Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Malachi

[Squonk]

In Malachi 3:10, God makes a promise:

Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in my house, and thus put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts; see if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an overflowing blessing. I will rebuke the locust for you, so that it will not destroy the produce of your soil; and your vine in the field shall not be barren, says the Lord of hosts

Many preachers love to use this verse to milk money out of their gullible flock: Give money to the church, and God will bless you. But Christians who tithe cannot count on God for an "overflowing blessing" of any sort. Giving money to the church is no guarantee of prosperity, no matter if you're donating to televangelists or the Catholic Church.

Significantly, farmers do not make their crops invulnerable to locusts by tithing. Farmers who tithe cannot count on God's promise to "rebuke the locust, so that it will not destroy the produce of your soil" (3:11). It is an empty promise.

POINT #1: Africa is highly-Christian.

There are already more Christians in Africa than any other continent.

And God promises to "rebuke the locust, so that it will not destroy the produce of your soil" for those who tithe. If God keeps His promises, we should predict highly-Christian Africa to have fewer problems with locusts, compared to other continents.

POINT #2: Locusts are most destructive in Africa

Locust swarms devastate crops and cause major agricultural damage and attendant human misery—famine and starvation. They occur in many parts of the world, but today locusts are most destructive in sustenance farming regions of Africa (National Geographic)

Evidently, God does not bother to "rebuke the locust" for Christians who live in Africa; Africans have the biggest issue with locusts. Where is God's "overflowing blessing" for these Africans? He promises that "your vine in the field shall not be barren," and yet millions of Africans are facing starvation.

God's promises are empty, because God does not exist.

• If God existed, He would keep His promises.
• God does not keep His promises.
• Therefore, God does not exist.

[jimwalton]

Yes, preachers misuse this verse, but it is a true general teaching that God is pleased with those who honor Him. It is also true that we can't earn God's blessing or force Him to bless us by giving our tithe. God is never obligated to us. Neither Judaism nor Christianity work according to the Great Symbiosis: If we do something for god, he is obligated to do something for us.

The teaching of v. 11 is specific to ancient Israel. Famines were common in the land, but this particular famine is regarded as an action of God in punishment for their faithlessness and their idolatry (vv. 7 & 9). So you are wrong to assume this has anything to do with the locust problem in modern Africa, and therefore you are wrong to conclude, then, that this proves God doesn't exist.

[Squonk]

How do you determine which verses in the Bible are directed at everybody, for all time?

The teaching of v. 11 is specific to ancient Israel.

Pretty much every teaching in the entire Bible is specific to ancient people who have been dead for hundreds & hundreds of years.

[jimwalton]

We are to interpret the words of the prophets in their usual, literal and historical sense, and we always take them as speaking only to that particular context unless the context or manner in which they are fulfilled clearly indicates they have a symbolic or an extended meaning. If their fulfillment is in installments, we look to the Bible itself to tell us that. We let the Bible interpret the Bible. Without some kind of biblical confirmation, we don't take any prophecy beyond its immediate context.

In other words, we determine it because we are scholars, we study the stuff, there are rules about how to interpret the Bible, and we're not just free to make up our own stuff.

There is NOTHING in Malachi 3.11 to indicate in any sense that it is a general prophecy for all of humanity, or for other times and places. The context is the Promised Land (Mal. 3.12) as a covenant object to the people of Israel. The context is in the context of the threat of extinction to Israel (Mal. 3.6). The context is their return from exile, a historical event (Mal. 3.7). There is nothing about the prophecy that gives any indication it applies to anywhere but there, any time but then, to anyone but them.

The teaching about the tithe also only applies to them, except in the general principle that we are to give to God what belongs to God (Mt. 22.21), a teaching and principle confirmed by other texts. Mal. 3.10 is specifically talking about the people of Israel in that time and place, but it is a true general teaching that God is pleased with those who honor Him (confirmed by many texts). It is also true that we can't earn God's blessing or force Him to bless us by giving our tithe (confirmed by many texts). God is never obligated to us (confirmed by many texts). So it applies to us only in general principles, not in the specifics of the text.

[Squonk]

> We are to interpret the words of the prophets in their usual, literal and historical sense, and we always take them as speaking only to that particular context unless the context or manner in which they are fulfilled clearly indicates they have a symbolic or an extended meaning.

So, let’s take the book of Romans, for example. Is this a letter to a certain group of people living in Rome, a long time ago? I notice that Christians treat this letter (and the rest of Paul’s letters) as if they were addressed to ALL CHRISTIANS FOR ALL TIME.

But who is Romans actually addressed to? It’s right in the letter:

To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints (Romans 1:7)

Should Christians in 21st-century North America disregard everything Paul said in Romans?

[jimwalton]

You've missed a very important aspect of what I said: We are to interpret the prophets this way. So, you want to take Romans as an example. Fine, but Romans isn't prophecy. It's a letter of teaching for Christians.

> Should Christians in 21st-century North America disregard everything Paul said in Romans?

Of course not. Romans isn't prophetic, it's didactic. Romans has a lot to say to us.

[Squonk]

Do you have any exegetical reason to believe that what’s written in Romans is intended for all Christians, for all time? Because according to the letter itself, you’d be wrong to believe that.

Furthermore: What do you make of the fact that Jesus did not understand the prophets the way you do? Jesus did not treat the prophets like they were irrelevant to him & his followers.

[jimwalton]

> Do you have any exegetical reason to believe that what’s written in Romans is intended for all Christians, for all time? Because according to the letter itself, you’d be wrong to believe that.

Sure.

1. It's didactic, not prophetic.
2. Rom. 1.5 is a general truth that applies to all believers, not just the Romans, based on the resurrection.
3. Rom. 1.5 says that the message applies to all the Gentiles, not just to the Romans.
4. Rom. 1.16 explicitly says this message of the gospel and its power are for all who believe, both Jew and Gentile.
5. Rom. 1.18 says that the wrath of God opposes all godlessness and wickedness, not just that emanating from Rome.
6. Rom 1.20 is a message for all humankind. Vv. 21-32 also apply to all humankind.
7. Rom. 2.3 is not talking about a specific individual, but instead people in general.
8. Rom. 2.4 is also referring to all humanity, not just the Romans.
9. Rom. 2.6 specifically mentions "each person."

I don't need to continue. Romans is a message for all of us.

• Romans 3.10-18 references all people
• Romans 3.22 references all who believe
• 3.23: all have sinned
• 3.29: not just all Jews, but all Gentiles

And so it goes. Romans is intended for all Christians for all time. Why am I wrong to believe that "according to the letter itself"?

> What do you make of the fact that Jesus did not understand the prophets the way you do? Jesus did not treat the prophets like they were irrelevant to him & his followers.

Hmm. I guess I wonder what makes you think Jesus understood them differently than I do. I take my interpretations from Jesus, so I follow His lead. We don't treat (in general) the prophets (in general) like they were irrelevant. Some prophecies are specific to time and event, some are referencing events further in the future, and some are general prophecies with a broad application. What it takes is proper interpretation, not blanket strategies. But if you want to talk about specific prophecies, I'd be glad to. I'm not aware that Jesus ever referenced this prophecy as if it applied further than to its specific situation. If you know different, I'd be glad to discuss it.

[Squonk]

> Why am I wrong to believe that "according to the letter itself"?

Because Paul specifies that his letter is directed at Christians living in ancient Rome:

To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people (Romans 1:7)

Romans is clearly a letter written by a certain Christian leader to a certain Christian church in a certain place & time. The letter is explicitly NOT addressed to “all Christians, for all time.”

Christians love to play a funny game:

Whenever there’s a passage that they don’t like, they write it off: “Oh, that does not apply to us.” I’ve actually had a Christian tell me that Christians can ignore Jesus’ commandment to sell everything you own, because that commandment was only for “disciples.” Apparently, modern Christians do not have to do the things that Jesus told his disciples to do?

Yet, when Jesus tells his disciples to love one another...I don’t hear any Christians claiming: “That does not apply to us. Jesus was only telling his disciples to love each other.”

If I brought up one of God’s promises from the Old Testament that He actually kept, I doubt you’d be claiming God’s OT promises are null & void.

[jimwalton]

> Because Paul specifies that his letter is directed at Christians living in ancient Rome:

There is no doubt that his letter was addressed to the church in Rome. No contest there. But there is also no doubt, as per the multiple evidences I gave you, that the letter was meant for the much broader Christian audience.

> The letter is explicitly NOT addressed to “all Christians, for all time.”

Of course it's addressed to the church at Rome, but to claim that it's not for all Christians for all time is simply and explicitly incorrect, and I gave you multiple evidences of it. I gave you no less than a dozen, and I stopped because the evidence was so overwhelming there was no sense in continuing.

• Rom. 5.1. Are you actually arguing that only the Romans have been justified through faith? Or that only the Roman Christians (5.2) have gained access to God's grace? It's an absurd claim you are making.
• Rom. 5.3: Suffering only produces perseverance in Roman Christians? No one else?
• Rom. 5.5: The Holy Spirit was given only to the Romans?
• Rom. 5.6: Christ died only for the ungodly in Rome, no one else?
• Rom. 5.8: Christ died only for the sinners in Rome?
• Rom. 5.9: Only the Roman Christians are justified by Christ's blood?

It's in just about every verse. You simply have to be able to see how powerful the evidence is that Romans was written about all humanity, not just about the residents of Rome at the time. There is no justification for stopping its application at the edges of that one congregation.

> Christians love to play a funny game: Whenever there’s a passage that they don’t like, they write it off

This accusation is ridiculous.

> I’ve actually had a Christian tell me that Christians can ignore Jesus’ commandment to sell everything you own, because that commandment was only for “disciples.”

It wasn't even for the disciples. It was for that one guy. Jesus didn't sell everything he owned. The disciples never sold everything they owned. Jesus and his disciples even kept a money bag as a financial resource (Jn. 12.6). The disciples owned fishing boats and nets. They owned homes.

> Apparently, modern Christians do not have to do the things that Jesus told his disciples to do?

Jesus never told his disciples to sell everything they owned. That's why modern Christians don't do it, either.

> Yet, when Jesus tells his disciples to love one another...I don’t hear any Christians claiming: “That does not apply to us. Jesus was only telling his disciples to love each other.”

That's correct. We are supposed to love one another. It's the mark of discipleship (Jn. 13.35). Remember that all believers are disciples of Christ (Mt. 2819-20), not just the initial 12. 1 John 2.8 & 10 show that this commandment is meant for all believers for all time.

> If I brought up one of God’s promises from the Old Testament that He actually kept, I doubt you’d be claiming God’s OT promises are null & void.

It depends what it is. We do proper study, not just blanket strategies.