VII.

ROBBING GOD (3:6-12)

6 Truly. I the Lord have not changed

Therefore you, descendants of Jacob are not destroyed.
7 Ever .s ince the time of your forefathers you have turned av ay from
my decrees
you have not kept them.
Return to me and! will return to you, says the Lord Almighty.
But you ask: Why do we have to return2
8 Will a man rob God?
Yet you rob me.
But you ask: How do we rob you 2
In tithes and offerings.
9 You are greatly cursed (with a curse),
yet you are robbing me: the whole nation.
io Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food
in my house,
And test me in this, says the Lord Almighty if! will not2 open the
windowsofheasenforyouanclp r utf ovan
overflowing blessing.
ii I will destroy the devouring locusts for you, so that they will not
ruin the crops of the land, and the vines in your fields
shall not fail to bear, says the Lord Almighty.
i2 Then all the nations will call you bles3ed, for yours will be a
delighful land, says the Lord Almighty.
The pervasive theme of this pericope is the relationship between God and
people. The first statement in connection with this relationship is found in

1 The imperfect is explained in various ways: as a limitative or restrictive

imperfect, is it correct that (Luther, Keil, et al.), as a potential imperfect, is one
able to (Pressel), may a man rob (cf. GKC, 107t); or as a fact of experience Is
it according to custom that (cf. GKC, 107g: Driver, Tenses 33b). With Van der
Woude we prefer the last alternative.
2. Heb. im l is explained either as an introduction to a direct question, if
not (cf. GKC, 150i), or as an (abbreviated) oath formula, (I swear that I ma be
cursed) if not, (1 swear that I) verily ;cf. GKC, 149b; M. R. Lehmann, Biblical
Oaths, ZAW 81(1969) 7492,

297

THEB00K0FMALAcHI
sentences 14 (vv. 67h). God has not changed, as is evidenced by the
continuing existence of the people (sentences 12, v. 6). But the history of
the people is one of a perpetual disregarding of Gods decrees (sentences 3
4, v. 7a, b). Sentence 5 (v. 7c) is the key to the evaluation of this relation
ship. It is remarkably structured. The parallelism of the twofold return to
( el) is chiastically arranged with regard to the personal suffixes: you-I-I-
you. The very essence of the relationship between God and people consists
in a turning to one another.
Sentences 512 (vv. 7c9) are structured according to Malachis
typical style: statement-question-answer. Statement (sentence 5): Return to
me, and I will return to you. Question (sentence 6): Why do we have to
return? Answer (sentences 712, vv. 89). This answer is again formed in
the same manner: statement (sentences 78, v. 8a, b), question (sentence 9,
v. Sc), answer (sentences 1012, vv. 8d9).
In sentences 1316 (vv. 1012) the renewal of the relationship be
tween God and people in terms of sentence 5 is expounded in a concrete
manner. The people must return to the Lord by bringing the whole tithe into
the storehouse (sentence 13), and God will turn to his people by restoring to
them material blessings (sentences 1416).
Scholarly opinions differ with regard to the problem of context.
According to some interpreters v. 6 concludes the preceding pericope
(Reinke, Hengstenberg, Hitzig, Keil, J. M. P. Smith, Laetsch, et al); ac
cording to others v. 6 figures only as a connecting link between the two
3 while still others maintain that v. 6 belongs
pericopes (Pressel, J. Miklik);
to the following pericope. Although the first alternative surely makes good
sense, the structural analysis favors the third possibility: v. 6 introduces the
central theme of the relationship between God and people.
Another contextual problem concerns the relationship of this pe
ricope with both the preceding and following pericopes. It is obvious that
this pericope forms a kind of parenthesis between two prophecies concern
ing Gods judgment (2:173:5 and 3:1321 [Eng. 4:31). The semantic do
main of this pericope is not eschatology but cult: it concerns the compulsory
contributions for the support of the temple staff. The contention that this
pericope was originally connected either with 1:62:9 (Elliger, et al.) or with
1:25 (Haller, Sellin, et al.) is too hypothetical to be taken seriously. We
also do not know whether the different pericopes reflect a chronological
order, or whether they were uttered on separate occasions. The data to deny
3. J. Miklik, Textkritische und exegetische Bemerkungen zu Mal. 3:6,
13217 (1925/26) 22537. We agree with Van der Woude and others that Mal. 3:6
12 forms a separate pencope distinctly different from both the preceding and follow
ing pencopes.
3:612 RoBBING GOD
or confirm these assumptions are lacking. At the same time it is possible to
ascertain a kind of connection between this pericope and what has gone
before. In this pericope the question of 2:17 is answered in another and
concrete manner: the cause of Israels present adversity and future judgment
must be seen in the peoples habit of turning away from the (lecrees of God.
The link with the following pericope is especially the idea of testing
(bdhan) the Lord (3:10, 15).
6 This verse begins with the connecting particle kI. Some of the
ancient versions (LXX, Peshitta, Targ.) and modern interpreters render it
with for, because, with the assumption that v. 6 is an explanation of the
pronounced judgment of 2:173:5. It is questionable. however, that the
prophet would postpone giving his reason fbr vv. 25 (Laetsch) until now.
Assuming that v, 6 is the beginning of a separate pericope, we render kI as a
4 The Vulgate has enim. which may be trans
particle of asseveration: Truly.
lated truly, naturally, hut also tor, Some Hebrew manuscripts have
hinneh, behold, instead of ki. This interpretation is in accordance with the
solemn assurance given in v. 6a that the Lord has not changed. There is no
need to delete ki as an artificial connective introduced by an editor (Den
tan, et al.; cf. NIV).
Truly, I the Lord. The Vulgate, followed by some interpreters (e.g.,
Hengstenberg), has I am the Lord, rendering the Lord as the predicate of
I. This translation is not favored by the context. The two halves of the
sentence balance one another, 1 the Lord being parallel to you, descen
dants of Jacob. The specific construction serves to emphasize the subjects
concerned.
have not changed. As in most Semitic languages nh means to
repeat (Sir. 7:8, 14; 33:6), to change (cf. Ps. 77:11 jEng. 101; Prov, 24:21
jsee RSV, notej; Lam. 4:1 jRSVI; Est. 1:7; 3:8). The solemn assurance that
the Lord had not changed presupposes a frame of mind which sincerely
doubts the truth of this statement, in connection with either Gods dispensing
of his justice (2:17) or the profession of his love (1:25). According to
Malachi, however, there is no shadow of doubt. The perfect tense stresses
this truth as a fact of history but also as significant for the present. The Lord
had not changed in the past and this is also applicable in the present time.
The unchangeableness of God (cf. 1 Sam. 15:29; Jer. 4:28; 15:6:
20:16; Ezek 24:14; Hos. 13:14; Zech. 8:14 in connection with his judgment;
4. Following the LXX (diri), Pesh. (m.fld,i, and Targ. rv), many scholars
translate kI in its causal sense: because (so Keil, Pressel, Laetsch: v, 6 states the
reason for vv. 25). But we agree with most commentators that kI must be under
stood in the sense of veriIy. indeed (cf. 1:11: sec Gemser. Hebreeuse Spruak
kuns, 220a: GKC, l48d, 159cc)
 THE BOOK OF MALACHI
and Ps. 110:4; Hos. 11:8, 9;Jas. 1:17 in regard to his love) is balanced by what
is said of the descendants of Jacob. The problem is the translation of ke
111cm. s rwo possible translations in this context have been suggested. The
one is to cease, to conic to an end, and the other to be destroyed, to be
consumed. Ii connection with the first translation the meaning of the
sentence may be interpreted in two ways. First, the Israelites have not ceased
to be sons of Jacob, that is, they are unchangeable in their sinfulness.
Second, the S0fl5 of Jacob have not yet come to the end of their sins, or,
according to the LXX, have not departed from the unrighteousness of your
fathers. According to both these interpretations the point of reference is the
unchangeableness both of the Lord and of the descendants of Jacob. This
interpretation s feasible. According to Baldwin it is a fact that neither God
nor Israel had changed, with the observation: The antithetic parallelism
accentuates Gods goodness.
The other translation, which seems preferable, stresses the fact of
Gods unchangeableness as the reason for Israels continued existence.
Because the Lord had not changed in his love for his people (1:25), the
descendants of Jacob are not destroyed (cf. Jer. 30:11). This is Malachis
opening statement. Israels continued existence is due to Gods unchange
able love. The real cause of their predicament (2:17; 3:10, 11) must be sought
elsewhere. This will he pointed out in v. 7. In v. 6 the people are confronted
with the gospel (cf. 1:2).
7 The peoples reproach that the God of justice approves of evil
doers (2:17) is flatly denied. He does not change, especially not in his
awareness of sin. Ever since the time of vourforethers you have turned
away from my decrees; you have not kept them, God was fully conscious of
the total history of their waywardness. The construction of the prepositions
je
and mm with vm denotes the terminus a quo: from the days of (and
onward). This expression is also found in Judg. 19:30: 2 Sam. 7:6; Isa.
7:17; 1 Chr. 17:10. vourfrefathers is literally your fathers. The scope of
this concept embraces the whole history of the covenant people, and there
fore need not be restricted to a specific period in Israels history (contra
many interpreters, e.g., J M. P. Smith, who restricts it to the contemporary
generation; Von Bulmermcq, to the time of the settlement in Canaan, with
the exclusion of the classical Mosaic period; Duhm, Marti, Procksch, and
5. According to Van der Woudc both to sdniri and lo kli.iem. are circum
stantial phrases with an adverbial meaning: I am Yahweh. unchanging. and you are
sons of.lacob, unceasing. with reference to GKC. l56d-g. Sec my commentary in
COT for a variety of views. Snyman. Antiteses. pp. 160-61. endorses this point of
view.
6. See GKC, ii ll9c.
3:612 ROBBING GOD
esp. Jacob, to the era of the patriarchs, with reference to v. 6 and the variant
reading your father; others are convinced that Malachi was referring to the
generation prior to the Exile, in connection with Zech. 1:26; 7:714). The
point of reference is that Israels waywardness was a pervasive theme
through their entire history. They have sinned habitually and continually.
you have turned away from my decrees. This expression is only
found here. but a similar idea is expressed in 2 Sam. 22:23 (par. Ps. 18:23
[Eng. 221), where David asserts: All his laws are before me: I have not
turned away from his decrees (NIV: cf. also Deut. 5:3133; Ps. 119:102;
Dan. 9:5). The decrees (Heb. hqqlrn. from the verb 1aqaq. engrave,
inscribe, enact, decree) denote something that is prescribed, a rule,
regulation, decree, given by God or man. When it is given by God it is
synonymous with miJpa(, decision, judgment, justice, and mi.ywd, order,
commandment (cf. Deut. 5:31; 6:1; 7:11; 26:17; 1 K. 8:58; 2 K. 17:37).
The positive assertion is followed by a negative one: you have not
kept them. The connection between szr, to turn away, and ,fmar, not
to keep. is also found in Mal. 2:8: Deut. 17:19. 20: 2 K. 18:6. It is charac
teristic of Deuteronomy to combine ,sdmar and 1uqqim (6:17: 7:11: 12:1;
16:12: 17:19). Because .semartem is without an object, various suggestions
are made to supply it. BHK and BHS suggest the insertion of mi.smartI:
What is to he observed in regard to me (cf. KB, Sievers, Elliger). Well
hausen, et al., alter the Masoretic vocalization to read: Jmartm, You have
not kept them. This suggestion seems preferable, because it accords with
the implied meaning of the text. The people of God have turned away from
the decrees of God, and that turning away consisted in their not keeping
them.
Because of their sins the people have turned their back to God. It is
essential for the covenant relationship that God and people should again turn
to one another. This is the key note of sentence 5 (V. 7c): Return to me. and!
wi//return to you. According toW. L. Holladay the Hebrew verb may have
the opposite meanings of to repent and to become apostate. Here it is
the former, because the act of turning is to me (lay). H. W. Wolff pointed
out that the call to repentance in the prophecies is usually accompanied by a
5 This applies also to our text, The call to
Hei/swort, a word of salvation.
repent is followed by a promise. Similar phraseology is found in Zech. 1:3
and 2 Chr. 30:6 (cf. Jer. 31:18: Lam. 5:21). If the people return to God, then
7. W. L. Holladay, ihe Root .sdbh in the Old Testament (Lciden: Brill,
1958).
8. Wolff. Das Thema Umkehr in der alttestamentlichen Prophetic, ZTK
48 (1951) 12948.
 Tiir BOOK OF MAI.AcIn
Fe will surely return to them. This aspect of promise is expressed in the
syntactical structure. The cohortative with wow-copulative is dependent on
t e preceding imperative and denotes a consequence: in order that I may
9 The transgressions of the people
tim to you, or then I will turn to you.
were the cause of Gods turning away from them, the reason why he was no
I rnger pleased with them (1.8, 10; 2:13) If they repent, he is eager to confirm
ty his own turning to them that he still loves them and that he has not
hanged in his covenant relationship to them (v, 6).
In the customary objection the people expressed their surprise at the
recessity of repentance. But you ask: Why do we have to return? They are
rot aware of any shortcoming on their side. In what respect, with reference
to what must we repent? This appeal to ignorance concerning their mis
I ehavior characterizes the very nature of the peoples waywardness and
teveals a lack of guilt consciousness. They had no sense of sin (Jones).
Von Orelli justly connects the self-righteousness of the people to that of the
Pharisees in Ni times.
8 The peoples reaction obliged the prophet to explain the content
J the concept in connection with both the people (vv. 8lOa) and God
(vv. loh12). The first part of the prophets answer is again structured in
terms of statement-question-answer (sentences 7-12, vv. 89).
First a general truth is propounded by way of a rhetorical question:
Will a man rob Cod? The answer is obviously in the negative. Between God
nd man there is always an infinite distance; therefore it is unthinkable that a
man could rob God. This antithesis between God and man is characteristic of
Malachis discourse (ef. 1:6, 8; 2:10, 17). The Hebrew verb qaa, also
ound in Prov 22:23, is connected with an Arabic word meaning seize,
take away. In Prov, 22:2223 it is synonymous with plunder (gazal),
)ewisb interpreters and some of the ancient versions (Aquila, Symmachus,
nd Theodotion) maintain the meaning to rob. The LXX, however, ren
ders the Hebrew word persistently with pternIzO, in the sense of to de
eive. instead of qaa the LXX reading presupposes dqa, which would
a pun on the name of Jacob. Modern scholars and some modern versions
but we agree with other
1
ire inclined to follow the reading of the LXX,
9. See GKC, 108d.
10. See JB, Can a man cheat God?; NEB, May a man defraud God? See
Iso Wellhausen, Nowack, Marti, Scum, Deissler, Chary Aquila, Theodotion, and
ymmachus, however, render with apo siereIn. The Vuig. 5 affigere (cf. configere in
rov. 22:23) assumes the Aramaic sense of the word (cf. J. Levy, Chaldische,s
WOrterbuch dber die Talmudim undMidrashim, 3rd ed. lLeipzig: G. Engel, 18661,
.v qb). In this sense (secure, attack) Jerome relates the text to the death of
9
hrist on the cross: Can a man secure a God (on the cross)
3:612 RoBBING Gon
interpreters that the Hebrew, supported by the Vulgate, has the advantage
of a bluntness that rings true, and should he retained (Baldwin).
The general truth is applied to the attitude and conduct of the people.
The accusation is direct and personal: Yet you rob me. What one would not
have expected in general had become a reality in the life of the covenant
people. We prefer the adversative meaning of the particle kI, yet (cf. Isa.
8:23; 28:28; Ps. 141:8; also RSV, NIV). The antithesis in the general
statement between man and God has now become you and me. The
participle qoeIm denotes continuity: They were continuously robbing
12
God.
But you ask: How do we rob you? This demand fir a reason or
motivation is apparently not meant as sheer rhetoric, but suggests a frame of
mind which reveals a shocking unawareness of the transgressions. The
background of this ignorance is apparently the failure of the priests to give
true instruction in the law (2:6, 8), and therefore the people are destroyed
from lack of knowledge (Hos. 4:6).
The answer of the Lord is also specific and concrete: In tithes and
oJftrings. in Hebrew both terms have the definite article, which emphasi7es
the fact that the peoples robbing concerns the specific tithes and offerings
which were prescribed by the law. They were the compulsory contributions.
Our translation is dependent on the preposition he, in, in the preceding
question. The ancient versions substituted the words which are with you,
because of the elliptical style.
tithes. The Hebrew word mafr means a tenth part (cf. Ezek. 45:11,
14). ii The practice of giving a tenth part of one s possessions for the mainte
nance of both cult and government is ancient and widespread. We find it
with numerous neighboring nations, such as the (anaanites, Phoenicians,
Arabs, Carthaginians, and Lydians, as well as with the Greeks and Romans.
In the OT the first occurrence of this custom is found in connection with the
history of Abraham (Gen. 14:20) and Jacob (Gen. 28:22), and in both cases it
is presented as a common practice. In the Mosaic law it was given the status
of a compulsory contribution. It was decreed that a tenth of all produce was
holy to the Lord (Lev. 27:30) and was intended for the Levites (Num.
18.28). From the legislation in Deuteronomy it is clear that the recipients of
the tithes were the people themselves, Israel was admonished to bring the
II. Cf. German doch, trorzdem (so GB). Other alternatIves are to give ki a
causal sense, because (so LXX dioti, Vulg. qula; (alvin; et al); ot a consecutive
sense, that (cf. GKC, 107u, 166h; Konig, Syntax, 395; NEB: eic.)
12. See GKC, ll6a.
13. See H. A. Brongers, Die Sehnzahl in der B,bel und in ihrer (Jrnwelt
(Wageningen: Veenman, 1966), pp. 3045.
 THE BOOK OF MALAcHI
tithe and everything that God has commanded to the sanctuary to eat it
before the Lord (Deut, 12:419; 14:2229). A further distinction is drawn nance of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:17), and later also for the second temple
tetween the annual tithe (Deut. 14:2227), and a triennial tithe (Deut.
14:2829), At the end of every three years the tithes were destined to feed
te needy as well as the Levites (cf. Deut. 26:12).
The data in the relevant books of the Law (Leviticus, Numbers, and
1)euteronomy) pose the problem of the exact number of tithes that were
required of the people. Conservative theologians are inclined to endorse the
traditional Jewish interpretation in accepting two different kinds of tithes:
me for the Levites and the other one for the prescribed eucharistic meal. The
third tithe, also called the tithe of the poor (Deut. 14:28, 29; 26:12), appar
ently refers to the special use that was made of the second tithe in the third
year. In addition to the data in the Mosaic law mention is also made of tithes
in 1 Sam. 8:15, 17; 2 Chr. 31:5, 6, 12; Neh. 10:37, 38; 12:44; 13:5, 12; Amos
41:4; Mal. 3:8, 10.
With reference to the dating of Malachi it is important to know that
during Nehemiahs absence from Palestine the people neglected the com
pulsory contributions for the support of the temple staff, so that these people
were obliged to abandon the temple service in order to support themselves
(4eh. 13:10). On his return to Palestine Nehemiah saw to it that the tithes
were again brought (Neh. 13:12). The period between Nehemiahs first and
second visit to Palestine must be considered the historical background of
Malachis complaint that the people are robbing God, because they ne
glected the compulsory contributions, consisting of tithes and offerings.
After the time of Nehemiah and Malachi the paying of tithes remained in
rce (cf. Sir. 7:31; 35:1113; 1 Macc. 3:49; Tob. 1:68; Jdt. 11:13; Josephus that the Greek translators did not seem to grasp the meaning of rr, to curse
Vita 12, 15 [6263, 801;Ant, 20.8.8 [17981]; 9.2 [2042071; Matt. 23:23;
I uke 11:42; 18:12). It seems, however, that the recipients progressively
became the priests, rather than the Levites, according to Josephus (Ant.
11.5.8 [18182]; CAp 1.22 1187]; cf. Heb. 7:5). In the time of Christ the high
priests (e.g., Annas!) demanded the tithes for themselves, thus causing
many priests to die of want (Josephus Ant. 20.8.8 [179811; 9.2 [204207]).
offerings (Heb. rrulmd) were contributions which were set aside
fom a larger quantity for a holy purpose. The word itself has both a specific
and a general application. As a specific term it is distinguished from other
kinds of contributions (cf. Exod. 25:17; 29:27, 28; 30:1116; 35:436:7; In Hebrew the emphasis is on me. The temple service concerned the Lord,
1ev, 7:14, 32, 34; 10:12-15; Num. 6:20; 31:2554; Deut. 12:6, 17; 2 Chr.
31:12; Ezra 8:25). As a general term it includes all the offerings and contribu
ons required for the sanctuary (but not for the altar!), such as firstlings,
holy offerings, etc. (cf. Lev. 22:2, 3, 12, 15; Num. 5:9; 15:1721; 18:820).
I consists of every kind of possession (cf. Exod. 25:37; 30:1116; Lev.
3:612 RoBBING Goo
714; Num. 31:2554; etc.). It was contributed for the erection and mainte
(Ezra 8:25), but its purpose was mainly to provide for the need of the priests
(Exod. 29:27, 28; Lev. 7:32, 34; 10:14; 22:12; Num. 5:9; 6:20; 15:1721;
18:8, 11, 19; etc.). It was partly a voluntary and partly a compulsory contri
bution. It could have an accidental application (Exod. 25:1 7; etc.), but
usually it had a perpetual application (Exod, 29:27, 28; Num. 18:19; etc.).
The trm was not taken from the cereal offering, or from the sin offerings,
these being most sacred, but from the peace offerings and other sacred gifts,
in the form of the breast of the wave offering, the thigh of the ram of
ordination (Exod. 29:27, 28; etc.), cakes of leavened bread, etc. (Lev. 7:14).
It was one of the chief sources of the priests livelihood.
The accusation of Malachi therefore refers to the compulsory contri
butions which were prescribed by the law for the maintenance of the temple
staff. J. M. P. Smith rightly emphasizes that the tithes and offerings to
gether constituted a large element in the maintenance of the temple staff of
priests and Levites. Israels robbing of God therefore coincides with the
conditions alluded to in 2 Chr. 31 and Neh. 13:10.
9 The seriousness of the collective transgression of the whole na
tion is evident from the fact that they persist in robbing God despite the curse
which rested upon them. The Hebrew syntax stresses the seriousness of the
prevailing curse. The substantive with b-instrumentalis, ba,nmerd, with
a curse, is used in the sense of an adverb: you are greatly cursed. (For the
meaning of curse see the commentary above on 1:14 and 2:2.) The different
translation of the LXX, And you surely look off from me. is due to the fact
15 The use of the participle here in the
in the Niphal, which occurs only here.
sense of a present perfect denotes an action which began in the past but
16
whose effect still remains in the present.
From vv. lOb and 11 it is evident that the curse consists in the failure
of crops (cf. Hag. 1:4li), which in turn again was the result of drought and
locusts. The people were spiritually unable to recognize the religious signifi
cance of this judgment. Instead of repenting, they found an additional ex
cuse in the economic conditions not to give the Lord what was rightfully his.
By neglecting the compulsory contributions they were in fact robbing God.
and therefore what the people did was a sin agai st God. yet (waw-adversa
14. See GKC, ll9o, q.
i5. Kruse-E3linkenberg, ST 20 (1966) ll2n.94.
16. See GKC, 106g; Driver, Tenses, 8.
 THE BOOK OF MALACH1
live) you are robbing me. Again the participle expresses continuity.
7 This
habitual and continual robbing of God was done by the whole nation. The
Hebrew word kol is used in an absolute sense,
18 the nation in its entirety.
In Isa. 9:8 (Eng. 9) we have the same expression, All the people, where
am instead of gy is used. The reference to Israel as gy conveys a sugges
ion of paganism. In many instances this word is used to describe Israel as a
nation void of counsel (Deut. 32:28), a sinful nation (Isa. 1:4), a godless
nation (Isa. 10:6), a nation who has transgressed my covenant (Judg.
2:20), the nation that did not obey the voice of the Lord (Jer. 7:28), a
nation of rebels (Ezek. 2:3). The apposition of gv with atlem, you,
.imphasizes the collective character of the guilt.
10 The renewal of the relationship between God and people with
reference to sentence 5 (V. 7) is now stated in concrete terms. The people
must return to the Lord by bringing the compulsory contributions to the
storehouse (sentence 13, v. iOa), and then God will return to them by provid
ing them with material blessings (sentences 1416, vv. lob12).
Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse. The Hebrew verb is an
imper itive, thus expressing a command. The people are not allowed to treat
the conpulsory contributions as they deem fit. Most ancient versions sup
port thc Hebrew reading, with the exception of the LXX, which renders the
verb in the perfect tense: And you have brought.... The people must
bring (Hiphil of b) the tithes. This is the general term that is used in
onnection with tithes (cf. Deut. 12:6, 11; Amos 4:4; Neh. 10:38; 2 Chr.
31:5, 6, 12). In Num. 18:24, 26, 2830 the Hiphil of ram is used, but in
onnection with the tithes as rr,n, offering.
the whole tithe. When Heb. kol (which is deleted by the Pesh.) is
followed by a determinate genitive. it means the entirety, i.e., all, the
whole.
19 The supposition is either that a part of the tithes were kept back, or
that not all the people have fulfilled their obligation in this respect. The first
alternative is preferable. because in v. 9 the whole nation was accused of
robbing the Lord. We may assume that the peoples negligence especially
concerned the contributions for maintaining the temple staff of priests and
Levites. This is evident from the admonition to bring the tithes into the
vtorehou,ce. The Hebrew expression means literally the house of supplies,
from a verb asar, store up. This storehouse may refer to a special
building somewhere on the temple square, or to one of the additional build
ings of the temple complex that was specially adapted for this purpose (cf.
17. See GKC, 107d.
18. See GKC, 117c
19 See GKC, 127b.
3:612 RoBBING Gon
2 (hr. 31:11; Neh. 10:39 [Eng. 38j; 12:44; 13:5, 12; 1 Macc 4.38) The
command to bring the contributions to the storehouse is in accordance with
the postexilic custom (Neh. 10:38 [Eng. 37]; 12:44; 13:5, 12), although it was
also done by Hezekiah (2 Chr. 31:11).
Uhe absence of these contributions means a scarcity of jood, literally
that which was tom off as prey. Here it signifies the food which served
as maintenance for the Levites and priests (cf. Ezek. 44:29- 31). m house
(LXX his house) is the same as the house of the Lord, which is the
temple (ef. Isa. 56:5. 7; Jer. 23:11; Hag. 1:9; Zech. 1:16: 3:7).
The Lord then invites his people to take a risk with him and his
commandment. And test me in this. If they will repent and turn to him, he
will again turn to them (sentence 5. v. 7). The idea that the Lord subjects
himself to testing thereby to confirm the authenticity of his promises is also
found in Exod. 4:1-9; Judg. 6:3640; 1 K. 18:22 46: Isa. 7:1017; Jer.
28:1617. The subject of hdi)an, to examine, try. is usually God tier.
11:20; 17:10: Zech. 13:9; Ps. 7:10 [Eng. 91: 11:4. 5: 17:3: 66:10: 139:23). In
this text, as in 3:15 and Ps. 95:9. God is being put to the test by human
beings. In the last two texts the testing is expressive of humankinds ar
rogance against God, hut in our text it is due to Gods invitation.
The hebrew particle ml is probably not meant to emphasize the
Do it in this, in the
2
command but to soften it: Please, put me to the test.
way you are fulfilling your obligations.
Some scholars find it strange that the test refers to the material
contributions for the temple service; they infer that Malachi s conception
concerning the nature of religion is less ethical and spiritual than that of his
great predecessors, like Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. It is incon
ceivable that they could have represented Yahweh as contented with the
performance of any single act, least of all one in the sphere of ritual
This judgment is subjective, however, and rests un
2
(J. M. P. Smith).
justly on the assumption that the cult and law in Israel were principally
rejected by the preexilic prophets. and that they were eliminated from the
22 Malachis appreciation of the cult is nowhere
covenant of the living God.
abstracted from the covenant relationship of the people. and is therefore
strictly religious and also prophetically legitimate! The testing of God is an
aspect of their return to him.
20, See Gemser. Hebreeuse Spraakkuns. 226.
21. (f. E. Wrthwein, in TDNT, IV:980 89.
22. See G. Berkouwer, Sin, ir. P. C. Hottrop (Grand Rapids: Eerdrnans,
1971), pp. 19798; H. N. Ridderbos, TheComingoftheKingdom. tr. H. deiongste,
ed. R. 0. Zorn (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reftwmed, 1962), pp. 31. -14
 THE BOOK OF MALACm
3:612 RoBBING Gon
In v 7 (sentence 5) the Lord anticipated his return to the repentant
25 The consequence of Gods rebuke will he
everything they can get to eat.
people. Here the thought is concretely elaborated. In anticipation of the
that the devourer will no longer destroy the crops or fruit (Gen. 4:3) of the
peoples obedience, the Lord will open the windows of heaven for you and
26
land.
pot outfor you an overflowing blessing. On their behalf God will pour out,
the vines in your fields will not friil to bear. The second thing that
make empty, the abundance of his blessing, through the open windows of
God will do is to prevent the vines from being or becoming (lit.) childless.
heaven. as it was done in the time of the flood (Gen. 7:11). The promised
The vines in the field, a very important representative of the fruit trees in the
blessing is evidently a figurative indication of rain. A similar combination
promised land, will not fail to bear grapes (RSV, Berkeley), will not cast
of blessing and rain occurs in the doubtful text of Ezek. 34:26, 27, but
their fruit (NIV) (cf. I-lag. 2:16: 2 K. 2:19).
also in Deut. 11:14; Joel 2:23, 24; Zech. 10:1; 14:17.23 This blessing will be
J. M. P. Smith again draws attention to the fact that the blessing.
overflowing literally until there is no more want, that is, boundless (cf.
which is promised as a token of the Lords favor toward his people, has a
Lev. 25:26; Obad. 5; Nab. 2:13; Prov. 25:16). Some interpreters combine
hell and day to make it one concept, lack, in the sense of material character, just as in Amos 9:1115. His explanation for the fact that
lack of room the moral content is missing here is that the prophet meets the people on their
...
(e.g., NIV: I will pour out so much blessing that you will not have
own level: material prosperity is to them the proof of the favor of God, and
room enough for it). An analogous expression is without limit (Isa. 5:14).
therefore such blessings are also promised here.
We agree with Von Bulmerincq that the terms of the promise include
We do not agree with this interpretation, however. The old dispensa
an esehatological aspect in addition to the concrete 24 element. The same tion is still in vogue, with both its demands (compulsory contributions) and
relationship between abundance of rain and the future fertility of the prom
its blessings (material prosperity). Under this dispensation earthly blessings
ised land is found in Isa. 30:23; 44:3; Joel 2:23; Zech. 10:1; along with a rich
were legitimate expressions of Gods pleasure within the covenant relation
harvest in Isa. 30:2326: Joel 2:2627; 3:18 (Eng. 4:18); Amos 9:13: Hag.
ship with his 27 people. In addition we must allow for an eschatological
2:18, 19; Zech. 8:12.
aspect as an integral part of the promise: locusts and vine are elements of the
11 In this verse the blessing concerns the fruits of the soil. In his
eschatological perspective (cf. Joel 2:11, 22; Hos. 14:8; Amos 9:13 15; Hag.
turning to his people. God will do two things in connection with the harvests:
2:20; Zech. 3:10; 8:12).
he will destroy the devouring locusts and he will prevent crop failure in the
12 As a result of Gods blessings all the nations will call von
case of the vines.
blessed. Israel will then once again take up its central and unique position as
I will destroy the devouring locusts for you, so that the will not ruin
the favored people (Gen. 12:3: Isa. 61:9; Zech. 8:13). The expression all
the crops of the land. in Hebrew gdar fr, rebuke, restrain, make of none
the nations, that is, the nations in their entirety (cf. v. 10), is sometimes
effect (Lattey), is used to denote Gods threat, which is the same as the
used in a hyperbolic sense to denote Israels neighboring countries. The
outpouring of his wrath and the execution of his judgment (cf. 2:3). When
same nations who have ridiculed and oppressed the returning exiles will be
God rebukes the devouring locusts (lit. the devourer) he actually
obliged to proclaim them a nation which is being blessed by God.
,
destroys them. The 1-lebrew word Olcl, he that eats the eater, may
The reason for this (ki) is because ours will be a delightfW land. The
denote all kinds of pests (NEB, NIV), but is more specifically applied to
emphasis is placed upon the personal pronoun yours (Heb. attern). The
locusts in general (cf. Josh. 1:4), This application is supported by the con
covenant people are included in the promise. Some interpreters and versions
text. They are described as things which destroy the fruit of the land. And, but the context demands a future
tavor the present tense: For you are
interestingly, they usually accompany drought (cf. Joel 1:19). During a
tense.
prolonged dry spell the eggs of the locusts remain (and accumulate!) in the delightful land. denotes a
The Hebrew expression ere.
dry sand, until the first rains. Then, suddenly, the locusts appear and devour
25. See A. D. lmms, A General Texihook of fnio,nologv (London: Chap
man and Hall, 1957), 331k.
.
23. For the opposite. see Lev. 26:19; Deut. 11:17.
26. For a negative final clause with onlO see Gemser. Hebreeuse Spraak
24. So also Smit and Elliger, contra Rudolph and Van der Woude, who
kuns, 3l2b; GKC, 109g: Driver, Tenses, 62.
deny this aspect.
27. See G. (Th Aalders. He! Verhond Gods, pp. 17988.
 THE BOOK OF MALACHI
land in which one has delight, which is very much desired. Scholars differ in
their Interpretation of the subject. According to some it is God (Rashi,
wald, Reinke, Schumpp, et al.); according to others it is the nations (Pres
sd, et at.) We agree with the point of view which includes both God and
nations as the subject of the delight. God will again have pleasure in the
rornised land. and the nations will be obliged to acknowledge the blessed
state of that country (cf. N. Ridderbos. et al.). This will be exactly the
opposite of the ridicule and abuse of the nations (Ezek. 36:15). A similar
evaluation of the land is stressed elsewhere in different terms. It is called
the pride ol Jacob (Ps. 47:5 lEng. 4j), Beulah (the married one. Isa.
62:4), a desirable land, the most beautiful inheritance of any nation (Jer.
3:19 NLV), the most glorious of all lands (Ezek. 20:6, 15), the glorious
land Dan. 3:9; 11:16, 41), the pleasant land (Zech. 7:14), The land of
divine and human delight and the covenant people are both aspects of the
eschatological perspective (cf. Ezek. 34:28). Brandenburg rightly compares
die content ot v. 12 with the Weihnachrschoralof the heavenly host praising
God and saying: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on
whom his favor rests (Luke 2:14, NIV).
In this pericope the continuous waywardness of the people (v. 7a) is
more specifically defined as a general and sinful neglect of the compulsory
contributions for the maintenance of the temple staff(vv. 8,9). The call to
repentance also includes the obligation to bring the whole tithe to the store
house v. [On). When they, in obedience, will risk it with God (v. lob), he
will turn to them in his favor and pour out rich blessings upon them (vv. lOc
11) as a confirmation of his unchangeableness (v. 6). Then they will be
called blessed by all nations as a country of divine and human delight
lv. 12).
This emphasis on the high importance of the ritual does not imply
that Malachis conception of the nature of religion is less ethical and spiritual
than that of his great predecessors. The emphasis on the demands in connec
tion with the cult does not exclude the significance of the covenant relation
ship with the iving God, as far as Malachi is concerned. His appreciation of
the cult is essentially religious and therefore prophetically justified. Lattey
rightly concedes that Malachi was possessed with an especial zeal for the
seemly worship of God, but, he adds, this does not of course imply any
obscuring of the moral and religious issue, as is clear throughout this proph
ecy itself, where the main emphasis remains always upon the honor due to
Jehovah in itself.
An important consideration in connection with this pericope is
whether the demands and the promises are also applicable in the NT dispen
sation, as they were under the OT dispensation. Our answer must he Yes
3:612 ROBBING GOD
and No.
28 Yes, because there is continuity in connection with both our
obligation to fulfill our stewardship and the promises of Gods blessing in
our lives. This cannot be denied. At the same time our answer must be No,
because we also have a discontinuity pertaining to the specific relationship
between the OT and the NT and the relative dispensations. The discontinuity
consists especially in the outward scheme of things, regarding both the
obligations and the promises.
In connection with tithing it must be clear that it belonged, in
conjunction with the whole system of giving and offering, to the dispensa
tion of shadows. and that it therefore has lost its significance as an obligation
of giving under the new dispensation. The continuity consists in the princi
ple of giving, in the continued obligation to be worthy stewards of our
possessions, but the discontinuity in the manner in which we fulfill our
hligations. It is admitted universally that the payment of tithes or the
tenths of possessions for sacred purposes did not find a place within the
Christian Church during the age covered by the apostles and their immediate
29 Greathouse, who favored the bringing of tithes even in the
successors.
new dispensation, states: Material prosperity and physical health do not
invariably accompany faithfulness to God. But spiritual health and pros
perity do.
In his commentary Ofl the Minor Prophets, Hans Brandenburg rightly
reminds us, with regard to the Zehntengebot, that the stipulations of the
ceremonial law are only a shadow of what was to come in Christ (Col. 2:17:
cf. Heb. 10:1). The law, he says, is in every respect a pointer to and a
prophecy of the new order of life, which only Christ can inaugurate. The law
declares one day out of seven to be holy unto the Lord, the Spirit sanctifies
all seven of them. The law sets apart one tribe out of twelve to be priests, the
Spirit declares that the whole congregation has to fulfill the priestly office
(1 Pet. 2:9). The law demands a tenth part of his peoples possessions. the
Spirit translates us to become Gods possession with all that we have.
Everything belongs to him. We are but stewards who will have to give
account of all we possess.
28. See my article, Die gee van tiendes (The giving of tithes), NGTT
21(1980)3142: idcm. TithingA Hcrmeneutical Consideration. in The Lawand
the Prophets. Fest. 0. T. Allis, ed. J. H. Skilton. et al. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian
and Reformed. 1974), pp. 11527. See also J. Jagersma. The Tithes in the Old
Testament, in Remembering All the Way OTS 21 (Leiden: Brill. 1981>. pp.
116ff.
29, J. R. Willis, in Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, ed. J. Hastings.
2 vols. (New York: Scribners, 19161918), s.v, Tithes.