[Dialogue] 3/19/09, Spong: Origins of the Bible, Part XXII: Malachi

Thu Mar 19 15:46:53 EDT 2009

Print this Article 

Not a member?Subscribe now! 

Thursday March 19, 2009 

The Origins of the Bible, Part XXII: Malachi and the Dawn of Universalism

Malachi is the last book in the Old Testament as Christians organize the scriptures and it is the last voice to be heard in the Book of the Twelve as the Jews organize the scriptures. It will also be the last of the prophets to whom I will give major attention in this series. Of the twelve so-called "minor prophets" we have examined Hosea, Amos, Micah, Jonah, Zechariah and now Malachi. This means that I have chosen not to treat Joel, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah and Haggai. Of course, that is a value judgment, but I have determined that they are not worthy of much time. That may offend those who think that every word of the Bible is the inerrant word of God, which makes a dismissal of any of its content border on blasphemy. This attitude always amazes me and more so when I ask these critics what the message of Obadiah or Nahum is and watch them sputter. These books are little read; they do not reach any heights of spirituality and they are filled with images of a vengeful deity who hates the enemies of the Jews. To make this series complete, however, let me say a few words about each of the omitted books. 
Joel is the most quoted of the books I will=2
0not cover. Joel 1:14 is regularly read on Ash Wednesday in liturgical churches: "Sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly…." Joel 2:22 forms a familiar Lenten theme of repentance: "Rend your hearts and not your garments…." Joel 2:28 is quoted by Luke in Peter's Pentecost sermon (Acts 2): "I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams and your young men will see visions." Beyond these three verses, however, Joel is little more than a cultic prophet. 

Obadiah consists of a series of oracles against Israel's enemies, none of which are profound. Nahum is a tribal hymn of praise at the destruction of Nineveh, assuming that since he hates the Assyrians God must also. Habakkuk contents himself to pronounce woes on wicked nations, apparently not able to hear the universal themes of God's unbounded love. Zephaniah is the work of a Jewish puritan and like "puritans" in all religious traditions he is more self-righteous than helpful. Haggai, a contemporary of Zechariah, had only one song to sing and that was that the Temple must be rebuilt. If all of these omitted books were lost, and for all practical purposes they have always been ignored, the world would not be much poorer for it. 

Malachi, however, is different and as such he is a worthy figure to round out our study of the prophets because he helped move the consciousness of the Jews out of their tribal mentality and opened the doors that allowed their religion to grow to
 levels of universal understanding. 

The first thing that must be noted is that Malachi is not the name of the author of this little book. The name comes from the first verse of the third chapter, where we find the words, "Behold, I send my messenger to prepare the way before me and the Lord whom you will seek will suddenly come to his Temple, the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold he is coming, says the Lord of Hosts." The Hebrew word for "my messenger" is "mal'akhi" (not dissimilar from the name of the current Prime Minister of Iraq) and that is the name by which the book came to be known. It seems to have been the second anonymous work that was copied onto the scroll of Zechariah and thus might be called III Zechariah. Dating this book is easier than most since it refers to events in history that we can date fairly accurately from other sources. Jerusalem is under the rule of a governor, but both the political and religious life of the nation is at a low ebb. It seems not to be aware of the priestly code that was added to the Torah in the late 5th century BCE. It refers to the priests as sons of Levi rather than sons of Aaron as the priestly code does and it mentions that the Edomites, their hated foes, have been conquered by the Nabataean Arabs. These things all point to a time before the great reforming governor Nehemiah came into power in 444 BCE, so Malachi is dated somewhere around 450 BCE. 

The situation is far enough after the E
xile for a strong sense of disillusionment to have set in among the people. They had clearly believed their own propaganda that the return from exile would usher in a glorious messianic age. Hopes had skyrocketed, as they tend to do with a change of circumstances or government, but none of these hopes seemed to find fulfillment. Instead, only a small number of Jews actually returned to their homeland and they soon discovered not the messianic age, but a difficult and dangerous life. There were no walls behind which to seek protection from either enemies or robbers. Despair was heavy and people asked why they should bother to continue to worship when clearly the God of the Jews did not appear to be concerned with the welfare of God's chosen. This little book was thus designed to give hope to these discouraged people. In the process, however, Malachi's message broke the traditional boundaries of Jewish tribal thinking and quite literally redefined the God of the Jews. That is what makes this book so strong and so powerful.

Using a question and answer format, this prophet points first to the same issue that we will discover in the Book of Job. If you are suffering you must deserve it, you must have acted in a way that precipitated God's wrath or that at least caused God to abandon God's people. Searching for an answer, this writer points to their cultic sins and offers those as the reasons for God's punishment. Yet he continues to struggle against the limitations of this kind of tribal thinking, 
asserting that the God of the Jews is still in control. As evidence of God's continuing presence he cites the destruction of the Edomites, suggesting that this was God's punishment of their traditional enemies because the Edomites had celebrated the sack of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. He continues to insist that the "Day of the Lord" will come, which meant to the Jews that God will yet intervene at the end of history and vindicate the chosen people. It was tribal religion at its tribal best.

As this unknown messenger wrestled with these realities of history, however, a crack began to appear in his tribal mentality. Modern readers need to realize that the world seemed very small to ancient people. Most of them had never been to the sea. They had no idea what lay beyond their coasts or the boundaries formed by mighty rivers or even mountain ranges. They were certain that the earth was the center of the universe, that the sun rotated around the earth and that the God who lived above the sky had the chosen people in the center of the divine gaze. They believed that this God controlled the weather, their sicknesses and the plight of the chosen people in history. They had no understanding of either the size of this planet or the vastness of the universe. They viewed life from the center of their limited self-consciousness. The whole world revolved around their lives and they believed that all of their behavior, whether it was liturgical and ethical, was judged only on how it pleased God and how20God responded to it.

When Malachi finally broke open this mindset he walked into a stunning new understanding of both God and the world. It began when he observed that all worship, even that of those he called "heathens," was offered to God. If that is so, he concluded, then God must be thought of as a heavenly parent with all people being God's children. In this patriarchal world, he articulated this as the "brotherhood" of the human family under the "fatherhood" of God. The Hebrew Scriptures had hinted at this earlier with its explanations of the origins of the other nations of whom the Jews were aware. Jewish mythology had suggested that the Edomites were the descendants of Esau, Jacob's twin brother, from whom Jacob stole the birthright. The Ammonites and Moabites were the grandchildren of Lot, who was Abraham's nephew. The Arabs were the descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's son. There was indeed a sense of kinship that permeated the region; indeed a common DNA permeated them all. This insight is what finally caused Malachi to say: "Have we not all one father, has not God created us all?"

As he thought about these things, Malachi appears to have stepped into a new human awareness and when he did, a majestic monotheistic God suddenly came into view and universality finally broke through the tribal minds of the Jewish people. It was then that Malachi could write: "From the rising of the sun to its setting God's name shall be great among the Gentiles." He did not realize how wide an arc the=2
0sweep of the sun created. He did not know that Europe, China or the Western hemisphere existed, but his mind was expanding. He then went on to say, "And in every nation incense shall be offered to God's name." A new realization about the oneness of God had dawned. Tribal thinking was beginning to die.

Some people say today that God is evolving. I do not think that is accurate. Whatever and whoever God is, surely God is the same yesterday, today and forever. The fact is, however, that the human perception of God is always evolving. We have gone from a multi, spirit-filled, animistic world, first to identifying God with nature's cycles of fertility, then to the warrior deities of tribal life and ultimately to a sense of the oneness and universality of God. The biblical story moves from a God who hates the Egyptians so much that God sends multiple plagues on them and even closes the Red Sea so that the Egyptians drown, and a God who hates the Amorites so much that God stops the sun in the sky to allow more daylight in which Joshua's army can slaughter them, to a place where through the eyes of Malachi the Jews begin to see the human family as one. Without Malachi's searing insight it would not have been possible for Jesus to take the next step as he did when he enjoined us even to "Love our enemies."

Malachi, the unnamed voice, is thus a major person in the evolving definition of the Jewish God and through the Jews in human development itself. He thus becomes a fitting close
 to that section of the Bible we call the prophets. We will next look at the protest literature of the Bible and at its wisdom writings. 

–John Shelby Spong

Members may log in to the Essay Libray at JohnShelbySpong.com to read previous columns in the Origins of the Bible series.  

Question and Answer 
With John Shelby Spong

Stephen Argent of Sussex, United Kingdom, writes: 
Thank you for the stimulation of your published works and weekly newsletter. My question concerns the pastoral care of those Christians who do not have the intellectual capacity or strength of character to tolerate the ambiguity of your message. Rightly or wrongly their "simple" faith sustains them and many would be fatally undermined should they be confronted by doubts concerning such issues as the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection. Is it right to leave their views unchallenged, or should gentle sensitivity necessitate a less direct approach? I am aware that I will appear patronizing in posing this question, but from your own pastoral experience how have you dealt with this matter?

Dear Stephen,

Your question is a frequent one, but in my opinion it reveals things under the surface that I believe need to be faced. 

First, is your concern really for those whose "simple" faith is being disturbed by developing knowledge? Frequently I find this question asked by one who is himself disturbed, but projects it on to others. 

Second, are you really suggesting that truth should20be compromised for the sake of those who might not be able to understand? Does that not make religion a bit of an opiate for the people? 

Third, if truth is to be compromised in the realm of the church for the sake of those who might not understand or for those you call simple believers, has not the church become totalitarian? Is that not an example of control by giving people security when they cannot deal with truth? Is such a formula followed in any other discipline of human knowledge? Is religion somehow virtuous when it does what would be deplored in any other human arena? 

Fourth, the pursuit of truth in religion is never imposed on people by force. That is not the nature of liberal education. The only people who seem to me to impose specific religious answers on anyone are those evangelical Protestants or conservative Catholics who believe that they possess the unchanging truth of God. 

Fifth, the task of the Christian is to love "the least of these" our brothers and sisters. Seeking to protect them from uncomfortable truth is not just patronizing as your letter suggests, it is both demeaning and dehumanizing. 

Finally, one of my professors once said, "Any God who can be killed ought to be killed." To which I would add, any faith that can be undermined should be undermined. A God or a faith that needs you or me to prop it up has already died long ago. You do not need to defend a living God. Only dead gods seem to require that.

– John Shelby Spong

Send your questions to support at johnshelbyspong.com 

Print this Article 

Not a member? Subscribe now! 

Thanks for joining our mailing list, elliestock at aol.com, for A New Christianity For A New World on 11/09/2008 
REMOVE me from this list | Add me to this list | Manage my e-mail settings | Contact Customer Service 

4 Marshall Street, North Adams, MA 01247

Subject to our terms of service and privacy policy 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20090319/3f5c0889/attachment-0001.html>