ejh@sei.cmu.edu (Erik Hardy) (02/11/91)
I have some questions about the Messiah: [note to the moderator: I find your responses the most enlightening of all that I read here, and most of the time I'd rather hear yours last, as it usually hits the nail right on the head. If you send this on to the net, I'd rather hear your analysis last, if you don't mind.] 1. I've searched my Bible (NEB), and nowhere do I find in any Messiah prophecy any indication that the Messiah was prophesied to the son of God. So how did Jesus go from being the Messiah to being the son of God? Are the two necessarily synonymous within Christianity; they certainly don't appear to be in Judaism. When Jesus was asked if he was the Messiah, he answered in the affirmative; to my knowledge, he never said he was the son of God. I know that he was wont to say 'my father' and such, but, to me, that just sounds like artistic license; after all, he did teach us to pray 'Our Father, who art...', so I can't think of his use of 'my father' as a discriminator in this. My suspicion in this matter is that his words were construed afterward, but I'm open to reasonable discussion. 2. I don't know if this is about the Messiah per se, but rather about ecumenism: If the Jews are not convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, but Christians are, how is it that rabbis and pastors, etc. can get together to participate in ecumenical activities? i mean, what can they possibly have to talk about, if they can't get past this most fundamental of differences? 3. How can Jews for Jesus and similar groups exist? The coming of the Messiah was supposed to signal an era of well-being for the Jews, but things have not been all that good for Jews since Jesus. So how can they possibly justify belief in a Messiah that has apparently been pretty ineffectual in living up to the prophecies (at least for them)? erik yaccity yacc (don't awk back) [You'd like my analysis last after what? There aren't going to be any responses to your posting in this group of postings, since nobody but me has seen them. There were a number of concepts in the 1st Cent. of what the Messiah would be like. Son of God is one phrase that characterizes the specific Christian concept of what the Messiah is. So it's synonymous with Messiah only for Christians. Actually in the 1st Cent. this phase could have a somewhat different implication, since "son of" in Hebrew simply indicated someone with a particular quality. Thus a son of God would be a godly person. It seems to be used in Deut 32:8 that way. Some of the NT uses of the phrase are probably to be taken this way, rather than as specifically Christian affirmations. See e.g. Mat 27:54. However for modern Christians the term is used in light of both the NT and theological discussions that took place in the 2nd to 4th Cents, culminating in the concept that Christ is both a normal human and God. If you're not familiar with these ideas, you might want to take a look at a book on Church history or Christian doctrine, since it's probably not practical to give a presentation here that is going to do justice to the ideas. The Gospels at least emphasize that Jesus acted with God's authority. See e.g. Mark 2, where Jesus forgives sins, which is God's prerogative alone, or John, in which Jesus' "I am" statements seem to be intended to remind us of God's Name "I am that I am". (This is clearest in John 18, where even the soldiers sent to arrest Jesus fall on their faces when he says "I am".) One of the major thesis of Hebrews is that Jesus has a status higher than the angels: "You are my son; today I have begotten you." (This is of course from Psalm 2:7, where it is addressed to the king, and has a less radical meaning. In the context of Hebrews however it clearly has a meaning very close to the modern Christian affirmation of Christ as Son of God.) I would say that every part of the NT presents Jesus as having unique authority. While the precise images they use are different, they all agree that in some way he had the authority of God. Whether Christ was actually as the NT describes him is of course a matter of faith. In many ways the Christian concept is better characterized as "God with us" than "Son of God". The problem with Son of God is that it can have several meanings, and some of the most obvious are heretical. It implies to some a separate supernatural entity that is God's child. This is in fact the Arian view, which it appears is held by modern Jehovah's Witnesses. Mormons also see Jesus as a separate god, though their concept is not the same as the Arian one. The orthodox view is not that Jesus is a separate God, but rather the presence of the one God in human history. Of course Christians see Christ as the fulfillment of prophecies about the Messiah, but I don't think many of us believe that the prophets fully foresaw what Christ was going to be like. Some of the most relevant passages may not be those that explicitly mention the Messiah, e.g. Ezek. 34:11 ff, which talk about God himself being present with his people. --clh]
math1h3@jetson.uh.edu (02/14/91)
In article <Feb.10.21.35.02.1991.20937@athos.rutgers.edu>, ejh@sei.cmu.edu (Erik Hardy) writes: > I have some questions about the Messiah: > When Jesus was asked if he was the Messiah, he answered in the affirmative; > to my knowledge, he never said he was the son of God. I know that he was wont > to say 'my father' and such, but, to me, that just sounds like artistic > license; after all, he did teach us to pray 'Our Father, who art...', so I > can't think of his use of 'my father' as a discriminator in this. My suspicion > in this matter is that his words were construed afterward, but I'm open to > reasonable discussion. How you receive this response of mine depends on the extent to which you believe the Bible. At Jesus' baptism, 'a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." ' --Matthew 3:17, see also Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22. In John's gospel we also have the testimony of John the Baptist: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God." Similarly at the transfiguration: "Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came from the cloud: "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!" --Mark 9:7. See also Matt 17:5, Luke 9:35. In addition Jesus confirmed Peter's confession: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God", for he replied: "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you my man, but by my Father in heaven." Matthew 16:16,17. As our moderator pointed out, the book of Hebrews interprets Psalm 2 as Messianic. That this Psalm is Messianic should be apparent to even a casual reader: v. 2 'The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together againt the LORD and his Anointed One.' Anointed One = Messiah. v. 1 and 2 appear to be a reference to the battle of Armageddon, Rev. 16,16, Rev 19, 11-21, and in Rev. 19:15 is quoted Psalm 2:9:"He [You] will rule them with an iron scepter". v. 8: 'Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.' This could only mean the Messiah. > 2. I don't know if this is about the Messiah per se, but rather about > ecumenism: If the Jews are not convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, but > Christians are, how is it that rabbis and pastors, etc. can get > together to participate in ecumenical activities? i mean, what can they > possibly have to talk about, if they can't get past this most fundamental of > differences? For christian pastors to acknowledge a spiritual unity with rabbis who deny that Jesus is the Messiah, particularly in a worship service, is essentially a sin against the commandment 'You shall have no other Gods before me.' Jews worship a false image of God. From the Christian perspective they are unbelievers and idolators. For a christian to pretend that they are not is a denial of Christ. I certainly won't accept as a pastor anyone who behaves in this way. > 3. How can Jews for Jesus and similar groups exist? The coming of the Messiah > was supposed to signal an era of well-being for the Jews, but things have not > been all that good for Jews since Jesus. So how can they possibly justify > belief in a Messiah that has apparently been pretty ineffectual in living up > to the prophecies (at least for them)? Here you pose a tough question. Many of the Messianic prophecies tell of the coming of the Messiah and then look forward to Judgement day. You can't see any period of time in between just by looking at the prophecy. I was just looking at a passage like that yesterday, Jeremiah 33:15-16: "In those days and at that time I will make a righteous Branch sprout from David's line; he will do what is just and right in the land. In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the name by which it will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness." Christians understand the 'righteous Branch' to be Jesus. Could it mean an earthly king and not the Messiah? To answer this, I want to look at two interesting passages: In Genesis 49:10 Jacob says to Judah: "The scepter will not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his." Again, this is clearly Messianic. It says that a line of kings will come from Judah, but that the kingship will not be rightly theirs, but God's-- in fact Christ's. And that the Messiah will have the 'obedience of the nations'--which ties in pretty well with Psalm 2. Next in Ezekiel 21:25-27 we read: "O profane and wicked prince of Israel, whose day has come, whose time of punishment has reached its climax, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: Take off the turban, remove the crown. It will not be as it was: The lowly will be exalted and the exalted will be brought low. A ruin! A ruin! I will make it a ruin! *It will not be restored until he comes to whom it rightfully belongs; to him I will give it." Thus the kingship was taken away from Judah, and the only 'righteous Branch' that could come was the Messiah. Now what about Judah being saved, and Jerusalem living in safety? In a sense, Judah was saved in Jesus' time, for he died for their sins and for their salvation. And he is our righteousness. We have none of our own, but can be justified only by having his righteousness imputed to us, on account of faith. Their salvation was accomplished--but not all believed. I don't have a problem with this, because the true 'Israel' is always the body of believers. The unbelievers are 'cut off from the people.' The next part, about Jerusalem living in safety, clearly refers to the time after Judgement. Admittedly this is from a Christian perspective. Read Rev. 21, which describes the New Jerusalem. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
sam4628@summa.tamu.edu (MCCLUNEY, STEVEN ALEXANDER) (02/18/91)
In article <Feb.14.07.19.29.1991.23444@athos.rutgers.edu>, math1h3@jetson.uh.edu writes... >In article <Feb.10.21.35.02.1991.20937@athos.rutgers.edu>, ejh@sei.cmu.edu (Erik Hardy) writes: >> I have some questions about the Messiah: > >> When Jesus was asked if he was the Messiah, he answered in the affirmative; >> to my knowledge, he never said he was the son of God. I know that he was wont >> to say 'my father' and such, but, to me, that just sounds like artistic >> license; after all, he did teach us to pray 'Our Father, who art...', so I >> can't think of his use of 'my father' as a discriminator in this. My suspicion >> in this matter is that his words were construed afterward, but I'm open to >> reasonable discussion. One other verse to consider is John 8:54, in which Jesus says, "If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; It is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, 'He is our God'...." This was certainly taken as definitive by the Jews at the time, along with the following statement in which Jesus claims the proper name given by God the Father to Moses: "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM." The name of God, YHWH (transliterated Yahweh or Jehovah) means I AM. The reaction of the Jews (they tried to stone Him) shows that contemporary audiences knew that this implied a unity with God. Steven M. Texas A&M University
jesse@altos86.Altos.COM ( Jesse Chisholm) (02/27/91)
I am joining this conversation for the first time. In article <Feb.17.22.31.24.1991.21007@athos.rutgers.edu> sam4628@summa.tamu.edu (MCCLUNEY, STEVEN ALEXANDER) writes: >In article <Feb.14.07.19.29.1991.23444@athos.rutgers.edu>, math1h3@jetson.uh.edu writes... >>In article <Feb.10.21.35.02.1991.20937@athos.rutgers.edu>, ejh@sei.cmu.edu (Erik Hardy) writes: >>> I have some questions about the Messiah: [ skip original question about Jesus' claims vis-a-vis "son of God" and "Messiah" ] [ skip some of Steven M.'s response ] >the proper name given by God the Father to Moses: "Truly, truly, I say to you, >before Abraham was born, I AM." The name of God, YHWH (transliterated Yahweh >or Jehovah) means I AM. The reaction of the Jews (they tried to stone Him) >shows that contemporary audiences knew that this implied a unity with God. > > Steven M. > Texas A&M University A slight tangent ... In the Hebrew (really Chaldean and Aramaic but who's counting) the phrase "I AM THAT I AM" where God provides a name, the hebrew could be translated in other ways with equal validity. I AM WHO I AM BECOMING I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE I WILL BE WHO I AM All provide the emphasis of self defining existance that we get from the traditional, but they each give a different flavor to how we think of GOD. Discussion anyone? -- Jesse Chisholm | I UNDERSTAND! That is, I'm not sure exactly what jesse@Altos86.Altos.COM | it is I've understood, but I have the feeling that Tel 1-408-432-6200x4810 | I've understood SOMETHING! Fax 1-408-434-0273 |
fasano@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Cathy Fasano) (03/07/91)
In article <Feb.26.04.48.44.1991.13120@athos.rutgers.edu> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes: > > According to Matthew, and Luke, Jesus had claim (distant) on > the throne through both Mary and Joseph, who were direct > descendants of David and thus of Tribe Judua. On the other > hand, John the Baptist (near Kinsman) (supposedly 2nd > cousin) on the other hand, is the son of the (or one of the) > High Priests, (of Tribe Levi.) Matthew makes the point to > claim that John had the priestly authority to baptise and > prepare the way of the Lord. > > So which tribe was he? [Yes, I know! whose son he is. ] From the way I read Matthew and Luke: -- Jesus is of the tribe of Judah because Joseph, the husband of his mother, is the tribe of Judah. -- Mary's tribe is irrelevant; she is only his mother. -- John the Baptist is of the tribe of Levi (class of Abijah) because his father Zechariah is. -- Elizabeth is of the tribe of Aaron, but again this is irrelevant. So if -- Mary is of the tribe of Judah (I'm not sure of your source for this.) Elizabeth is of the tribe of Aaron (Lk 1:5) Mary and Elizabeth are first cousins (Tradition -- Scripture says only that they are kinswomen.) then -- Mary's father and Elizabeth's father are not brothers. but the other three permutations are still possible: Mary's father & Elizabeth's mother are brother & sister Mary's mother & Elizabeth's father are sister & brother Mary's mother & Elizabeth's mother are sisters or perhaps Mary and Elizabeth are not first cousins. (Elizabeth was "advanced in years" and Mary a young woman. Perhaps they are not even of the same generation...) But all of this is irrelevant to Jesus's tribe. Since his mother was married when he was born, he takes Joseph's tribe. cathy :-) -- Cathy Fasano fasano@unix.cis.pitt.edu cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.edu "If this is the way you treat your friends, Lord, no *wonder* you have so few of them!" -- St. Theresa of Avila (after her mule had just dumped her uncermoniously in a river they were crossing)