John Mark Hicks

How might a migrant worker convict luxurious homeowners about their oppressive lifestyles? What might a poor, rural believer say to wealthy, urban idolaters?

Amos was neither trained as a prophet nor assumed the career of a prophet. He was a shepherd near the Judean wilderness six miles SE of Bethlehem in the backwater village of Tekoa. He supplemented his income through cultivating sycamore-fig trees (probably as a kind of migrant worker since they did not grow in the area of Tekoa). He was, most likely, a poor man and certainly so by the standards of the ruling elite in Israel. Nevertheless, he was, for a brief time, Yahweh’s voice out of Zion (Jerusalem) to the northern kingdom of Israel.

He ventured into Israel sometime prior to the great earthquake that rocked Israel around 760 BCE. The destruction was so devastating that not only is there evidence of it in Hazor’s archeological record, but the earthquake became part of Palestine’s living memory . Zechariah 14:5 uses it as a metaphor for the Day of the Lord some 250 years after it happened. It was for ancient Palestinian Jews what the 1755 Lisbon earthquake was for Europe.

The 760s, however, were a time of prosperity and peace.  Jeroboam II (786-746 BCE) ruled over the northern kingdom while Uzziah (783-742 BCE) reigned over Judah. Jeroboam II had the longest reign of any northern king and Uzziah had the second longest of any king of Judah. Together their reigns approximated the “golden age” of Solomon himself in terms of territory, building projects and economic trade.  They lived in peace as Assyria had suppressed Syria (Aram) even as Assyria’s imperial designs were interrupted by internal troubles. Israel and Judah developed their economies and expanded their borders.

Peace and prosperity, however, did not form a just and faithful nation. On the contrary, wealth was increasingly located in the hands of the few and the elite. Instead of thanking Yahweh, they thanked other gods for their blessings. Whereas their blessings should have blessed all, the wealthy consumed their blessings rather than sharing them.

The shepherd Amos went from his rural environs near Tekoa to the heartland of Israel’s ruling elite in Bethel and Samaria. His message decries injustice, oppression and idolatry. He announces Israel’s future–one of both judgment and hope.

How do the poor speak a word from God to the rich? How does a lowly shepherd address the ruling elite about the plight of their nation? What might that address say for us?

That is why we read Amos.  We stand with Amos as he speaks against injustice and idolatry. Yes, we want to stand with the prophet.  But we will miss the message if we do not become Amos’ audience as well. We must hear Amos as those who live in luxury with more wealth than we need. We must see ourselves as Amos’ audience if we are to be convicted by his words. Otherwise we will simply make excuses and judge that his words do not apply–much like Israel itself responded to Amos.

The ancient words of Amos address us. We may not live in 760’s Palestine–and the cultural differences are enormous, but we–especially middle class to upper class Americans–share a similar social location that gave rise to the prophet’s mission.

Prosperity often creates spiritual apathy along with greed and covetousness (as we always want more). If nothing else, the words of Amos warn us that prosperity is only a blessing if it is acknowledged with gratitude and shared.  Otherwise it becomes the root of greed, injustice and oppression.

How we hear Amos will probably say more about our own hearts than it does anything else.

I have spent the past four months resting from blogging and (generally) from list discussions.  It was refreshing but I also missed blogging. Fasting helps me focus on why I blog. I blog as a way of occasionally commenting on current events, but mostly as an outlet for ongoing research and sharing my bible class materials.

I will soon begin a series on Amos as well as the Letters of John as I will begin teaching these texts or have taught them previously in my church bible classes.

For those interested, here are my top five blogs from 2012.

5.  “Heaven on Earth” — A Stone-Campbell Tradition

4.  The Egyptian Hallel and the Lord’s Supper (Psalms 113-118)

3.  Lament Prayer at Woodmont Family of God 03/04/12

2.  Mark 7:24-27 — Crumbs for the Dogs, Dignity for Humanity

1.  Tim Tebow and the Gift of Success

David Lipscomb’s opposition to participation in civil government is perhaps well-known. He is, in some ways, a Christian anarchist. This arises both from his experience in the Civil War but also out of his kingdom theology which envisions the kingdom of God destroying all human ruling authorities through Jesus Christ. Consequently, Lipscomb was a pacifist and refused to participate in any human governement. His argument is fully articulated in his Civil Government. 

His position was thoroughly discussed through the pages of the Gospel Advocate through the last quarter of the 20th century, and his position was thoroughly rejected during WWII (with Foy E. Wallace, Jr. leading the way). Ultimtely, the Churches of Christ became almost wholly alligned with the political interests of the ruling majority in the last half of the 20th century with some significant exceptions.

The below piece from the hand of Lipscomb is interesting in several respects.  First, it reflects the ongoing debate and we perhpas hear a strong sectional flavor in it.  Second, Lipscomb’s theology is thoroughly kingdomized, that is, he will hear nothing of any human institution but only a commitment to the kingdom of God. Third, we see Lipscomb’s strong opposition to violence and how his opposition to politics is partly rooted in his conviction that politics always leads to violence in some form or other.

David Lipscomb, “Voting,” Gospel Advocate (1876) 543-546

In response to a letter from N. B. Gibbons of Waxahatchie, Texas, dated May 4, 1876, Lipscomb writes:

This is the first and only request we have had to review Bro. P[inkerton]’s articles. We fully intended to do it before he wrote, but his articles fell so far short of an argument, were so wholly composed of platitudes and generalities that while sometimes true and sometimes not, had no bearing on the question, so abounded in inconsistencies with the recognized and avowed principle of Scripture application and so inconsistent with themselves, and so often not having a remote bearing on the question, whether true or false, that we did not see any necessity for reviewing it. No friend of voting that we saw was willing to accept it as a fair statement of the reasons why Christians should vote, no one opposed to Christians voting thought it needed a reply.

In the quotation made by our brother, the reason assigned for Christ’s not holding office or voting seems to us not a pertinent one. If he came to be an example to Christians, certainly he should set the example in that as in other things.

Preachers, Bishops, Pastors, Elders, Evangelists, and all officers in the church now vote. All members of the church are officers in the only sense the word is applicable to a functionary of the church. Paul says, “For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office, so we being [544] many, are one body in Christ, and members of one of another.” Rom.’s xii:5. That is, as each member of the human body has its office, but all the members have not the same office to perform, so it is in the body of Christ. Bro P.’s argument then would be, if he stated it clearly and logically, Christ had offices in connection with his church, this prevented him either voting or holding office in any other institution or government. The legitimate deduction from this is, as Christ could not vote or hold office in human institutions because he had offices to fulfill in and with reference to his own kingdom, so his members who have offices to discharge in his kingdom cannot vote or hold office in other institutions. This is certainly the logical conclusion, from his premises, all members have their offices to perform in the kingdom, therefore, no member can hold office or vote in other kingdoms. It is true Bro. P. has said there is no voting in those days—and hence might claim that it did not apply to the voting part.  But every school-boy or girl that has read the simplest elements of Grecian or Roman history knows Bro. P. is wholly wrong in this. Greece and Rome both were elective democracies in their beginning. The latter stood as much longer than any modern democracy has maintained itself and even after the substitution of the empire for the democracy, the Emperors themselves were for a long time elected by voting. These elections were not always without fraud, without violence, sometimes the will of the people was set aside by military authority or the violence of the soldiery or the mob. But such things are not unknown in this providentially raised up government for the development of Christian voters and office-holders—with its credit mobilier, salary grab, post traderships almost universal crime and corruption, thrown in. We doubt if there ever was a government among intelligent people more thoroughly honeycombed with crime and corruption and more constantly tempting men to dishonesty and venality than this. It is not the general government alone, nor one party, but the whole body politic, is corrupt. No man can breathe the air of our politics and remain pure. If he can, it is not true that “evil communications corrupt good manners.” Our politics are much like the politics of all democratic governments. When a man enters into them he drinks of their spirit and becomes one with them. Instances of this kind occur constantly. It is an exceedingly rare thing for a man in politics to pay any regard to his religion.

Bro. P. in his argument maintains that as the Bible says nothing about voting, Christians may vote. Does he argue thus about the mourner’s bench and infant sprinkling &c.? Bro. Franklin in his last number of the Review, makes the argument “As the Bible says nothing about voting Christians may vote or not.” In the very same number of his paper he says the Bible says nothing about the organ, therefore Christians should not use the organ. The legs of the lame are truly not equal. When such m en as Bros. Franklin and Pinkerton reason so contradictorily with themselves something must be wrong. [545] They can never satisfy thinking men in this way. It is certain they do not reason and act on the same principle in both cases.

To show the inconclusiveness of Bro. P.’s reasoning, we refer, without re-reading his articles, to the statement, that “sometimes the voice of the people, may be the voice of God sometimes it is not.” This is given as a reason why Christians should engage in politics. But he gives no rule, by which we can determine when their voice is the voice of God and when it is not. The idea that we can ever look to the voice of the people as the voice of God in this indefinite form, not only is of no practical good to any; it is of infinite harm to the world. It is worse than direct Spiritual Influence. Instead of going to the word of God to learn his will they are looking to the voice of the people with no rule to tell when the voice is of God. They find it in the frenzy of fanaticism. In our recent strife each party concluded the voice of his people was the voice of God. And many people of the South under Bro. Pinkerton’s rule thought they did God’s service to kill the hated Yankee and to rob him of his property. It was equally true on the other side. When religious people engage in war, they clothe their strife with the frenzy of religious fanaticism. Then it makes war more bitter, more bloody, more cruel, more vindictive in its character to maintain such an idea. When God has a message for his people, he is able to deliver it, in such a manner that none of those willing to hearken can misunderstand; he can deliver it in his own voice.

Bro. P. seeing the utter incongruity of Christians striving against each other in politics, suggests that to avoid this the church shall call a convention to determine what shall be done, how they shall all vote. Well what law will govern them? What rule for deciding? Will they dare decide where God has given no direction? To do it would be to make assumptions worse than papal. Then again, what shall they decide? Whether the church shall vote for Tweed or Belknap? Whether they shall contract or expand the currency? How can a church decide such questions? Where is the rule? But suppose they conclude that Christians cannot support the corrupt men of either party and put men of their own in nomination and become a third party? Then there will be a distinctly religious party in politics, a political party on religious grounds. The most corrupt and corrupting of all parties. But he wishes these conventions confined to single congregations, not to a multiplicity of churches. That is a church in one State will decide in one way, a church in another another way. Christians will then form political parties based on sectional grounds.  These lead most surely to war and violence, and Christians, children of the Prince of Peace, foment war and murder and destroy each other as the result. These are some of the impractical and antichristian absurdities in which he involves himself. We are sure there can be no necessity in reviewing such fallacious reasoning, involving absurdities so glaring. Bro. P. conjures up men of straw to demolish, in the shape of conclusions he supposes are [546] involved in the opposite position that no man, woman or child ever did believe, and that are not in the least involved in the position. It is much easier to explode a man’s position when he state if for him than when he states it himself.  It is usually regarded somewhat more in accordance with fair discussion to accept a man’s own statements of his position. But we are not surprised that Bro. P. finds it more convenient to meet positions of his own framing than of those who believe it wrong for Christians to engage in politics. They are so much more easily disposed of.

In the particular positions to which our brother refers, certainly Christ was only prospective King and Priest while on earth. But he was an active Savior from the day he was recognized as the Son of God, and anointed with the Holy Spirit. He was a Christed Savior. His work of saving was not perfected until his blood was shed, he was buried resurrected ascended and crowned a king and made a priest.

But the sacrifice was as much a part of the work of the Savior as the offering of the blood as a High Priest at the right hand of God. He set the full example for the Christian to follow, and if he refrained from political affairs it was because he desired Christians to do likewise. So far from Bro. Jones’ or Pinketon’s articles convincing any one that Christians can go into politics, we are certain they confirm all thoughtful Christians there is no ground for it. Brethren, let us get clear of our partisan prejudices for human institutions and look plainly at the teachings of God and learn of them the truth as it is in Christ.

Last weekend I was honored to spend some time with the University Park Church of Christ in Maryland. I was encouraged by their desire to serve the Lord and the integrated nature of their family. Dorn & Carolyn Muscar are serving the church there in a wonderful way.  They are a dedicated couple in the service of the kingdom.

The University Park website has posted my presentations on their website.  I have provided them below should you care to listen.

Five Anchors of Faith in the Storms of Life — How Long, O Lord: Psalm 13, by Dr. John Mark Hicks, 8-26-2012

Five Anchors of Faith in the Storms of Life, Bible Class, by Dr. John Mark Hicks, 8-26-2012   “Comforting Sufferers:  What Should We Do…Say?

Five Anchors of Faith in the Storms of Life, Session 1 – Learning to Lament: What the Psalms Can Teach Us About Grief, by Dr. John Mark Hicks, 8-25-2012

Five Anchors of Faith in the Storms of Life, Session 2 – Suffering with Jesus: How Jesus Transforms Suffering, by Dr. John Mark Hicks, 8-25-2012

Five Anchors of Faith in the Storms of Life, Session 3 – Trusting the Love of God: Assurance in the Storm, by Dr. John Mark Hicks, 8-25-2012

Though Malachi characterizes Judah’s words against Yahweh as “harsh,” we might find ourselves rather sympathetic with them. It does appear that evil often wins and that abusers go unpunished. We might wonder whether, in fact, evildoers are “blessed.” Or that God is indifferent, or that faith is worth the journey.

Malachi, however, is quick to reorient our vision. He counsels that we should view the present circumstances–even if they are overwhelmingly negative–through a different lens. Focusing on the present reality can be overwhelming but an eschatological lens provides another vantage point from which to see the world. Malachi points us to the looming horizon of the eschatological day of Yahweh.

A day is coming, Malachi announces, when “all the arrogant and all evildoers” will burn as stubble. He calls it the “great and awesome day of the Yahweh” (4:5). It is a day of judgment for evil itself–both those who arrogantly accuse God of blessing the wicked and those who actually practice evil. Malachi uses two metaphors to describe this destruction:  fire and trampling.  When they are burned up, the righteous will walk on their ashes.  This image is not so much a picture of arrogant superiority but rather the reality that righteousness will shine in that new world while wickedness will disappear like ashes.

Yahweh envisions a new world. It is a world where the “sun of righteousness” shines in the darkness of a broken and depraved world. It will illuminate the earth and burn away its evil. Though it burns away the evil, the sunshine will heal the broken world and the righteous will leap for joy as they explore the new reality before them (as calves do when released from their stalls).

While some see a Messianic reference in the “sun of righteousness” that ties this to Jesus (possibly Luke 1:78 alludes to this text), the text is probably a more general reference to the divine act where God will burn away the evil from his earth and a new dawn of righteousness will appear when God renews heaven and earth. This is foreshadowed in Jesus and the Lord of righteousness will certainly accomplish this when he comes again. Most explicit, however, is the contrast between the present wicked world where the “arrogant and evildoers” leave the earth in darkness and the coming reality where the “sun of righteousness” will burn away evil even as it illuminates the earth.  The day is coming when God will destroy the wicked and heal the righteous.

In light of this coming day, Malachi exhorts Judah to remember the Torah of Moses. This is the path of righteousness. Throughout his oracle, Malachi has alluded to and reminded his audience of Torah ethics (e.g., Malachi 3:5). This righteousness–the practice of the Torah–will fill the earth. The Torah, enacted in the lives and hearts of God’s people, will illuminate the darkness and transform the world, and this will be led by the Messiah himself.

This Torah-righteousness, however, is not self-actualization, and neither is the rise of the “sun of righteousness” produced by human obedience. Rather, God will inaugurate this transformation by sending Elijah before the great, eschatological day of judgment.

This is a missional act on the part of God. He intends to “turn the hearts” of Israel from evil to righteousness. The prophet Elijah will announce the coming day and call for a repentance (a turning) which will avert the land from “utter destruction.” Elijah will precede the day of Yahweh, the day of judgment.

Reading this text through a Christian lens, the Gospel writers all identified John the Baptist as this Elijah. He appeared in the wilderness proclaiming a “baptism of repentance” and calling Israel to repentance to avoid the coming wrath of  God (cf. Matthew 3:1-12; Mark 1:2-8; Luke 3:1-17). Jesus identified John the Baptist as Elijah who prepared the way for his own coming and for the coming of the day of Yahweh (Matthew 17:9-13).

The arrival of the Messiah is not the “day of Yahweh.” Rather, the Messiah himself heralded a message of repentance:  “Repent and believe the good news” (Mark 1:15). The good news is that the kingdom is coming. The “sun of righteousness” will yet dawn upon the earth. One day God will clear the brush and purge the earth with fire so that it might become a home of righteousness (2 Peter 3:13) where the “sun of righteousness” will bring healing and renewal.

Lord, come quickly!

Everyone who has heard my story or has read much of what I have written knows that I encourage lament. The Psalms invite us to lament before God in the midst of our storms. Several days ago my Psalms class discussed Psalm 88–which is one of the most profound laments in the Psalms, and some raised the question of whether the Psalmist crossed a line with God. Did the Psalmist say too much or go too far?

Lament is encouraged and modeled in Scripture, but there is a boundary. Israel complained in the wilderness in a way that God rebuffed. They complained in a way that demonstrated a lack of faith. They pursued unfaithful lament. Malachi, in this text, confronts just that kind of lament.  It is quite appropriate for believers to lament their circumstances when they are enduing famine, sword or oppression. Believers lament, but Malachi addresses those whose complaints subverted faith.

Initially, Yahweh says through Malachi, “Your words have been hard against me!” “Hard”–in the Hebrew sentence–has the emphatic position. The words mean “strong” or perhaps “binding.” It puts a “hold” on God; it binds God. Israel’s response indicates that “hard” was understood as an attack against God; it is to say something “against” God.

What did they say? Malachi is quite specific.  They say…

• There is no profit in lament or serving God.
• The arrogant are blessed.
• Evildoers prosper and escape judgment.

There is something about this that Yahweh regards as “hard.” What is at the heart of these three accusations “against” God? It seems the root is an assumed quid pro quo relationship with God. If I scratch God’s back, he will scratch mine. If I serve God, he will bless me. The language binds God to a mechanical process by which the good are blessed and the evil are judged. It is a legal approach to God that binds God to a particular behavior when I behave or misbehave. God has to bless me (e.g., remove suffering from my life and give me stuff that makes me happy?) if I follow him. God has no freedom; God has no room to maneuver. God is locked in by our obedience and lament.

Consequently, this lament subverts the freedom of God and thus fundamentally assumes that humans are the center of the universe rather than God. The sovereignty of God gives way to human obedience. When, in the eyes of this lamenter, human obedience is not blessed or human disobedience is blessed, then God is no longer just and there is no profit in serving God. One might as well simply give up on God.

Unfaithful lament asserts that there is no profit in serving God and this arises out of a motive to serve God for profit. This is exactly the question the satan asked Yahweh in Job 1. Does Job serve you for nothing? “Job is only interested in profit” is the implied accusation. But Job rejects the profit motive (cf. Job 21:16) and never curses God.

But did Job question God about the prosperity of the wicked? Indeed, he did (Job 21:1), as did Jeremiah (Jeremiah 12:1) among others (Psalms 37, 73). Why is that not unfaithful lament since Malachi’s audience  does something similar?  One key lies in the fundamental assumption of the sovereignty of God.

Job (as well as Jeremiah, for example) believed in the freedom of God. What Job confessed in Job 1:21 and 2:10 is that God is sovereign and he may “give” and he may “take away.” This is the divine prerogative. Job does not question that reality though he does ask why God does what he does. While he confesses that the “hand of God” has done everything to him (Job 12:9-10), he asks why. But he does not question God’s sovereignty (that is, God is God) and neither does he take the side of those who say that serving God is unprofitable.

Malachi contains this same contrast.  There are those, who like Job, “fear Yahweh.” And they speak with each other. They did not speak “hard” words against God but rather spoke out of faith (fear). They are a community of believers (or fearers). According Malachi, God responds to their conversation with each other.

• Yahweh paid attention.
• Yahweh listened.
• Yahweh wrote it down in a “book of remembrance.”

This does not mean that people did not lament, but rather they talked with each other about their laments in the context of trust and esteem for the name of Yahweh. They may question God’s rationale and ask “why?” But they, nevertheless, trust (Psalm 13).

The “book of remembrance” is a metaphor that arises out of the Persian setting of the book. One might remember how the Persian Emperor Xerxes was reminded of how Mordecai saved his life when the “book of remembrance” was read to him one evening when he could not sleep. The book is a permanent record of events. When God listens to his people, it is permanently recorded in his heart and mind. God remembers his people.

I often suggest to my bible classes that we need not repeat every name in a prayer after we have asked for prayer requests. When the people of God talk with each other about their hurts, problems, praises, etc., they do not need to repeat every specific item to God in a formal prayer. Rather, God is present and listening to their conversation. He pays attention, hears and writes it down. God overhears his people talking and acts in response. Prayer requests are prayers since God is listening!

Most importantly, the charge against  God is unfounded. There is a deep contrast between God’s people and the wicked. God’s people are his “treasured possession” which is the language of Exodus 19:5-6 (also 2 Peter 2:9; Ephesians 1:14). God loves Israel as his own child and will “spare” them.

But it is a different story for the wicked. God knows the difference between the righteous and the wicked. It may not appear to many that he does, but God knows who serves him and who does not. And God will clarify this difference in no uncertain terms when the “day of the Lord” comes.

So, how do we lament? We lament in faith, trusting in the sovereignty of God. Faith is shattered when we permit present circumstances to subvert divine sovereignty. Faith does not live for profit and neither does it bind God to some kind of mechanistic, legal principle (such as quid pro quo). Rather, faith trusts that God’s righteousness and goodness will reveal itself and demonstrate the justness of God’s grand project to reconcile with the human race.

We lament, but we trust (Psalm 13), just like Jesus on the cross whose words “My God, My God, why have your forsaken me” were also laid beside “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”

My article “David Lipscomb on the Urban Poor” was recently published in Missio Dei: A Journal of Missional Theology and Praxis.  You may access it here.   The article is headed by the following abstract:

David Lipscomb feared that wealth had perverted the mission and work of the church in late nineteenth century America. A ruralist ethos reigned among his contemporaries, resulting in prejudice against the urban poor. Yet, Lipscomb believed the gospel was fundamentally good news to the poor—including the urban poor. He called prophetically for churches to preach the gospel as Jesus did, by identifying with the poor and communicating the message to them in understandable ways.

I commend this journal to all.  Several of the editors are former students of mine and many are presently working in urban and internationals situations (Angola, Australia, Peru).  Read the previous issues and the present one has articles by Earl Lavender, Jackie Halstead, Nathan Bills, and Richard Goode from the Lipscomb University faculty among other contributors such as Ellen Davis.

It is an amazing circumstance. Judah is unfaithful but God remains faithful. The whole story of Israel (“from the days of your fathers”) is a history of failed covenant-keeping.  Time and time again Israel failed to keep the Torah. In other words, the description of Judah’s systemic ethical problems in Malachi 3:5 is not exceptional but a habitual pattern within Israel’s history. The prophets abundantly testify to that.

Nevertheless, Israel is not “consumed.” Unlike Edom, as the prophet noted in chapter one, Israel still exists. They have not been annihilated. Their identity is still in tact. They are God’s covenant people. They are loved.

Their continued existence, however, is not grounded in their faithfulness or in their value. Rather, it is grounded in God’s own identity. Yahweh does not “change” (shanah). The verb is sometimes used to describe a change of clothes (2 Kings 25:29) or different customs (Esther 3:8) or even a disguise (1 Samuel 21:14; 1 Kings 14:2). The noun form means “years” as in the passing of time.

God does not change. This is not a metaphysical statement about God though it may entail that. The primary point is God’s faithfulness to his people. God does not change through the passing of years; God does not disguise himself with his people. God remains steadfast and committed to his covenant. God is faithful to his promises, to his covenant love. Israel continues because Yahweh is who he is. God’s own identity is the ground of Israel’s continued life and that is why they are not consumed.

Since this is true–because God’s grace abounds through his faithfulness–post-exilic Judah is called to renew its relationship with God. They hear the same message from Malachi in the mid-400s that Zechariah gave in the 510s:  “return to me, and I will return to you” (Malachi 3:7; Zechariah 1:3). God seeks relationship with his covenant people.

The people respond to this gracious invitation with a kind of “what shall we do?” “How shall we return?” they ask. One wonders whether the question is skeptical, that is, they doubt whether they have ever left and thus they have no need to return. But it may be an honest inquiry that arises from a bewilderment or confusion about their status before God. Perhaps they truly wonder in what respect they have left God despite Malachi’s previous oracles.

Malachi pinpoints–as a “test” case–one way in which they need to return to God. Interestingly, it is about economics and money. They are stealing from God! Money–one of the most common topics of Jesus–reveals our commitments, priorities and fears. It is a window into the heart. Malachi goes directly to a root problem. They steal from God because they do not trust God.

The question, “how have we robbed you,” perhaps arises from a confused–even sincere–heart. Money often blinds us to our real commitments and priorities. Money masks the deeper problem so that we don’t ever realize that we are materialistic, selfish and driven by insecurities (fears). We have plenty of excuses for how we use our money, right?

Judah robs God when they do not tithe. Their economic situation–the curse under which they live and about which they complain–is rooted in their inability to trust God. They refuse to tithe because they need to preserve food stuffs and other materials for their own survival. They cannot spare resources for the tithe. They don’t trust God’s provision. They fear the future.

The lack of tithing may be related to the covenant-breaking in Malachi 3:5 as well as the ineffectual ministry of the priests in Malachi 1:6-14. Tithes served at least two purposes in Israel, according to the Torah. The storehouses of the Temple (cf. Numbers 10:38-39) supplied the priests with a livelihood (Deuteronomy 12:5-18) but they also supplied the poor and needy with resources for life (Deuteronomy 14:28-29). Without tithes the ministry of the Temple and the poor suffer.

Yahweh challenges the people to trust him. For the only time in Scripture, God asks his people to “put me to the test.” Such language is associated with “evildoers” in Malachi 3:15. Only the wicked test God.

Indeed, God is usually testing his people (cf. Jeremiah 6:27; 9:7; 11:20; 20:12; Zechariah 13:9), but here he asks his people to test him. In effect, it is a call to trust God’s covenant promises. If they will practice the Torah–including tithes–then God will pour out on them the blessings which the Torah promises.

The text reminds us of the Deuteronomic blessings and cursings (Deuteronomy 27-28). Judah is cursed because it has broken the covenant, and the promise is that if they will return to God, then they will be blessed.  Trust and obey, seems to be the point. And when they obey, God will pour out his blessings upon them.

Within Israel’s covenantal arrangement with God in the land of Palestine, they were promised blessings if they obey. Their life would abound and they would have no needs. Malachi speaks in that context as Yahweh remains the faithful God of the covenant.

But this arrangement was not self-serving. On the contrary, its intent is global. Israel’s embrace of the covenant and their obedience would bear witness to God. As they became a “land of delight,” so the nations would call them “blessed.” This, in turn, would draw the nations to Yahweh as they asked, “Who is your God?” (Deuteronomy 4:6-8). Through Israel, even the nations would practice the Torah and enjoy God’s blessings as well.

At bottom, Malachi’s oracle reminds Judah that their primary commitment is to trust Yahweh rather than themselves. They must trust God’s love for them and his provision for their lives rather than withhold their “tithes”–their gifts to the poor.

“I, Yahweh, do not change!” In other words, “I am who I am and I do not forget my love for my people.” Though negligent and sinful, Israel is nevertheless invited to return to God. They are not consumed because God is faithful.

So, church, trust the faithfulness of God and practice justice, mercy and faithfulness. God will not forget us. Let us let go of our treasure on earth and trust the one who reigns from heaven.

The ending of Mark has long been a controversial subject among scholars even though the present general consensus is that the long ending (Mark 16:9-20) is not original to the Gospel. I will not rehearse that evidence here except to say that 9-20 is absent from the earliest manuscripts, patristic evidence is scanty and confirms that most manuscripts in the fourth century did not have the long ending (both Eusebius and Jerome note that most manuscripts do not have the long ending), and the style of Mark 16:9-20 is very different from the previous narrative. [This is no threat to faith as the text of the New Testament is more certain and verifiable than any other ancient text.] Despite this, some yet advocate for the originality of 16:9-20. Whatever the case, I will assume—for the purposes of this final blog on the Gospel of Mark—that the Gospel ends at 16:8 for if we reject the authenticity of 16:9-20 we have no other choice than to read Mark 16:1-8 as the end of the Gospel. (I recognize that some believe the original ending has been lost to us, and that may very well be the case.)  If the Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8, it is a rather peculiar ending. But this might be its narrative genius rather than a drawback.

Ever been to a movie where the ending left you hanging and asking “what happened next?” Those endings are often frustrating but purposeful. They invite us into the story as we “live out” the ending in our own imagination. It is possible that Mark ends on a note something like that.

It is plausible that Mark is intentionally open-ended with his final words. He does not end the story or provide some closure but rather reopens the story as if to return to the beginning of the Gospel narrative itself. He leaves us with a dramatic cliffhanger that invites us to begin the story anew. Possibly Mark restarts the ministry of Jesus in the light of his resurrection and the disciples, including Peter, are again called to follow him. It is this mission in which we also as readers are invited, and the real ending of Mark lies with us. In other words, will we follow Jesus back to Galilee and begin anew his ministry of heralding and practicing the kingdom of God? Or, will we refuse to believe and follow?

Mark 16:1-3 stands in narrative contrast with Mark 15:46-47. While Joseph bought linen and hurriedly buried Jesus in a tomb with a large stone sealing it before the Sabbath began on Friday evening, the women after the Sabbath bought spices and came to tomb on Sunday morning to complete the burial (“anoint”) despite the fact that they did not know how they would roll back the stone. The women came in love and to their surprise they found the stone already rolled back from the entrance to the tomb.

Beginning in Mark 16:5, the narrative bridge from the cross to the tomb is now complete. Jesus died in Mark 15:37 and the tomb is found open in Mark 16:4. Mark 16:5-7 is the climatic moment of Mark’s narrative.

Mark 16:5-8 is filled with linguistic and conceptual connections with Mark’s previous story (see the chart at the end of this post). The narrative intertextuality illuminates what Mark is doing in these significant and revolutionary sentences.

The first disclosure is the presence of the “young man.” The only previous appearance of a “young man” in Mark was the one who fled from the scene of Jesus’ arrest in Mark 14:51. But here, instead of fleeing, this “young man” sits “on the right” clothed (wrapped) in a white linen. “Sitting on the right” is a significant phrase in Mark. It is the position to which James and John aspired (Mark 10:37); it is the position of the Messiah next to God (Mark 12:36); and it is the position of the Son of Man in glory (Mark 14:62). Further, this “young man” is dressed in “white,” and that word only occurs elsewhere in Mark when he describes the transfiguration of Jesus into glory (Mark 9:3).

In other words, in contrast with the despair of a “young man” who flees the garden on a previous night, this “young man” sits in glory. This is a triumphant picture; it is an eschatological picture. The glory of the Son of Man radiates from the empty tomb where one of his “disciples” (that is, a “young man”) sits. The world has been remade and renewed. The tomb is empty.

The second disclosure is the word of the “young man.” His language arises out of Mark’s previous narrative. While crowds and authorities had previously “sought” Jesus, now the women seek him. But the one they seek is no mere miracle worker or Messianic pretender. On the contrary, he is the crucified but risen one! Jesus is no longer in the “place” they laid him—he is no longer alone and dead in a tomb. “Place,” in the Gospel of Mark, has always been used for solitary, wilderness and chaotic situations. Now, however, Jesus is no longer in that “place.” He is no longer subject to the powers of the wilderness and chaos; death no longer holds power over him.

“Crucified and risen” is the language of the “Son of Man” though that title is not used in chapter 16. Jesus had predicted that the Son of Man would be killed but also rise from the dead, and the “young man” announces the reality. In effect, he heralds the coming of the Son of Man; he heralds the kingdom of God.

Significantly, the “young man” not only announces the resurrection (and thus the kingdom of God), but also calls the disciples (through the word of the women) to renew the ministry of the kingdom of God. The reference to Galilee is not simply a reference to a geographical location but is symbolic of the beginning of the Gospel of Mark itself. It was in Galilee where Mark’s gospel begins. It is where the disciples were first called and where they ministered with Jesus.

Galilee does not simply represent a geographical region. It evokes a mission; it engages our wills and emotions. It is a metaphor for the ministry of Jesus. As some suggested in my Bible class last Sunday, “going to Galilee” might be like “going to Michigan” in the 19550s. In other words, “to go to Michigan” is not simply about geographical but it is finding a job in Detroit. Another example is “going to Washington.” This does not refer primarily to geography but rather the intent to participate in governing a nation. “Going to Galilee” is something similar. It means to participate in the ministry of Jesus as in the beginning of the Gospel of Mark.

Jesus is returning to Galilee and the disciples are to follow. There they (including the women!) will “see” Jesus. The term “see” (optanomai) is only used three other times in Mark. In each context it is eschatological in nature. The disciples saw Elijah and Moses (Mark 9:4), the powers will “see” the Son of Man coming in the clouds (Mark 13:26), and the Sanhedrin would “see” the coming of the Son of Man (Mark 14:62). Their “seeing” is an eschatological seeing, that is, they will experience the reality of the kingdom of God (inclusive of resurrection appearances).

The total effect of the “young man” (both presence and message) is the eschatological reality of the kingdom of God. The kingdom is present in power. The cross did not destroy the kingdom of God; it bore witness to the kingdom. The resurrection destroyed the powers; it enabled disciples to “see” the coming of the Son of Man. The kingdom has emerged triumphant.

The curious part of the text is the response of the women in Mark 16:8. They are described (including Mark 16:5) as “troubled,” astonished (estatic), afraid and trembling. The narrator piles one term on top of another. Mark’s purpose is dramatic effect—the emotional state of the women ranges from amazement to the shakes (trembling). The dramatic moment vivified the women but also “stopped them in their tracks.” They have encountered eschatological reality; they have experienced a divine encounter of sorts.

The women are afraid (that is, they “fear”) in the wake of this encounter. This has a (momentary?) paralyzing effect. They have faced eschatological Truth and “fear.” This parallels two similar instances earlier in the narrative. The disciples were “afraid” when Jesus stilled the chaotic waters (Mark 4:41) and the people of the Decapolis were “afraid” of Jesus because he cast out a demon (Mark 5:15). When one watches the kingdom of God overcome the powers, fear is a natural response. The women are “afraid” in the wake of Jesus’ victory over death. It is a fear that arises out of awe and wonder, and it can be paralyzing….for a moment.

Mark leaves us here—women paralyzed by awe-struck fear in response to the resurrection of Jesus. It is open-ended. The reader wonders what happened next (and thus several attempted to supply an answer).

But the answer does not lie in the narrative. It lies in the reader. Will we, as we presume the disciples will (and, as we know from other Gospel accounts, did), follow Jesus to Galilee? Will we renew the Galilean ministry of Jesus? Will we “see” Jesus in the power and mission of his ministry as we follow him?

What happens next depends not on the narrator but on the reader. What will we do? It is the question we must all answer as readers of the Gospel of Mark.

Narrative Links in Mark 16:5-8

Six hours on the cross are followed by an assortment of events which bridge Mark’s story from  the cross to the empty tomb. The body of Jesus is moved from the cross to a tomb. The Romans permit it, a Sanhedrin member does it, and some female disciples witness it. But is this text simply a narrative bridge or does it also function to say something significant about the reality of the kingdom of God?

The male disciples are absent. Peter, James and John are nowhere to be seen in Mark’s Gospel at this point. They have disappeared from the narrative. The ones who walked with Jesus, ministered with Jesus, and said they would die with him are missing.

But who is present?  A Roman centurion….some women…one of the Temple authorities. This is all counter-intuitive and the great reversal embedded here testifies that the kingdom of God is yet a living reality in the wake of the death of Jesus.

The Roman centurion confesses, “Truly this man was the Son of God!” This confession is, admittedly, perplexing. What does he mean by “Son of God”? How could he confess such a thing at the foot of the cross that bears the body of the “Son of God”?

Seeing the difficulty, some think the centurion is sarcastic. But this misses the narrative link. Just as Mark’s Gospel began with the confession that Jesus is the “Son”–by God (2:11; 9:7) and the demons (3:11; 5:7). It is particularly significant to see that this Roman soldier–a representative of imperial power–confesses Jesus as “Son of God” in concert with other representatives of the “powers,” that is, the demons. In other words, the powers recognize the presence of God in the death of Jesus. His confession, as one sworn to loyalty to the Emperor who is also called “son of God,” acknowledges the divine royalty of Jesus. The soldier’s confession is a piece of the ongoing tension between Caesar and Jesus, and here it functions as a bookend with the demonic confessions in chapter one. The powers recognize the King!

In particular, the Roman soldier saw something in the way Jesus died that evidenced the reality of the kingdom. Mark notes that the soldier was “facing” (standing opposite) Jesus when he breathed his last. He saw the look on Jesus’s face and heard his last cry. There was something about this moment that evoked this confession from an imperial soldier. The reality of the kingdom of God was evident even in the death of Jesus. Perhaps he heard the triumphal last cry and saw the trusting face of Jesus. We don’t know, but the way Jesus died moved this imperial soldier to confess, along with the demons, the reality of the kingdom of God in Jesus.

That reality is also evident in the presence of the women. The narrator painstakingly calls attention to the devotion of these women–the three and “many others.” While the male disciples are missing, the female disciples are not. They “followed and ministered” to Jesus, and they continue to do so. They followed Jesus to his cross and then to his tomb, and even in death they intended to minister to him when they came to the tomb on Sunday morning.

The presence of the women as followers and ministers (they “deaconed” Jesus) might have been read by some Greco-Romans as an embarrassment.  Perhaps it was a sign of Jesus’s weakness that only female disciples were present at his death. Perhaps it simply a narrative technique to evoke mourning for the death of jesus. I think it is more. It is a demonstration of the kingdom of God that women–culturally marginalized and neglected–follow Jesus to the cross and are the first at the tomb. Cross and resurrection are attended to by female disciples rather than the Twelve.

The Sanhedrin was complicit in the imperial action against Jesus. Indeed, they started the ball rolling and led him to Pilate. The “powers”–the forces arrayed against the kingdom of God–are present not only in Rome but in the Sanhedrin (Temple authorities) itself.

However, just as a Roman centurion confessed for the imperial powers the reality of the kingdom of God in Jesus, so now a council member named Joseph from Arimathea confesses, by his actions, that he also sees the reality of the kingdom in Jesus. Joseph represents a reversal. Though the Temple authorities had no more courage to interrogate Jesus in the Temple courts (Mark 12:34), Joseph has the courage to ask for the body of Jesus from the imperial power (Mark 15:43). Joseph, as one who was waiting for the kingdom of God rather than rejecting the stone like others (waiting and rejecting are from the same root, Mark 12:10 and Mark 15:43), requested the body of Jesus from Pilate. This act was a way of “receiving the kingdom” (Mark 10:15; same root as “waiting” and “rejecting”). It was a loving act, much like when the woman anointed Jesus for his burial in Mark 14.

The “powers” executed Jesus, but in the wake of his death “the powers” also recognize his identity. An imperial soldier confesses that Jesus is the Son of God and a member of the Sanhedrin buries Jesus with loving respect and honor. Disciples–women!–witnessed this. The kingdom of God is not dead; its reality is present even in the death and burial of Jesus. And it is about to break the bonds of death itself.