithe to the priests.” The net result, for Baumgarten, is agreement with certain “rabbinic sources” that there is a practical “obligation of three tithes,” when one includes both the levitical and priestly contribution with the offerings as well. In his view, the omission of any portion of these three donations would constitute something less than the whole tithe.
In some quarters, confusion regarding the nature, recipients and application of the tithe comes not in comparing the many possible contexts in which Malachi may have intended his words to elicit the obedience of God’s people. Some commentators appear to reveal the conflict and dilemma of their own hearts and minds through the non sequiturs of their own evidence, analysis and conclusion. For example, Clendenen sees the tithe simply as the “tenth part,” referencing passages from within the Pentateuch alone and offering no discussion on the potential implications of the phrase “the whole tithe.” Thus he sees the tithe only in the taxation context, stating “they were holding back the offerings that belonged to [God], especially the tithes, and that were supposed to be given to the temple personnel as their livelihood.” With regard to modern church practice, however, he states unequivocally, “The issue in Malachi 3:7-12 is not tithing but apostasy.” With obvious concern over the misapplication of this passage he adds, “These verses do not light the way to health and wealth and immediate prosperity.” But in considering modern application of Malachi’s “whole tithe,” Clendenen cites dozens of references, relating the old and new covenants, finally contrasting II Corinthians 9:6-11 as the reversal of Malachi 3:7-12 in that God now supplies the need in order that good works may result, rather than one’s good works resulting in God’s provision. He is unequivocal that “Nowhere in the New Testament…is the Christian instructed to give a ‘tithe’ or ‘tenth.’” And yet he concludes saying, “The use of the tenth should be considered an initial guideline for New Testament giving.”
Averbeck notes that some have argued that the use of both “offerings” (terûmâ) and “tithes” (ma’a’sēr) in Malachi 3:8 and of only “tithes” in Malachi 3:10 supports a view that tithes may also include offerings, and thus they were not subject to regulation in Israel “by the principle of one-tenth.” He shows, however, that “offerings” is also used at times as a qualifier for “tithe,” leading to this conclusion regarding the passage under consideration: “Therefore, Malachi 3:8-10 offers no good reason to suggest that tithe meant anything other than a 10 percent contribution in OT days.”
At one extreme in relating the “whole tithe” to both a much broader than usual socio-cultural context and a direct “cause-and-effect” consideration (see that heading below) would lie Menahem Herman’s examination of anthropologist Marcel Mauss’s “prestation theory,” in which “gift giving…is systematically perpetuated within the community or group” as a “type of gift-exchange” involving “moral judgments or religious sanctions.” This exchange takes place in “a type of compulsory gift that falls upon the entire group and all of its social phenomena, including religious, legal, moral, and economic aspects.” Thus, when Herman asks, “What benefit accrues to the giver?” the answer is immediate and direct, “Self-interest.” With his emphasis on communal obligation, one may infer yet another possible meaning for “the whole tithe.” He says,
“While the individual donor is liable for the tithe, it is the group that is responsible for compliance with this requirement. Malachi’s criticisms of insufficient and inappropriate modes of tithe-giving lend substance to this characterization of the tithe as a corporate responsibility.”
Thus, while some may have practiced the levitical and priestly tithes, with additional offerings resulting in far more than a tenth of their increase being contributed, they were admonished to bring in the whole tithe by enforcing compliance among the whole of the population.
Ronald A. Simkins concisely defines Herman’s examination of the tithe in light of Mauss’s anthropological observations, stating, “His thesis is that the tithe legislation of the Pentateuch describes a compulsory system of reciprocities under the covenant through which tangible goods are given in exchange for intangibles, including divine protection and blessing.” Simkins points out that such an exchange is merely hinted at by Deuteronomy 14:29 (and nowhere else), and that “Herman neglects other, more apparent aspects of the tithe.” Simkins’ criticisms are well-founded. Herman quotes Mauss as saying, “gifts to men and to gods have the further aim of buying peace. In this way evil influences are kept at bay even when not personified.” And he adds, “Thus the relationship of Israel with its God is continued under the covenant through gift-giving,” finally stating, “regular tithe payment sustains a continuous flow of divine protection and blessing.”
Still, the prestation view finds its way into modern church teachings through Christian family proponents and financial advisors like Larry Burkett. He speaks of Malachi 3:8-10, “Those words from God are a promise of blessing and a warning. God is saying, ‘Trust Me, bring to Me the full measure of your tithes and offerings that I may open the storehouse for you and give it back. But do not withhold from Me that which I ask.’” Burkett initially seems only to imply a specific “or else” at the end of God’s presumed monologue, but then he adds, “Why did God establish the tithe? In order that we may always learn to fear the Lord our God.” (emphasis Burkett’s). Not that there remain no loopholes for the Christian. Just as American taxpayers are accustomed to justifying tax evasion on the grounds of government mismanagement and waste, Burkett allows for a similar diversion of the tithe from the storehouse (which he describes as being the local church’s general funds). “Your decision [whether to tithe to the local church or to contribute to other charities instead] must be based on the church’s obedience to God’s word. If a local church doesn’t accept the responsibility of being the storehouse, then believers must ensure that the fourfold function [which Burkett describes as (1) supporting the pastor and staff; (2) supporting missionaries and evangelists; (3) supporting widows and orphans within the church; and (4) supporting widows and orphans of the surrounding community] is accomplished through other means.”
Given such modern allowances for diversion of both the tithes themselves and one’s prerogative to disavow the body of Christ to which one has been joined, Herman’s point regarding the communal obligation of the tithe requires careful consideration, even if one sees the end result suggested by Herman as including an attitude of bribery toward God. In any context, the common condition in modern practice of failing to honor God with ten percent in any manner, however loosely defined, appears unconscionable to any of those who give serious consideration to Malachi’s argument. Ferreiro offers an excerpt from a sermon of Caesarius of Arles on this passage,
“Avaricious one, what would you do if he had taken nine-tenths for himself and left you the tithes? Surely this already happened when the meager harvest failed because rain was withdrawn or when hail struck your vintage or frost killed it. Why does this happen, greedy calculator? The nine-tenths were taken from you because you refused to pay tithes. The fact remains, of course, that you did not give, but God exacted it. This is our Lord’s exceedingly just practice. If you deny him the tithes, you are brought down to it.”
“…into the Storehouse”
While God’s people throughout Old Testament times recognized storehouses as symbolizing “abundance and security” whether positively—as full or well-stocked, or negatively—as empty or even destroyed, and despite the position of Ryken, Wilhoit, Longman, et al that “Here [i.e., in Malachi 3:10] is an image of the earth itself as God’s storehouse of blessing,” in this passage it is unlikely that Malachi’s audience would have seen this as anything beyond a concrete literal reference to the temple storehouse into which tithes were to be brought.
Kaiser addresses the tendency in modern churches to draw on this image of the temple storehouse to require “that all tithing be done through the local church. But this text will not bear that weight.” His view is similar to that of Ryken, Wilhoit, Longman, et al, regarding a broader application of the term “storehouse,” but he does limit its figurative use to certain specific passages as a reference to “the place from which all of God’s blessings proceed.”
The parallel of a less-than-adequate inventory in sustenance for the priests, the Levites, and the poor does not appear to carry over into the discussion in 3:10 regarding inadequate room to contain the blessing to come. Considering the message’s intended audience as including both priests and people, the abundance of supply in the storehouse would likely be seen as great blessing to the priests who had been neglected in tithes and offerings, with the superabundance being a promise to the people in response to their faithfulness (as the result of repentance or “return”).
“…so that there maybe food in My house”
Some have emphasized the differentiation between “bread” as referring to the most basic necessities of life and “meat” (appearing in the KJV of this passage) as being a symbol of the far greater abundance presumably promised in Malachi 3:8-10. While the experience of Israel in the wilderness does contrast the bread of the manna with the meat of the quail, a wider study of these terms in the Old Testament and a thorough search of the available references fail to confirm any further evidence of this semantic demarcation.
“…and test Me now in this”
According to Ryken, Willhoit, Longman, et al, “In Malachi 3:10 God issues a challenge regarding the tithe.” In the context of suggesting His people “bet” or “dare” Him, they link to a plot motif appearing ten times throughout scripture, in both positive and negative applications. Malachi 3 is the only passage they reference in which it is God Who issues the “challenge” or “showdown.” The variety of challenges, their varying outcomes and the limited number of examples all combine to make their survey less than instructive for our purposes here.
Hill demonstrates that important differences in the original languages disappear when different terms are translated uniformly as “test” or “testing.” He shows that the nature of these distinctives are clearly discernible from the context of most passages, as is the case here in Malachi 3. In his most convincing presentation, he notes that God can “transform a given ‘trial’ (peirazein) and its destructive potential for biblical faith into an experience that affirms and approves biblical faith and builds godly character (dokimos/dokimion, James 1:3,12; I Peter 1:7; Genesis 50:20).” He sees Malachi 3 as extending “to the restoration community the opportunity to ‘prove’ the faithfulness of God in keeping His covenant relationship (and covenant promises) with Israel by demonstrating their own faithfulness in obedience to the covenant stipulations regarding the tithe.” This would seem to fit well with Clendenen’s linguistics, pointing to the word “test” as denoting an evaluation of “the dependability of something.” Contextually, one should notice carefully that God’s admonition in 3:10 to test Him follows His assertion in 3:6 that He does not change, despite the equally recalcitrant nature of the sons of Jacob. God is not just asking them to change in light of His immutability; He is asking them to realign themselves with the pattern of life that had previously resulted (however sporadically and temporarily in Israel’s history) in their participation in His economy and the blessings that accrue to those whose relationship with Him is not disrupted by the fear, greed, guilt and pride that characterized their current state. It is this combination that Calvin appears to have in mind when he offers an expansive translation of 3:6.
“I am God, and I change not; and ought ye not to have acknowledged that wonderful forbearance through which I have spared you, for how has it been that you have not perished, and that innumerable deaths have not swallowed you up? How is it that you are yet alive? Is it because you have dealt faithfully with me, so that it behoved me to exercise care over you? Nay, it is indeed a wonder that I had not fulminated against you so as to destroy you long ago.”
“Cause and Effect” as It Relates to Testing God
Throughout the literature on this passage, there are repeated expressions of concern regarding the modern tendencies to either exaggerate or eliminate any suggestion of “cause and effect” in 3:10. Hill’s approach is perhaps the most balanced. Regarding worries that some may find in this passage the oft-stated equation “You have to give to get,” Hill states, “Malachi 3:6-12 is not an unrestricted promise of material blessing to all who dutifully tithed the increase of the produce (or income), as if God were little more than some kind of cosmic slot machine.” Regarding the opposite tendency to dismiss any cause-and-effect relationship, however, addressing those who seek to divorce any correlation of obedience that results directly in God’s blessings, he adds, “I am not sure I want to limit the efficacy of God’s word in any age by a ‘knee-jerk’ reaction to the abuses of what has become known as a ‘prosperity gospel’ in contemporary American religion.”
Malachi’s words are undeniably direct, though, and outside of a highly technical analysis of this issue in the original Hebrew (which would be beyond this writer’s skills, and seems to be outside Malachi scholars’ interests) there appears to be no reasonable alternative to taking the view that God intends His people to obey this command and inexorably reap the accompanying benefit.
There is, additionally, a fascinating comparison to be made in the attitudes of God’s people as mirrored in God’s dare to them in 3:10. Previously (2:17), they have directly accused God of violating the rule of cause and effect in that they perceive the wicked to prosper, enjoying the outwardly visible effects that most would assume result from the cause of God’s good pleasure in their evil actions. Rather than identifying any particular detriment that His people have failed to notice in the lives of the unrighteous, God simply challenges them to experience the blessings that are, quite literally, guaranteed to those who return to Him, obeying His commands regarding the tithe (and also conforming their conversations to the commands of 3:13-15).
“the windows of heaven”
In discussing “the mysterious windows of heaven, lost in many modern translations to ‘floodgates of heaven,’” Ryken, Wilhoit, Longman, et al list three passages as particularly formative in the mindset of the Old Testament peoples. They point out the Noahic flood as having been the windows of heaven opening to pour out rain (Genesis 7:11). They note the ironic question of Jehoram’s aide to Elisha regarding the unlikely end of the siege-induced famine in Samaria, “even if” God were to open the windows of heaven. And third, they allude briefly to this passage in Malachi.
While these images would certainly have informed the views of Malachi’s audience, and the authors above accurately address the cosmology of the Old Testament peoples when they state, “The ancients pictured the firmament as a vast, hard-shelled dome with openings through which God’s benevolent providence allowed fructifying waters to drip or (as on the occasion of the flood) pour,” Clendenen astutely expands beyond this imagery to include a different take on the question of Johoram’s aide. He notes, “the figure did not necessarily point to rain” in light of II Kings 7:2 where the phrase is directed to the context of famine due to siege, with reference to food being provided in a manner not unlike the manna in the wilderness.
Do either of these other references (Genesis 7:11 or II Kings 7:2), however, represent the picture that would most likely come to mind as the prophecy of Malachi was delivered to his initial audience? Or is there another image, circumstance or context that would more pertinently suggest itself?
The Referential Context suggested by 3:11-12
In the combination of elements Malachi presents, there does seem to be a more clearly apparent intertextual relationship. His reference to the “windows of heaven,” to “the devourer” (most often identified with locusts, although Hurowitz follows a long chain of questionable links to the conjecture that it must be caterpillars or other insect larvae ), and to an unspecified pestilence that causes the vines to “cast their grapes” seem sufficient to suggest a parallel to phrases that would be at least as well-known to Malachi’s initial audience as they would be to Christians today. When we add into our consideration the synchronicity of Malachi’s proclamations with the distinct emphasis on the building of the second temple, the reference to Solomon’s prayer of dedication (II Chronicles 7:13-14) seems unmistakable.
“If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people, and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”
Beyond the provision of a place of God’s presence, provision and protection, however, 3:12 continues in a vein suggested strongly by both Haggai and Zechariah. The restoration of Israel’s fortunes, the wholeness available should they simply choose to cooperate with God’s consistent pattern of blessing, is intended to extend far beyond the borders of Yehud, encompassing more than the whole of what had previously been all of Judea (Yehud being diminished to an area immediately surrounding Jerusalem), and even extending to those outside Israel itself. Before the first temple, before the law of the tithe, Malachi seems to hearken back to the initial promise to Abraham. To be seen as blessed is but one aspect of this promise. To be seen as enjoying a relationship with God that others find attractive is strongly suggestive of that pattern, especially as expressed in Zechariah 8:20-23, and provides a means by which God’s blessings are provided to the nations of the world through His people. As Alden states, “Not merely would God’s people be comfortable, healthy, and happy, but because of this the Lord’s name would be honored. Whatever good happens to us should be turned into a testimony to the goodness of our God. Then unbelievers will note our blessedness and be drawn to our God.”
Summary
This brief passage is heavily laden with concrete imagery that Malachi’s restoration community would clearly recognize in the context of their own heritage, both of God’s faithfulness and their own repeated failure to cooperate with the promises He has made to them. His approach is both direct and subtle. The prescribed change of behavior is clear. God cries out, “You are robbing Me!” in the obvious answer to their disputation in 3:8. But Malachi’s use of this imagery, calling to mind symbols of the promise to God’s people through Solomon at the dedication of the temple, the Law of God prescribing a specific economy for the support of His work, and even back to the Abrahamic covenant, is as subtle a delivery as could be hoped for in what is essentially an “I told you so” message. God’s plan has not changed. God’s people have not changed. But should they choose to, they will find that the promises, conditional though they are, still apply.
They begin their disputations by asking, “How have You loved us?” At the end of this passage, God has made it clear: “Here’s how I have loved you. I have provided you everything you’ve ever needed. And here’s how I will continue to love you. My offer of blessing still stands. But as my children, you must choose whether your Father reaches to you with loving arms of embrace, or with the stinging hand of discipline.”
Section Five: The Place of 3:6-12 within Malachi’s Argument
Considering the place and influence of these disputations in the structure of Malachi presumes first that any part of Malachi’s prophecies have any influence on one another, or even any discernible place within the writing itself (as redactionists seek to reassign the order of Malachi’s oracles).
The Place of Disputations Six and Seven in the Rhetorical Structure of Malachi as a Whole
Whether one holds to six, seven or eight disputations, merely acknowledging the use of this rhetorical device is in some cases more agreement than one may reasonably expect in determining the structure in which they appear, or even whether there is any structure to Malachi at all. Some see a wholly unorganized, stream-of-consciousness approach to Malachi’s composition. According to Alden, “No unity of opinion prevails as to the outline of Malachi. The outline [included in his commentary], like all outlines of this book, is not wholly precise. It is obvious that Malachi did not start with an outline. Instead he moved from topic to topic and occasionally went back and picked up an idea touched on earlier in the book.”
Hill follows an extensive review of a wide variety of perspectives on Malachi’s structure with these words, “There is little consensus to the organization and structure of these pericopes.” Baldwin speculates that the cause of such disparity in scholarly opinion regarding the structure of Malachi is that it is a quest for a nonexistent grail. “Unlike Zechariah Malachi does not employ any particular literary structure in order to convey his meaning. The subjects with which he deals follow one another apparently haphazardly,”
The lack of unity in opinion, however, does not preclude the confidence with which so many individual opinions are asserted. At most, some count as many as eight disputations, identifying them by each rhetorical question whether the full model of “thesis, counter-thesis, dispute” or as more frequently defined, of Assertion-Disputation-Proclamation appears for each. Thus, for the purposes of this paper, the disputations are numbered with this most extensive number in view: Disputation One, Malachi 1:2. Disputation Two, 1:6. Three, 1:7. Four, 2:14. Five, 2:17. Six, 3:7. Seven, 3:8. Eight, 3:13.
Even among those agreeing on both the number and identification of disputations, differences in the perceived structure result in differences of perceived message as well. Hill, Hugenberger, and most others see Six Disputations in Malachi, by combining disputations two and three, and disputations six and seven as identified above, but there are variations. Even agreeing on six disputations, Hill’s and Hugenberger’s views of the resulting structure of the book differ greatly. As one example, both also agree that Malachi follows a chiastic structure. But their differing structural approaches result in perceiving differing emphases in the message of Malachi, labeling the disputations far differently, and leaving their inverted parallels with a somewhat forced and convoluted appearance. According to Hugenberger, “Malachi’s message is arranged in a structured ‘mirror-image’ pattern—ABCCBA—and this is reflected in the sections into which the commentary has been divided.” While his outline is more coherent than Hill’s it appears to have little correlation to what he portrays as the overall message of Malachi, “remember the law of Moses and the promise of Elijah and the coming day of the Lord.”
While Hill categorizes the same six disputations as Hugenberger, he first labels 1:1-3 as a “Thesis Disputation” (which he labels A, with no corresponding A1) regarding “Yahweh’s Covenant Love for Israel,” and the remaining five disputations are structured B, C, D, C1, B1. The resulting correlations appear even more strained than Hugenberger’s, not least due to the lopsided appearance of his incomplete chiasm.
Other attempts at chiastic structuring in Malachi become almost a study in desperation with labeling of the presumably correlating sections beginning to appear nearly arbitrary, holding little relation to the text nor to their presumed parallels. One such exercise, however, deserves honorable mention among such expressions. Decorum nearly forbids explanation of this most extreme example experienced in excitedly examining the excellent expanse of expert exegesis existing throughout the extent of the exceptional Simpson University Library. (At least decorum is not exhausted to the point that the writer yields to the temptation to begin each word with “X.”) Among the volumes therein resides a small blue book aptly entitled Chiasmus in the Post Exile Prophets: Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. J.L. Smith there outlines Malachi with seven disputations (combining disputations two and three, but not six and seven) in a structure of A, B C, D, C1, B1, A1. In addition, each disputation and a number of the individual verses are chiastically outlined, for a total of thirteen chiasms in all. Truly Xtraordinary. Though of little exegetical value.
Toward a Foundational and Functional Outline of Malachi
Given the remarkable variety of structures for, and questions regarding the actual number of disputations that have been offered, and against the overwhelming pressure of such scholarly opinion as described above, the following outline is presented with some trepidation. But ignoring the apparent compulsion to enforce the strictures of chiasmus, or abandon hope of coherence in composition, Malachi’s argument does appear to adhere to the following structure. This simple rhetorical outline appears even more likely if one accepts a broader model of disputation and strongly suggests a definite reason for the apparent incompleteness of two of them.
Applying a three-fold model of Assertion-Disputation-Proclamation, there appear to be missing elements in two disputations (Numbers One and Six; i.e., 1:2-3 and 3:7) until one sees that in two places a pair of disputations (Two and Three, and Seven and Eight; i.e., 1:6, 7-9; 2:13-16, and 2:17-3:1 respectively) result directly from the immediately preceding Disputation as God’s Proclamation, essentially answering the people’s question with additional questions. Thus, what so many see as single disputations (combining one-two, and six-seven) mark primary and secondary elements of Malachi’s outline. The alternative of collapsing disputations into one another seems a less effective means of discerning the message of Malachi than allowing for one disputation to answer another, but an objection would be understandable. Still, Hill looks favorably on Scalise’s observation regarding such doubled-disputations, explaining that she “has noted that Malachi 3:6-12 is a disputation (about the tithe, vv8-10) within a disputation (about the need for repentance, vv6-7).”
This is not the place to further discuss the controversy over structure, but simply to say that this outline is the structure this writer sees, and which informs the consideration of 3:6-12 as a part of an overall argument made throughout Malachi’s text.
In the first of two sections of His message through the prophet (Section One being Malachi 1:1-3:6; and Section Two being Malachi 3:6-4:6; considering 3:6 as a transitional verse on which the argument turns), God responds to the implied accusation of His people that He does not love (and perhaps even has not loved) them. In response, He levels a two-fold charge against His people, and, in reiterating it, shows that their crimes are evident not only in the two-fold expression of their words and actions toward Him directly, but also in the two-fold relationships of both their immediate and extended social affiliations. This four-fold accusation, then, is introduced under Disputation One, the general disputation of the people in 1:2-3, asking, “How hast Thou loved us?”
At one level this first disputation results in God’s two-fold charge against the people regarding their words and their conduct in direct relation to Him. The people have accused God—to His face, as it were—of failing in His half of the relationship. In Disputation Two, they have spoken against Him, “despising” His name by failing to show appropriate respect (1:6). And in Disputation Three, they have acted against Him, “defiling” Him through their haphazardly presented inadequate sacrifices (1:7-9).
At a second level, however, God makes the two-fold charge regarding their words and their conduct in relation to their family and community obligations. In Disputation Four, they take issue with God for having rejected their offerings (2:13-16). God refers them (through Malachi, in an area that some take to strongly suggest an identification with Ezra) to the wives they have divorced in order to take foreign women for themselves. Then, God points out their negative witness to their neighbors regarding His character in Disputation Five (2:17-3:1) as they have questioned God’s holiness and justice based on their observations of the prosperous wicked. So again, God has considered their words and deeds, this time among their community, having already discussed their words and deeds in their direct relationship with Him.
While Disputations Seven and Eight (i.e., 3:8-9 and 13-15 respectively) may appear to merely revisit these charges, they both result directly from Disputation Six (3:7). When the people are said to ask, “How shall we return?” the implication is “We cannot, or at least do not know how to return.” Again, there is a two-fold answer, but here God’s Proclamation appears to take the form of command rather than accusation. Rather than the previous orientation toward the past (“Here’s what you’ve been doing wrong.”), there is a positive action prescribed for the future. The words and deeds of God’s people are both in clear view here, just as they have been in the charges leveled against them. They are to “bring the whole tithe into the storehouse” (3:10), and in 3:16 they respond directly in their conversations with one another, even committing their rededication to writing in “a book of remembrance.”
In summary of the overall argument, then, this appears to be Malachi’s outline:
I) In Division One, God begins by outlining the sins of the past that have brought them to the lethargic and lackluster present experience of His silence and their suffering.
A) In Disputation One (1:2-3), the people accuse God with the question, “How hast Thou loved us?” focusing on their past experience in their relationship with God. Turning the rhetorical question into the implied statement they object, “You do not love us, and perhaps even have not loved us.”
1) In Disputation Two (1:6), the people respond to God’s accusation of having despised His name. Again, the implied statement is, “We do not despise You.” This focuses on their words in the past, speaking disrespectfully (or at least with less than appropriate respect) of Him.
2) In Disputation Three (1:7-9), in response to God’s accusation of having defiled Him, their rhetorical question implies, “We do not defile You.” And yet God’s testimony of haphazardly presented sacrifices convicts them of their actions in the past.
B) No topical disputation introduces the second pair. Instead God directly focuses on their relationships with others in the past, in contrast to their relationship with Him in the past. The truth of God’s accusations regarding their words and actions toward Him are shown in their testimony in words and deeds about Him.
1) In Disputation Four (2:13-16), God has rejected their offerings, and they state (through the rhetorical question), “You have no reason to reject our offerings.” But God points out, again, their actions in the past, this time as they have acted toward others in community. Specifically, they have divorced the wives of their youth in order to take foreign women for themselves.
2) In Disputation Five (2:17-3:1), God announces that they have wearied Him. Their counterpoint, “We do not weary You,” is riposted by their own words as God reminds them that they have questioned God’s holiness and justice based on their observations of the society around them, and resulting in a negative testimony, despising God’s name and defiling His reputation before others.
II) Division Two begins as Disputation Six (3:7) turns from past to present as God commands them to return. Again, however, they state rhetorically, “We do not know how, or are unable to return to You.” God concludes the dispute in Malachi by giving them two specific ways in which they could return to God as a direct cause-and-effect resulting from changes in their words and actions.
A) Disputation Seven (3:8-9) announces that they may remedy their past actions by taking a positive action beginning today. While they complain, “We do not rob You,” God’s command shows their deceit dramatically. “Stop robbing Me. Bring in the whole tithe. There should be food in My house.”
B) Disputation Eight (3:13-15) does not announce how they may remedy their past words to and about God, but rather shows their objection (“We do not speak against You.”) melting into (at least for some) repentance as they are identified and blessed as a remnant who not only speak differently, but record their repentance in a book of remembrance.
The turning point of Malachi’s argument is 3:6, “‘For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.’” If God has never loved them previously, then He does not love them now. If they consider that He has failed in His promises, however, they must consider that despite their spiritual adultery (and practical adultery for that matter, given the divorce-remarriage to foreign women over the wives of their youth), having robbed God, having despised and defiled Him, He has chosen not only to refrain from destroying them, but has, in fact, preserved them—and that, not in hopeful anticipation of their future faithfulness, but on the grounds of His own immutability and faithfulness to His promises. Therefore, it remains to them to test Him, “proving” that His economy is still operative, and that should they choose to reconnect to the supply lines, there are abundant blessings available.
Thus, while 3:9-12 is just one of the two ways in which God’s people may return, the turning point of the argument in 3:6, and the combined promise and command of 3:7-8 serving as the heading of the entire second section of the argument, make the passage under consideration absolutely central to understanding the entire message of Malachi. (Of course, this assumes that one allows that there is a message in Malachi, presented with some form of rhetoric and structure, resulting in a coherent argument of this nearly-anonymous messenger. As discussed previously, these assumptions are not without their detractors.)
Section Six: The Place of Malachi amidst the Canon of Scripture
Previously the relationship of Malachi has been demonstrated with regard to the historical development of the prophetic genres, especially hortatory discourse and the disputation formula. Likewise, prior discussions have noted the context of the contemporaneous corpus of post-exilic literature in Ezra-Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and to a lesser extent the events of Esther. Having also considered the influence upon Malachi’s message and audience of the history and polity of the Old Testament law and practice of tithing, let us now consider the influence of this passage from Malachi on the developments that followed, namely the New Testament.
While there are no direct quotations in the New Testament from the passage under consideration, Hill notes that 3:7 (“From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from My statutes, and have not kept them. Return to Me, and I will return to you," says the LORD of hosts. "But you say, `How shall we return?’”) appears to be echoed in James 4:8, “Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.”
The most evident influence of Malachi on New Testament doctrine and practice appears in those passages in which giving is discussed, especially in Philippians 4:14-19 where Paul expresses that “my God shall supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus.” While this phrasing vaguely echoes Malachi’s assertion that God will open the windows of heaven and pour out blessing beyond capacity, the immediate context of Paul’s words causes the shadow of Malachi to be more starkly apparent. In stating, “Not that I seek the gift itself, but I seek for the profit which increases to your account” (Philippians 4:17), and referring to their contribution as “a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God” (Philippians 4:18), Paul clearly defines a direct cause-and-effect relationship of the Macedonian support of his ministry and the promise of God toward the Macedonians in return. Malachi’s obedience-reward formula is couched in terms of testing God by a future action of obedience. Paul’s is a statement based on the previous action of the Macedonians of unparalleled and voluntary generosity (see II Corinthians 8:1-7). Still, the element of cause-and-effect with regard to one’s financial support of God’s workers and the subsequent reward of blessing carries over into the New Testament.
In fact, it is this very issue on which Malachi’s words in this passage find their most widespread influence on the New Testament community. Hill carefully examines the variety of references in which Greek terms (dokimazein and peirazein) must be carefully differentiated with regard to what may appear to be conflicting statements in scripture. “God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone,” we are instructed in James 1:13, where “tempt” translates peirazo. Likewise, in I Corinthians 10:9, ekpeirazo appears, with Hill noting that we are compelled as the “faithful…not to test God.” Comparing these and other passages with those in which dokimazein appears (e.g., I Corinthians 3:13 where God brings fire which “will test the quality of each man’s work,” and James 1:3 where the “testing of your faith produces endurance.”), Hill concludes that God can “transform a given trial and its destructive potential for biblical faith into an experience that affirms and approves biblical faith and builds godly character.”
Malachi’s message of hope comes to God’s people who fail to appreciate that the change in their circumstance is directly related to the change in their behavior toward God. As such, it provides an essential counterpoint in complement to the above passages. As Malachi 3:6 establishes God’s unchanging nature, the promise of blessing is just as conditional as is the circumstance of Jerusalem’s devastation. When connected with God in that covenant relationship, Israel enjoyed the blessings at levels that truly exceeded their ability to contain them. Consider storing the manna in the wilderness (Exodus 16:17-20), bottling the oil to the widow of Elisha’s time (II Kings 4:1-6), the command to stop bringing supplies for the building of the tabernacle (Exodus 36:1-7), and even the paring down of Gideon’s army (Judges 7:1-7) as examples in which God has proven to His people that He will do “exceeding abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us.” (Ephesians 3:20)
Just as one’s perception of God as blessing or cursing may become disconnected from an appreciation of the necessity of a right relationship with Him (the message Malachi presents), so also one’s appreciation of any given circumstance as either blessing or cursing is directly related to the perception of God’s nature. In the passage under consideration some may see a troubling portrayal of cause-and-effect as promising blessings to those who fulfill certain requirements of God’s blessings. This “cosmic slot machine” view of a mechanistic process can become nearly deistic in its emphasis on the methodology or conditions of the promises made. But taken in the context of the New Testament’s development of the theme, it becomes clear that not only whether blessings or curses come, but whether any given situation or circumstance is seen as blessing or cursing is directly dependent upon one’s relationship with God. In answer to the disputations of Malachi’s audience, He does love us, and He does provide us with the means to return. As such, in the passage under consideration lies one of the major foundation stones on which is built much of the New Testament’s ethic of unquestioning obedience to an unconditionally loving God.
The remaining issue of concern for this passage’s influence on the New Testament applies most directly to the question of application discussed in the next section.
Section Seven: The Implications of Malachi’s Message to God’s People Today
As noted previously, the similarities between Malachi’s audience and those facing preachers and teachers in modern churches are marked. The sad sameness of our existence that Baldwin describes as an “uneventful waiting period” pervades our worship services, our Sunday Schools and to a far too large an extent our colleges and seminaries. Some are waiting for the next Holy Spirit-initiated revival; some are waiting for the next church-growth program to be published. Too many await Christ’s return to rescue them from a dreary existence marked by a longing for the true worship and fellowship of which they have abandoned hope for ever occurring in their homes and churches.
A cursory review of recent church history would strongly recommend that the prophets of this day begin to cry out with Malachi’s message: “Return to Me and I will return to You, says the Lord!” And yet the underpinnings of our continued rejection of such a straightforward message are many and firmly established. Because the promises made in Malachi 3:6-12 are conditional, some would reject them as inappropriately holding forth a cause-and-effect formula of obedience and blessings that might lead some to a works-oriented externalized religion (“like those Baptists have”). Others would see the same evidence supporting their conclusion that such a formula is too easily abused to proclaim that if there is evidence of the curse in one’s life, then it is because of the disobedience from which they should repent (“You know, like those Pentecostals always say”). Because the principles of the tithe are rooted in the Old Testament, some would reject them as having been fulfilled in Christ, or superseded by their sense of a New Testament version of Corban in which God owns each of us as His bond-servants, and thus everything on which we ever spend money is considered money spent on God’s ministry. Others would reject Malachi’s teachings on the grounds of uncertainty rooted in what they perceive to be the historico-critical disparagement of scripture in general.
Worst of all, though, is the sad fact that most have no need of rejecting Malachi’s message—because they have never heard it. Malachi’s place in the liturgies of all but the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches is at best minimal. Far too little preaching on the Old Testament is set before our modern congregations, and there seems to be a consensus that the twelve have been called The Minor Prophets for a reason.
Acknowledging that in human nature there reside more excuses and rationalizations than can be addressed here, the passage under consideration applies as directly to The Church today as does any other passage of scripture, and in certain ways even more so than some. One should take into account the historical context, the particular audience addressed, and, of course, the view of the Old Testament as retaining its authority even as fulfilled in Christ. But the parallels to today are clear. So should be the applications. There appear to be three most pertinent to the current state of Christ’s body: the practice of tithing, the use of disputational rhetoric, and the acceptance of a direct cause-and-effect responsibility on the part of God’s people.
Tithing
It is uncertain from an extensive review of the scholarly literature what precisely Malachi’s audience would have understood regarding their deficient tithes. What is far too clear for most modern Christians, however, is that in no way would they have considered anything less than ten percent of their increase to be a tithe. The need to bring the tithe into the storehouse likewise presents a challenge to the individualistic nature of modern Christians’ experience in the West. Too often the body of Christ is seen as an abstract theological construct rather than a living entity in which each member must actively participate, or from which, when choosing not to be fully integrated into its life, members are made to realize they are at risk of personal decay as they contribute to the body’s disintegration (Hebrews 10:22-25). As such, cooperating together as members of a body also requires a corporate decision regarding the distribution of the inventory of God’s storehouse. As Alden explains, “The temple served as a warehouse for the produce the Israelites brought. The Levites then distributed it for sacrificial purposes, for their own domestic needs, and for whatever emergencies arose. So-called storehouse tithing does have a sound basis in this verse.”
That many churches misuse contributions is undeniable. But under the headship of Christ, Christians are called to pray and study together to determine the course He prescribes for each local congregation. Therefore, even in those rare churches that are not overburdened by staff salaries and muscle-bound by the overabundance of professional Christians, the whole tithe should come into the storehouse of the local congregation. But where should it be invested? If today one truly seeks to be salt and light in the midst of the world, that rivers of living water flow from within the body of Christ to summon seekers from within the communities served, and that The Church might once again fulfill her role to feed and clothe the poor and hungry, minister to the imprisoned, and care for the widows and orphans in a manner worthy of the One whose riches in glory are sought (and so that those reached by unrighteous mammon end up welcoming Christians into their eternal home in heaven) careful consideration must be given to the terrible expense of reverting to a hierarchical priesthood that not only drains the storehouse treasury, but allows the remainder of the atrophying body to believe it can be carried along on the strength of a few (or even one-per-congregation) professional Christians.
Restoring (to the small extent it has ever been practiced) and expanding the role of every Christian as the servant of Christ and others (rather than introducing one’s pastor as “the minister” of the congregation) in light of that priesthood of believers Protestants claim to practice is essential. Likewise, however, is the role of the body of Christ contributing to and determining in community the investment of the inventory God supplies. That the amount of an individual’s contributions to the storehouse should far exceed ten percent meets no reasonable objection in Malachi, nor in the position of tithing as pre-dating the Mosaic covenant (in the practice of Abraham), nor in the reasonable examination of New Testament passages on giving.
Christians are not chafing at the restraints of God’s commandment to avoid adultery if they follow Christ’s command to curtail their lustful ogling. They do not consider murdering those against whom they harbor no hatred. They do not begrudge a second mile to an enemy toward whom they routinely show compassion and love. Likewise they do not measure themselves as deprived by God’s ten percent when they consider the needs of their congregation and community above their own. (Still, as it is a good idea to hold one’s self accountable in these other areas, reviewing the ratio of their personal income to local church contributions now and then is at least equally advisable.)
Disputational Rhetoric
Given the divine authority of the prophets, Murray raises a question regarding the development of disputational rhetoric, asking “why prophets should ever engage in disputation in the first place, and not simply rely on the divine authority of their word. Is the use of disputation merely an adaptation to a different external situation, an attempt to win over an unusually skeptical public?” In this present, post-modern and post-Christian era, a reliance on better communication through more effective rhetoric would seem necessary, especially in light of the similarities between Malachi’s hearers and those faced by preachers in today’s American churches. Malachi’s message is delivered at the pinnacle of prophetic hortatory rhetoric through the disputational formula. The past twenty centuries have seen extraordinary research and development into the means by which to more effectively communicate both to congregations and communities. Christian preachers and teachers should take note of the many tools available with which to bring about the changes necessary in modern churches in order to express to the fullest the Kingdom of God in their communities. They also should be less shy in giving public voice to the private objections held by those congregations and communities. When God’s people will not respond openly, His prophets should not hesitate to put into their mouths the words they harbor in their hearts.
Cause-and-effect
Ironically, as noted previously, Malachi’s audience is portrayed as having directly accused God of violating their sensibilities regarding the rule of cause-and-effect. They perceived that the wicked prospered, enjoying the outwardly visible effects that they wished for themselves, failing to see their own broken relationship with God. With the remarkable growth of cults and non-Christian religions, it would be proper to ask to what extent Christians today look upon such growth with something beyond envy, bordering on such accusations against God. “Why should the Muslims see such growth?” “Why are more and more becoming Mormons?” “How could anyone buy into that…(insert name of favorite whipping-boy organization here)?”
It is long overdue for The Church to recognize the cause of the effects about which Christians so regularly complain. Baldwin’s admonition states it well, “Malachi’s remarkable ethical thrust has lost none of its cutting edge through the passing of time. His teaching, both positive and negative, strikes at the heart of nominal, easygoing Christianity as it did at that of Judaism.”
If The Church would be called blessed by those she seeks to reach, and enjoy the blessings befitting a delightful land, and if Christians have tired of the devourer, have tired of seeing the fruit for which they serve cast to the ground to rot, and have determined that it is insufficient to merely thank God for not consuming them in His wrath, then Malachi offers as the remedy for every charge brought against his audience this one central condition and promise: “‘Return to Me, and I will return to you,’ says the LORD of hosts.”
Section Eight: Conclusion
Confident conclusions most often result in clear convictions. Perhaps that is why the mass of Christendom is given over to a handful of hucksters best served by the obscurity of the familiar, while serious scholars become increasingly familiar with the obscurity of the murky myriad of minutiae in Malachi’s milieu. Some apparently believe God will not hold one responsible for what one does not clearly understand (or about which they are still weighing details). Others, apparently, are more than willing to hold congregations, denominations and The Church as a whole responsible to obey their copyrighted misrepresentation of God’s word. In either case, whether malpractice or malfeasance is more the motivation, many Christians are recognizing that the life of Christ in and through His church is something far different than appears to have been promised (presumably in His word, since someone must be fact-checking the best-sellers). That local churches hardly notice the subsequent lack of influence on their communities exhibits a depth of decline dangerously resembling that which immediately preceded God’s four centuries of silence toward the Jews.
While it is seldom expressed aloud, one senses an underlying voice among Christians today, not unlike the complainants whose thoughts found voice through Malachi’s disputations, that indicts God for somehow having failed to love and bless His people to their satisfaction. It simply cannot be, the rationalization rings from some quarters, that God is seeking to do anything more than sustain His Church as a withering presence until Christ returns. Why, some could conclude, invest one’s efforts then in serious personal study of the scriptures—especially since the best-educated voice of most local congregation, their “sole minister” is drowned out by broadcasts and buried beneath publications. One needs only tune-in, subscribe, purchase or attend the next set of steps, principles, workbooks, videos, conferences and retreats that will carry to them the blessing they seek. And when God continually fails to honor the profiteers’ promises, who can blame the defrauded Christian for disputing God’s call and commands?
God can.
Just as the priests and people were addressed as one in Malachi, those who have turned God’s love-letter to humanity into a dust-laden collection of catch-phrases and proof-texts are equally culpable whether they are numbered among the producers or the consumers of such mass-marketed mediocrity. Some would ask, “Do Christians today see what they are missing?” Unfortunately, the more pertinent question is fast becoming, “Do Christians today even see that they are missing anything?”
This study began with an apprehension regarding the “obscurity of the familiar” buttressed so often by the popular Christian media. It quickly evolved into an appreciation that there were scholars who had broadened and deepened the field of study in the Minor Prophets as a whole, and in Malachi in particular. That these scholars hold so little in common, and present nearly nothing resembling a consensus, neither detracts from the value of this passage nor should it distract one from obedience to God’s clear call in it. The very fact that they take such minute details so seriously (though they also sometimes take them to extremes) gives hope that there are still some who hold God’s word in appropriate esteem.
Now, if they could just manage to let the rest of The Church know about it…?
