This is an expansion of the argument made in my last post. We know (from John 7:14-15) that around the fourth day of the Feast of Tabernacles, Jesus stood up in the Temple in Jerusalem and read from the Bible. I hypothesized that he read from Malachi 2. Having read over Malachi more closely, I would now like to propose that he read from Malachi 2:1 to 3:1. He may have read more, but I think those are very natural starting and ending points. (There were no chapter divisions in Jesus' time, and Malachi 2-4 is one extended discourse, so there would be nothing unnatural about reading what is in our Bibles a whole chapter plus one verse of the next.)
Here is the text I propose that Jesus read, interspersed with commentary giving my reasons.
[2:1] And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you.
Jesus is in the Jerusalem Temple, where the priests work.
[2] If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the Lord of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.
The priests are enjoined to give glory to the Lord. In Jesus' commentary, he says, "He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him" (John 7:18).
[3] Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.
"Solemn feasts" refers to Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles (see 2 Chron. 8:13). It is during the Feast of Tabernacles that Jesus is reading this. When the priests are corrupt, the feast has no more value than "dung."
[4] And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the Lord of hosts. [5] My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name.
This is a reminder that the Levitical convenant is about "life and peace," not the legalism insisted on by those who criticized Jesus for healing a man on the Sabbath.
[6] The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity.
Jesus' commentary: "he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him" (John 7:18). (Unrighteousness and iniquity are alternate translations of the same Greek word.)
[7] For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. [8] But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts. [9] Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.
The religious authorities of Jesus' time also "corrupted the covenant" and "caused many to stumble at the law," using the scriptures to attack Jesus and his good works.
[10] Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?
Jesus' critics wanted to kill him because he "said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God" (John 5:18). Jesus defuses that accusation by reminding them that Malachi said God is the Father of us all. Later, when Jesus calls the Jews children of the devil, they say, "we have one Father, even God" (John 8:41). It would be curious for them to say such a thing so soon after condemning Jesus for saying "that God was his Father." However, if Jesus had recently quoted this passage from Malachi in his defense, the Jews' response makes more sense: "Children of the devil? Don't you remember reading Malachi in the Temple?" The specific phraseology, "we have one Father," makes an allusion to Malachi even more likely.
[11] Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. [12] The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts.
Here Malachi extends his critique beyond the priests to "the master and the scholar" -- corresponding to the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day -- and talks about cutting them off "out of the tabernacles of Jacob." The Feast of Tabernacles -- celebrated by building temporary "tabernacles" or booths and staying in them for a week -- is obviously the perfect occasion to read this.
[13] And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. [14] Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. [15] And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. [16] For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
The references to "covering violence with a garment" and "dealing treacherously" are relevant to the plot to kill Jesus.
[17] Ye have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?
[3:1] Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.
The Synoptic Gospels all agree in seeing the first part of Malachi 3:1, about the "messenger" who "shall prepare the way," as a prophecy of John the Baptist (see Mark 1:2, Matt. 11:10, Luke 7:27). And then -- "the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple." What better verse to be read by Jesus, in the Temple, to which he had come "suddenly," surprising the people, who did not even know he was in Jerusalem.
This would be a perfect place for Jesus to stop. Or perhaps he would pause, let the implications of that last verse sink in, and then add just one more.
[2] But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:
Malachi warns that the corrupt priests and scholars who think of themselves as "seeking the Lord" should be careful what they wish for. As C. S. Lewis put it in Miracles,
There comes a moment when people who have been dabbling in religion (“Man’s search for God”!) suddenly draw back. Supposing we really found Him? We never meant it to come to that! Worse still, supposing He had found us?
This whole post is speculation on my part, of course. We are not told what text Jesus read -- but I don't think there's anything else in the Old Testament that fits the context as perfectly as this.
1 comment:
I like this, especially Malachi 3:1 and your point about. However, isn't 2:11-16 about divorce: "He hates putting away", "He made one", &c? The violence then would be about tearing asunder (ripping apart) what was made one (Presumably to marry a young hot thing after becoming well established with help of 1st wife). The cloak covering this treacherous act is the legal fig leaf of the bill of divorcement.
We see them butting heads about his in the synoptics. Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 16.
Here in the fourth gospel we have them saying they weren't born of adultery. The Malachi passage implies the seed of these adulterous 2nd+ marriages will be ungodly. I assume they would know their genealogy very well, and probably many were descended from unions like this on some branch of their tree.
Post a Comment