In the 1st Century, the primary understanding of "Messiah" (which literally means "anointed one") was that the person would be a warrior king, defeating Israel's enemies and making Israel a sovereign nation again with peace. How was Jesus different than that?
Before Jesus was born, Caesar Augustus had ended a 20-year civil war within the Roman Republic by defeating Antony and Cleopatra. He had defeated Rome's enemies, making them a sovereign nation with relative peace within its borders. Because of that, he was given names such as "Savior of the World," "Divine," "Son of God," "Lord," etc. How was Jesus different than that?
What is the significance that BEFORE Jesus was even born, Jews were looking for a Messiah and Romans were calling Caesar names that would later be given to Jesus?
Before Jesus was born, Caesar Augustus had ended a 20-year civil war within the Roman Republic by defeating Antony and Cleopatra. He had defeated Rome's enemies, making them a sovereign nation with relative peace within its borders. Because of that, he was given names such as "Savior of the World," "Divine," "Son of God," "Lord," etc. How was Jesus different than that?
What is the significance that BEFORE Jesus was even born, Jews were looking for a Messiah and Romans were calling Caesar names that would later be given to Jesus?
The Jews were looking for a messiah because their lives were so oppressed. Were those names in the Old Testament prophecies? Did the Romans know those prophecies and choose those names for Caesar to make him recognizable and palateable for the Jews, or more likely the Jews chose those names to show the contrast between peace through nonviolence vs peace through violence.
ReplyDeleteRemember that the titles for Caesar were not ONLY Jewish names / titles. In a very real sense, even the Romans were oppressed people due to a 20 year civil war. They also needed a savior for their world. When Caesar Augustus ends that civil war, you can easily see why folks would ascribe those titles to him: "Surely only someone divine or a son of god could make this happen. Nobody else could for 20 years!"
ReplyDeleteThe Hebrew Scriptures certainly called God "Savior" and "Divine." David, the one who the Messiah was thought to be like, was called son of God (2 Samuel 7:12-15) as was the nation Israel (Hosea 11:1). Psalm 2:7-12 (a Psalm thought to be used at the coronation of Israelite kings) says that at the coronation, all kings became God's son - but certainly a violent one!
Remember, also, that "Messiah" literally means anointed one - so ALL the kings that sat on the throne of Israel / Judah were "Messiahs." If you are ever reading the Hebrew Scriptures and see the phrase, "anointed" or "anointed one," substitute "Messiah." It's the same word! Thus, in Isaiah 45:1, God, speaking through Isaiah, says that King Cyrus of Persia - a foreigner - is anointed - Messiah!
To slightly rephrase one of your statements, the Christians "chose those names [for Jesus] to show the contrast between peace through nonviolence [Jesus / Kingdom of God] vs. peace through violence [Caesar / Kingdom of Rome]."
I have to say I find the text fairly herky jerky and difficult to follow. A bunch of thoughts the author really doesn't do well at tying together. I suppose if the point is to make you think it is effective. It seems I have to pause after each paragraph and try to figure out what the author is trying to get out and they use as many metaphors/parables as the bible.
ReplyDeleteAn example that I'd to make sure I'm reading correctly is on the bottom of p7. While I get the first part comparing the birth story to moses' exodus story they then continue and seem to add another unintroduced idea into the same paragraph. There's rambling about the phrase king of Jews and the use of the phrase vs using the phrase "messiah" which loses me a bit. Then some reference to medieval art and crucifix hanging on the birth-room wall. Which after 12hrs at work what I get is that you may try but can't defeat/kill "the King of Jews".
Is there more I should get from that paragraph?
Thanks.
That isn't the best worded paragraph, is it?
ReplyDeleteHere is what I think he is trying to say:
Jesus is the new and better Moses;
Herod is the new and just as bad pharaoh at Jesus' birth who tries (and fails) to kill Jesus;
Pilate is the new and just as bad pharaoh at the end of Jesus' life who tries (and seems to succeed) to kill Jesus.
Thus, Matthew is using an ancient writing technique of framing important portions of the story (Jesus' life) with a common phrase, "The King of the Jews," at the beginning and the end of the story. This is a way to allude to the end of the story at the beginning and to make you remember the beginning of the story at the end.
I hope this helps!
I'm just trying to wrap my head around how the meaning of the word "Messiah" seemed to change between the days of the old testament to the days of the new testament. When these kings of the old testament were called "messiahs", who did people think the kings were in relation to God? Did people REALLY think that the kings had some sort of divine status? If not, at what point did "anointed one" become divine or "sent by God"? I really think that I must be missing something.
ReplyDeleteI have one other unrelated question: Why didn't the Roman Empire have a problem with the Jewish people before Jesus came along. Surely the Jews didn't like Roman Imperialism either. Was it just that Jesus spoke up loudly about the injustice, and everyone else prior to him kept quiet? Since Jesus himself was Jewish and his beliefs must have been a lot the same as other Jews, I don't see why Jesus was such a target of Rome.
Don't forget Jesus was also threatening the status quo of the Jewish aristocracy and they consired with Rome to "convict" Jesus. And the Romans crucified people all the time, Jesus was one of many and to them he probably wasn't that big a threat. The Romans crucified EVERYBODY who was any kind of "threat"
ReplyDeleteSince the Jews had not had one of their own kings (line of David) in awhile they were looking for a 'messiah'. When ever people are feeling oppressed and powerless to change the situation they look for a 'messiah' to follow. Gandi, Martin Luther King or the more violent ones like Malcom X or Tupac. 'Messiah' has become such a 'sacred' word used only for Jesus that we are reluctant to use it for these people who brought change or tried to. Do we dare to say Obama might be a 'messiah' for this generation?
ReplyDelete