Original Meaning
THIS SECTION FOLLOWS the already familiar disputation pattern, with a slight variation in the middle element, where the dispute/rebuttal appears twice: God’s statement (vv. 6–7a), Judah’s dispute (v. 7b), God’s rebuttal (v. 8a), Judah’s dispute (v. 8b), and God’s rebuttal (vv. 8c–12). It also heightens the dialogue by including four repetitions of the messenger formula (vv. 6, 10, 11, 12). It returns, with different terminology, to some of the concepts previously discussed: Jacob (1:2–5), sacrifices (1:13–14), cursing and blessing (1:14; 2:2), the nations’ response (1:11, 14), and the “good old days” (3:4). In spite of blatant Israelite opposition to God, he exhibits a grace that surrounds them even as it opens (v. 6) and closes (v. 12) this section.
Verse 6 joins to the previous section through the coordinating conjunction “for” (kî; see comments on 2:3, 7, 16), which several English translations supply, but the NIV omits. This subordinate clause indicates the cause of the previous statements: “I did all of this because I am the unchangeable Yahweh” (LXX, NRSV).1 Another option views the conjunction kî as indicating emphasis or strong assurance, effecting some separation from the previous section: “I did all these things. Indeed/truly I am the unchangeable Yahweh.”2
The verse continues the statement of Yahweh, who distinguishes between himself (“I”) and Israel (“you”), using independent pronouns to emphasize this contrast.3 Each party in this contrast is clearly identified: “Yahweh” and “the descendants [lit., sons] of Jacob.”4 Yahweh’s self-introduction, because of its emphatic, initial position and following the conjunction, is most likely a free-standing verbless clause (“I am Yahweh”; LXX, Vulgate, KJV, NLT), rather than an appositional form (“I, Yahweh, do not …”; NASB, NIV, NRSV).
Yahweh then states concerning himself that he has not changed, using a verb (šnh) meaning either “to repeat, do again” (e.g., 1 Kings 18:34; Neh. 13:21) or “to change, be different” (Est. 1:7; Ps. 77:10; NASB, NLT, NRSV). The verbal form indicates actions or states that have already taken place (“I haven’t changed,” NJPS),5 but can also indicate an idea usually shown by the English present (“I do not change,” most English translations). Either fits this context addressing Israel’s present situation. Since her covenant God is steadfast, in spite of her own fickleness, Israel is “not destroyed” (NIV, NLT; “consumed,” NASB, RSV; cf. Amos 7:2; Zech. 5:4), though that is her due.
Justifiable grounds for God’s turning his back on his covenant promises include Israel’s dereliction of her covenant duty (3:7), namely abandoning God’s “decrees” (“statutes,” NASB, NRSV, or “laws”; cf. Isa. 30:8; 49:16). Yahweh himself gave these laws through Moses (Deut. 4:40; 6:2). The term is often accompanied by the synonymous “laws” (Ex. 15:25; Josh. 24:25) and “commandments” (1 Kings 8:61; Ezra 7:10), and by this period seems to be used to indicate the entire Mosaic law (i.e., the covenant itself).6
Israel’s relationship to the law has two aspects. (1) She has, in an act of commission, “turned away.” Indicating departing from a known road or path (Ex. 3:3–4; Jer. 15:5), the verb used here (sûr) is metaphorical, morally straying from God’s course in blatant, mutinous disregard for their obligations (Jer. 5:23; 6:28). The priests previously departed from the teaching of God (sûr in Mal. 2:8). As a natural consequence, the people, who were supposed to receive instruction from them, cannot help but stray themselves. (2) As a act of omission, they do not “keep” or obey (cf. 2:9; 3:14) the laws.7 Priestly laxity in keeping/preserving knowledge of God (2:7) results here also in the people naturally following their lead.
This has been going on for a long time, from the period of their “forefathers.” “Ever since the time of” is only used in one other Scripture passage (2 Kings 19:25), referring to a time long ago. While this may refer here to the immediately preceding generation of miscreants exiled to Babylon (Ezra 9:7), it more likely refers to a much earlier period, that of the straying Exodus generation (cf. Ps. 95:9)8 or even of the patriarchs themselves (Deut. 4:37; 10:15). If the latter, Israel and its ancestors have been straying from God ever since the initial promises to the covenant were given to Abram in Genesis 12:1–3.
Hope is not lost, however, since God makes an offer to his people: Mutual restoration is possible if only they return to him. Rather than using a conditional verbal form, “if you return” (so REB), the writer uses an imperative, highlighting a desired immediate response. “Return” (šûb) is a covenant term, indicating a return to a previously established relationship.9 If the offending party, Israel, returns to the relationship originally established by the covenant, the other party, Yahweh, will reciprocate. The second use of šûb, with God as subject, is from the point of view of the people, since God, as covenant keeper, has not moved away from his people; rather, they have departed from him. It is also conditional, since from the perspective of the people, they will not experience the blessings of Yahweh’s return (3:10–12) until they make the first move themselves. The restored, postexilic community heard this plea for repentance on several occasions (almost word for word in Zech. 1:3; cf. Hag. 1:12–14; Zech. 8:14–17). His return is assured by the use of the messenger formula (“says the LORD Almighty”).
Not learning from their previous attempts, the people again enter into dispute with God (see outline, p. 212), using a form similar to that opening the book (Mal. 1:2). Their question regards the means of their return (“how?” “in what [way]?”). This could be an honest act of repentance in which the people, convicted of the error of their ways, ask for instruction on the restorative steps they must follow. More likely in the context of their previous responses and of God’s following rebuttal, however, this is a sarcastic protest of innocence: “What do you mean, we need to return? We haven’t done anything wrong!”
Yahweh answers this question by posing a question of his own (Mal. 3:8), helping the people see the need for their repentance. The question opens with an interrogative particle used of questions demanding a “yes/no” answer (though it could also be exclamatory, expressing surprise). God is astonished that anyone could possibly wish to rob him.10 This verb (qbʿ ) occurs four times in this section and in Proverbs 22:23, where it is in synonymous parallelism with “rob.” It appears here to have been a play on the name “Jacob” (Mal. 3:6), which consists of the same root letters in different order (ʿqb). As the Jacobites are in name, so they are in nature, since God asserts that they are robbers. An independent pronoun (“you”) specifically indicates the transgressing party in contrast to the party wronged, also explicitly indicated by a pronoun (“me”), making a stark contrast between the two parties: What Israel implicitly denies, Yahweh strongly affirms.
Israel brings a counterrebuttal, again asking “how?” (cf. Mal. 1:2, 6, 7, 17; 3:7). They seek a recent example of the charge, using a perfect form (“we have robbed you”) rather than a present, ongoing participle (“are we robbing,” NIV, NRSV). Yahweh counters with specifics: “In tithes and offerings.” “Tithes” are the tenth part (Ezek. 45:11, 14) of the land’s produce set aside as an obligation to God for the use of the Levites (Lev. 27:30–32; Num. 18:21) and, every three years, for others who were not self-sufficient (Deut. 14:28; 26:12). “Offerings” are either voluntary (Deut. 12:6) or mandatory (Ex. 25:2; 29:27–28; Ezek. 20:40) gifts to God. Israel has been neglecting the provisions necessary for the ongoing operation of the temple cult.
The results to Israel (“you,” v. 9; cf. vv. 6, 8) of repeatedly robbing God are severe: They are “cursed.” The verbal root (ʾrr) occurs previously in the prophecy for those defrauding him in their sacrifices (1:14) and as a warning to unresponsive priests (2:2[2x]). This has now come to fruition, since none heeded God’s earlier call. Previously having warned about punishment through a curse (2:2; cf. Deut. 28:20, 27) on the miscreants, now the verbal form indicates the middle voice, with the curse inexorably coming on its own, without mention of any verbal subject bringing it about. What God warned or promised has now taken place. This apparently refers to the gamut of socioeconomic hardships that the postexilic Hebrew community is facing, reflecting the promises/warnings of Deuteronomy 28:15–68, difficulties detailed in both history (Ezra–Nehemiah) and prophecy (Haggai, Zechariah, Daniel).
The cause of the curse is again reiterated: robbery. The word order heightens the impact of the charge, since Hebrew organizes the sentence with direct object (“me”), subject (“you”), and verb (“ones robbing”). The attention is directed less to the action than to the One against whom it is being perpetuated (“do you realize that it is me!”), with secondary emphasis on the perpetrators (“you, of all people!”). They are singled out yet again in the last phrase, since all are involved, with emphasis shown in the NIV by the layout of the phrase “the whole nation of you.” God’s people are here identified by the term “nation,” a word that elsewhere in Malachi refers to their pagan neighbors (Mal. 1:11, 14; 3:12)—ironically the ones who treat Yahweh as he should be treated. As the people are united in paternity (2:10), they are now united in perfidy.
In verse 10, the prophet provides a remedy for Israelite wrongdoings: Present the tithe, the subject of their previous robbery (v. 8). Earlier the subject was raised in a minimal fashion, but now it is expanded. The “whole” of it is highlighted, picking up on “all” the people who have strayed (v. 9). This word suggests that the problem is not one of completely avoiding this obligation, but rather of responding only half-heartedly. The destination for the tithes is the “storehouse” (“house of the treasury”), a phrase used elsewhere in the context of the tithe (Neh. 10:38–39; cf. Dan. 1:2). This is the facility associated with the temple that kept the supplies of the priests and Levites, whose needs were provided from the public coffer (2 Chron. 8:15; Neh. 12:44; 13:12), as well as goods for royal use (1 Kings 14:26). The consequence or purpose (“[so] that”) of bringing the tithes is food or provisions for the house of God. This is needed to provide for the priestly attendants of the temple (Num. 18:21–32, esp. v. 31), called here “my house.”
God then directs a second command toward Israel, to “test” or examine him “in this” (i.e., the resumption of tithes and offerings). The verb bḥn is often used of God’s examining others (Jer. 9:6; Zech. 13:9), checking for purity and adherence to his laws. God as direct object of the verb is much rarer. Israel’s “fathers” (Mal. 1:6; 2:10; 3:7) of the Exodus generation tried his patience at Meribah (Ps. 95:9; cf. Ex. 17:7, where a different Heb. word for “test” is used). God challenges the Israelites, who have repeatedly failed their own tests and broken their covenant obligations, to test him, their covenant partner. Adding an emphatic particle (we) to the imperative intensifies the command (“be sure to test me”).
The criteria by which the people might judge whether God passes the test follow. They begin with the particle (“if”) and a negative (“not”) plus the verb “I will open” (ptḥ), all functioning as a kind of double negative. Stating that “I fail the test if I don’t do something” is equivalent to saying that I am sure to do that thing (“You just see if I don’t!”). The same form is used in oaths, where a negative sounding statement (“[May God strike me dead] if I do not do X”; cf. 1 Sam. 3:17; 14:44) is in fact a positive promise (“I will surely do X”).
God promises to open the heavenly floodgates, in contrast to when he did so in the Flood story (Gen. 7:11; 8:2). There the results were catastrophic and judgmental, whereas here that is reversed, because unimaginable blessings (cf. Joel 2:14) will fall. The rain provides the blessing of foodstuffs, associated with “openings” in other passages as well (2 Kings 7:1–2, 19). These heavenly openings for rain were heretofore closed because of the people’s neglect of the things of God (cf. Deut. 28:22; Hag. 1:11). Rather than a drought of withheld rain, blessing waters pours out (Eccl. 11:3) like oil (Zech. 4:12).
A unique phrase quantifies the divine blessing (“that you will not have room enough for it”; lit., “until the ending of its sufficiency”; cf. Ps. 72:7). Numerous interpretations are proposed, but the context makes it clear that Malachi envisions a superabundance of produce enabled by the saturating rain. Rather than questioning and disputing with God, the people must trust him.
God then promises to address the blights hindering the land’s fruitfulness (v. 11): things that consume the fruit before it can be harvested and plants that do not carry their fruit to useful maturity. He will do so by “preventing” (gʿr) these scourges, just as he previously “rebuked” (gʿr) the priests and their descendants for leading the people away from a fruitful relationship with him (2:3). This will be for the benefit of Judah (“for you,” occurring three times in 3:11).
The first problem addressed is “the eater” or, in a context where voracious eating is detrimental, the devourer (Job 20:21; Ezek. 36:13). The previous use of the same root (ʾkl; Mal. 1:12) saw the priests despising the food offered to God, and now those for whom it is not intended are consuming the very sustenance of life that the food offerings represent. It is commonly understood that this refers to insect infestation, akin to that of the locusts found in Joel (Joel 2:5; NRSV; cf. NIV, “pests”), which fits better than seeing the verbal subject as human (cf., e.g., Lev. 26:16), since no human oppressor is evident in the book. God’s intervention halts any further ruination (cf. Jer. 11:19) of the crops, even though the priests saw fit to sacrifice “ruined” (“blemished,” Mal. 1:14) animals and ruin the covenant (2:8; “violated”) by perverting their duties.
Second, God stops the fruit producers (here, the grape vines) from casting, or prematurely losing, their fruit. The same root (škl) describes the premature loss of a fetus (Gen. 31:38; Ex. 23:26). If either descendants or sustenance is in jeopardy, so is the nation’s continuing existence. The grapes are described as being “in the field,” a cultivated crop (cf. Isa. 32:12) from the context, though the term is also used of wild grapes (2 Kings 4:39). God emphasizes his promise through the messenger formula (“says the LORD Almighty,” cf. Mal. 1:2, 4, etc.).
The opening grammatical form of verse 12 indicates sequential action (“then”), a further, subsequent result spreading beyond Judah to her neighbors, the nations. They will recognize the true, honored position of God, even though his own people have earlier denied his power (1:11, 14). They will verbally acknowledge the divine blessing coming to Judah (cf. Gen. 30:13), something that Judah itself has been slow to do. The reason for this is specified: Judah (“you,” emphatically indicated by the independent personal pronoun) will become (lit.) a “land of delight.” Where previously God was not delighted (“pleased,” Mal. 1:10) with useless sacrifices brought by unrepentant disputants, now that the correct covenant relationship is restored, delight and acceptance are restored as well. The repeated messenger formula (cf. 3:11) drives home the seriousness of the need for repentance after a serious lapse of covenant relationship.
Bridging Contexts
UNCHANGEABLE GOD. In the context of a coming judgment on Judah, Yahweh states his unchangeableness (3:6). Is this a theologically universal statement regarding God’s immutability, or is it something else? This is important in the world of the Old Testament since the gods of Israel’s neighbors could and did change their minds. A most famous example of this occurred when the Assyrian gods created humanity to serve them, only to turn around and seek to wipe these same creatures out.11 It was theologically important for Israel as well, since their very existence as a people depended on whether their God showed this same kind of fickleness.
The context speaks of a contrast painted between an unchangeable God on the one hand, and the Israelites who repeatedly abandoned God’s decrees from the very start of their existence as a chosen people on the other. This change regarding the decrees is thus the key element, making the focus of the discussion the relationship between the signatory parties to the covenant that God established with the patriarchs and Israel (Gen. 15; 17; Ex. 19–24).
The possibility of Israel’s departing from her covenantal stipulations was clear from the outset, since the covenant included curses, that is, punishments that would befall them if they did so (e.g., Deut. 28:15–68; Josh. 24:20). The fact that she, and those who lead her, repeatedly did so during their life as a nation is the subject of concern in the records of her history (see the paradigmatic statement of Israel’s cycle of history in Judg. 2:10–23) as well as the words of her prophets (e.g., Hos. 4:1–2, 6b, 10–13; Amos 2:4). God, by contrast, is “not a human being” (Hos. 11:9). He cannot change the promises he has made (Ps. 110:4, quoted in Heb. 7:21), so his promised blessings are sure (James 1:17–18).
In Hosea, God compares his own response to one of anger and destruction, a natural, human reaction following the abandonment of the covenant. This is not a response possible to God since he is God. While Israel might turn their back on the covenant and God himself, “decovenanting” themselves if you like, God cannot do so since it goes against his very nature. God cannot change his relationship with his people even when they act as if they are no longer his people. For this reason, the covenant with Abraham and his descendants is a permanent one (e.g., Gen. 17:7, 13, 19), not because it will not be breached by Israel but because God will not let it come to an end.
In the context of Malachi, therefore, God’s immutability relates to the covenant; it is not a universal statement regarding his character. This is not to either deny or affirm his universal immutability, which is in itself an important and fraught question, but is outside the scope of a discussion of Malachi.12
Returning to God. Malachi calls the people to return to him and his covenant (Mal. 3:7). In the world of the Old Testament, covenants or treaties were common forms of international relations (see Bridging Contexts section of 2:1–9). An integral part of these treaties was a section of blessings and curses that applied to the signatories if they kept the covenant stipulations or if they broke them. These are also part of several Old Testament covenantal sections, most notably the book of Deuteronomy, which is argued to be in the form of a covenant document. It shows a common ratio between the blessings and the curses, with the latter given much more prominence (Deut. 28:15–68) than the former (28:1–14). This indicates either that there was much more chance of someone breaking the covenant, or else that keeping the covenant was intrinsically more rewarding, so needing less supplemental support.
As well as being in a covenantal relationship with her God, Israel and Judah were allied with Assyria and Babylonia as their vassals or subject, owing them at least begrudged allegiance as well as tribute (e.g., 2 Kings 15:19–20; 16:7–8; 17:2–3). To stop providing the latter indicated that the former no longer existed, that the vassal was in rebellion. This customarily called for a military response to force the recalcitrant vassal back into the fold (e.g., 2 Kings 15:28–29; 17:3–6). If this restoration appeared unlikely, more drastic steps were taken, with the rebel vassal leaders either killed or taken into exile, and new people from other vassal states resettled in the land (e.g., 2 Kings 17:7–41; 18:9–12; 24:1–2, 10–16; 25:1–21; 1 Chron. 5:26).13
Israel’s covenant with Yahweh included punishments that could be, and were, meted out when Israel broke it (see, e.g., Amos 3:11 referring to Deut. 28:25; Amos 4:6 to Deut. 28:36–42; Amos 4:7 to Deut. 28:23–24; Amos 4:9 to Deut. 28:22; cf. 2 Kings 6:29 to Deut. 28:53–57). What is unique among ancient Near Eastern covenant elements was a provision like that found in Deuteronomy 30, where forgiveness and restoration were offered. Blessings and curses came, including the promised exile. But even this seemingly irreversible step could be rectified if Israel would only turn back to their covenant relationship (30:2–3). If they returned to God, he would return to them (cf. Mal. 3:7). While God is a God of justice and righteousness, holding wrongdoers responsible for their willfulness, he is also a God of grace, showing forgiveness toward those who repent.14 Malachi is thus continuing this tradition of preaching the gospel of grace even in the Old Testament.
Contemporary Significance
TESTING THE LORD. Malachi 3:10 has become the linchpin for a stream within the charismatic movement called variously the “faith movement,” “health-and-wealth gospel,” “prosperity theology,” or “name it and claim it.” The movement has flourished over the past four decades and is mainly associated with such names as Kenneth Hagin and his son, Kenneth Hagin Jr., Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn, Robert Tilton, and Marilyn Hickey.15 Among its teachings is the claim that what one confesses or claims from God will become a reality. It is a form of forcing God’s hand by human activity, taking the unchangeable covenant promises of God and misapplying them. One area in which this is to be done is in one’s tithe. According to their reading of Malachi 3:10, “In tithing, you are laying the foundation for financial security and abundance. You are establishing deposits with God which can be used when you need them.”16
While it is good to remind the church of neglected scriptural texts, including those about giving and the power of God to bless and transform lives, it is important to read them in context and using a proper hermeneutic. A record of God’s acting in a certain way, or even requiring that something be done, does not necessarily make that action or requirement a universal principle. While much of Scripture is applicable to numerous times and places, much of it is also historically and contextually specific. For example, even though Jesus commanded travelers to take only a staff on a journey, none of us ever leave on a trip with only a staff (Mark 6:8). Moreover, just because Paul survived the bite of a poisonous snake (Acts 28:3–6) does not mean that we should expect God will always spare us in the same way.17 This is not to deny God’s power to provide and to preserve if he so chooses, but it does deny our ability to manipulate him because we have misread the text.
The context of Malachi 3 is important in this regard. The message is specifically to the priests in Judah who are robbing God and experiencing drought and blight as a result. The blessing promised if they follow the regulations concerning their obligations is of literal showers, breaking the drought and subsequent famine. There is nothing of finances envisioned here, which is how the prosperity group reads this passage. The call here is not so much to put God to the test, since he previously promised covenant keepers abundance and blessing, even in terms of an opened heaven (Deut. 28:12). The test is rather of the priests and Levites: Will they fulfill their obligations so God can then respond through blessing? A question that such faith teachers might better take to heart as they are urging followers to send their financial resources to them for their own use is, “Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me” (Mal. 3:8).
There is also a wider issue beyond this particular passage. God’s promises do not change, but neither do their recipients. God pledges blessings (Deut. 28:3–14), but they are conditional. The recipients of God’s blessings are those who “fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands.… All these blessings will come upon you and accompany you if you obey the LORD your God” (28:1–2). When some in Israel abandon the covenant, God does not change either his promises or their recipients. The latter are the same, but Israel is no longer among them. God doesn’t change, they do. It thus appears, rather than a “name it and claim it” approach to God, to be more appropriate to have a “live it” theology: Act as a child of God and you will be treated as one.