TEXT [Commentary]

  V.   Fifth Disputation: The Call to Serve Yahweh (3:6-12)

6 “I am the LORD, and I do not change. That is why you descendants of Jacob are not already destroyed. 7 Ever since the days of your ancestors, you have scorned my decrees and failed to obey them. Now return to me, and I will return to you,” says the LORD of Heaven’s Armies.

“But you ask, ‘How can we return when we have never gone away?’

8 “Should people cheat God? Yet you have cheated me!

“But you ask, ‘What do you mean? When did we ever cheat you?’

“You have cheated me of the tithes and offerings due to me. 9 You are under a curse, for your whole nation has been cheating me. 10 Bring all the tithes into the storehouse so there will be enough food in my Temple. If you do,” says the LORD of Heaven’s Armies, “I will open the windows of heaven for you. I will pour out a blessing so great you won’t have enough room to take it in! Try it! Put me to the test! 11 Your crops will be abundant, for I will guard them from insects and disease.[*] Your grapes will not fall from the vine before they are ripe,” says the LORD of Heaven’s Armies. 12 “Then all nations will call you blessed, for your land will be such a delight,” says the LORD of Heaven’s Armies.

NOTES

3:7 return. In contexts expressing covenant relationship, the word “return” (shub [TH7725, ZH8740]) expresses a change of loyalty on the part of Israel or God. Typically the term is understood as “repentance,” a complete change of direction back to God, a total reorientation toward Yahweh. The imperative form of the verb conveys a sense of urgency and places a demand for immediate response on the audience.

3:8 cheat. The repetition of the word “cheat” (qaba‘ [TH6906, ZH7693]) in 3:8-9 underscores the seriousness of the offense in robbing God of the tithes and offerings due him. The term is rather rare in the OT, but it is well established in later Talmudic literature to mean “to take forcibly” (cf. Baldwin 1972:245).

tithes and offerings. The “tithe” or “tenth part” (ma‘aser [TH4643, ZH5130]) refers to the general tithe of the produce of the land prescribed by Mosaic law (cf. Deut 12:6, 11, 17). The “offering” (terumah [TH8641, ZH9556]) may be a gift or contribution made to Yahweh or his sanctuary (so NIV, NJB, NRSV). The offering may include gifts of produce from the land along with material goods (e.g., construction materials and garments) or personal valuables (e.g., gold, silver, precious stones). The pairing of the two terms (“tithes and offerings”) suggests that the prophet called for payment of both the “tithe” (ma‘aser) and the “tithe tax” (terumah), thus appealing for the comprehensive renewal of the practices by the postexilic community. The tithe tax was the “tithe of the tithe” prescribed in Num 18:26 for the general provision of the central sanctuary (cf. Petersen 1995:216).

3:9 curse. The prophet seems to be equating the experience of postexilic Judah with “the curse” (me’erah [TH3994, ZH4423]) of the Mosaic covenant (cf. Deut 28:20, 27). This would explain the sense of urgency attached to Malachi’s call to repentance and covenant renewal with Yahweh.

3:10 Put me to the test! The prophetic challenge is not in violation of the prohibition against “testing God” (Deut 6:16). The word for testing in that context (nasah [TH5254, ZH5814]) means to try or prove (or even tempt) from a posture of arrogance and cynical unbelief. The term employed here (bakhan [TH974, ZH1043]) signifies testing from a posture of honest doubt with the intent to encourage and approve faith in God. The divine invitation to “test God” offers the restoration community an opportunity to “prove” the faithfulness of Yahweh as it relates to his covenant promises with Israel.

COMMENTARY [Text]

Malachi’s fifth oracle is a disputation (concerning the tithe, 3:8-10) embedded within another disputation (the need for repentance, 3:6-7). Analyzed as a series of “speech acts,” this penultimate disputation consists of three elements: a divine assertion (“I do not change,” 3:6), intended to assure the audience of God’s constancy; a divine summons to repentance (“return to me,” 3:7), meant to persuade the audience to shift their loyalty back to Yahweh; and a divine challenge (“put me to the test,” 3:10), aimed at convincing the audience of Yahweh’s commitment to restore his people (cf. Watts 1987:376-377).

Adapting Achtemeier’s (1986:172) approach to Malachi as a courtroom drama, the fourth disputation constitutes the formal indictment (2:17–3:5), the fifth disputation represents the judge’s verdict (3:6-12), and the final disputation is the sentencing of the defendant (3:13–4:3). The apparent non-effect of the summons to repentance in the fifth disputation is all the more remarkable, in that the prophet’s call to renew loyalty to Yahweh is sandwiched between two disputations emphasizing themes of judgment and purification!

Yahweh’s declaration, “I am the Lord, and I do not change” (3:6), was a reminder to postexilic Judah of the constancy of his divine character that continually manifests itself in unimpeachable faithfulness to this covenant word. It seems likely that Malachi has in mind the prophecy of Balaam to Balak: “God is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind. Has he ever spoken and failed to act? Has he ever promised and not carried it through?” (Num 23:19).

Israel had failed to recognize that her destiny and God’s affirmation of constancy were entwined. Yahweh’s ancient covenant with Israel’s ancestors was still valid due to the unchanging nature of his character and his unswerving loyalty to his promissory oath (Ps 111:5). The very fact that repentance and restoration remained a possibility for Israel was testimony to God’s enduring love for his people (cf. 1:2, “I have always loved you”).

Thankfully, the Christian may have equal confidence in God’s new covenant because “God has given both his promise and his oath. These two things are unchangeable because it is impossible for God to lie” (Heb 6:18a). This means we “can have great confidence as we hold to the hope that lies before us” because “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb 6:18b; 13:8).

The word “return” (3:7) is the Hebrew term for repentance and signifies an “about-face” or a complete turnabout on the part of the person repenting. The expression connotes a change or shift in loyalty away from sin and self toward God, a reorientation to Yahweh and his covenant demands. The imperative form of the verb conveys a sense of urgency and places a demand for immediate and specific action on the part of those so addressed. The liturgical formula in the prophetic summons to repentance (“return to me and I will return to you”) may be rooted in the penitential prayers of the Psalms (e.g., Pss 80:3, 7, 14, 19; 85:4-8).

The prophet Jeremiah offers us a theology of repentance that calls the wayward child Judah “home,” almost in anticipation of the story of the “prodigal son” told by Jesus (Jer 3:12; cf. Luke 15:11ff). First, Jeremiah called the faithless people of Judah to recognize that God alone is the source of mercy as the Lord of Israel (Jer 3:12). Next, he urged the people to acknowledge their guilt before God (Jer 3:13a) and admit the specific nature of their wrongdoing (Jer 3:13b, 23). Then the penitents were encouraged to take responsibility for their shame and formally offer confession to God (Jer 3:25). Finally, those who had wandered away from God were healed and restored after they declared their intentions to obey God’s word and behave accordingly (Jer 4:1-2; cf. Jer 3:22).

The prophet Malachi accused his audience of “cheating” or even “robbing” God (3:8-9). The real issue was not reinstitution of the legalistic giving of the tithe to fulfill the formal obligations of the Mosaic law. Nor was the point of the message the abundant agricultural blessing promised as the outcome of testing God’s faithfulness (3:10-11). Malachi recognized that the “robbery” of God in the failure to pay the tithe and the tithe-tax was merely a symptom of a more serious cancer. The stinginess of postexilic Judah was rooted in unbelief. Only by returning to a posture of faith and reverence could the people experience the wisdom of the sage: “Give freely and become more wealthy; be stingy and lose everything” (Prov 11:24). Malachi understood that turning to God in spiritual renewal must begin somewhere, and God himself decreed the practical act of obedience to the Mosaic laws regulating the tithe as an important first step in reasserting the community’s fidelity in covenant relationship with Yahweh. As Baldwin (1972:247) points out, “good harvests alone . . . would not make a country a land of delight . . . there were spiritual counterparts to the fruits of the soil.”

Malachi’s invitation to postexilic Jerusalem to “put God to the test” (3:10) should not be viewed as a contradiction with the Mosaic prohibition against “testing” God (Deut 6:16). The Old Testament teaches that God may “try” (nasah [TH5254, ZH5814]) and “test” (bakhan [TH974, ZH1043]) human beings, but in turn human beings may not nasah (“test”) God. Malachi, however, called the restoration community of Judah to bakhan (“test”) God for the purpose of proving his faithfulness in keeping his covenant promises (3:10).

Frequently, the Old Testament speaks of the Israelites’ testing God as nasah (assuming a posture of rebellion and unbelief on Israel’s part—e.g., Exod 17:2, 7; Ps 78:18, 41). By contrast, divine testing for the purpose of corrective judgment, purification, and character formation is usually described as bakhan (e.g., Jer 6:27; 9:7). The Septuagint consistently renders nasah with a form of the Greek word peirazō [TG3985, ZG4279] (tempt, test, try), while bakhan is nearly always translated with some form of dokimazō [TG1381, ZG1507] (examine, prove, test). This would suggest that later Judaism discerned a subtle theological distinction between the two terms in studying the questions of God’s testing of human beings.

The New Testament documents represent one completed stage of this developmental theology of divine testing (albeit an early Jewish Christian perspective). According to James, God does not “test” (peirazō) anyone (Jas 1:13); Paul says the faithful are not to put God to the “test” (peirazō, see 1 Cor 10:9). Elsewhere the New Testament suggests that human beings bring such trials or tests upon themselves by yielding to personal desires exploited by the Tempter (Matt 4:3; Jas 1:14-16). We do learn, however, that God does “test” or “examine” (dokimazō) the faith and deeds of the righteous for the purpose of approving and purifying the faithful (1 Cor 3:13). Beyond this, God is able to transform a given “trial” (peirazō) and its destructive potential for biblical faith into an experience that affirms biblical faith and builds godly character (dokimos [TG1384, ZG1511] and dokimion [TG1383, ZG1510], Jas 1:3, 12; cf. Heb 11:17). This New Testament distinction between the testing and provocation intended to ruin biblical faith (peirazō) and the testing designed to affirm and nurture biblical faith (dokimazō) preserves human freedom and personal responsibility while also confirming the goodness and sovereignty of God.