 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
There were as you say many DIFFERENT beliefs regarding the Messiah among various groups of Jews in the BCE period.
To me it seems highly probable that the first-century Jewish Nazarenes in the time of Yeshua had a rather different understanding of "Messiah" from that of pagan converts later in the century. These pagan converts added a new ingredient, namely the notion of a divine Son of a divine Father and earthly mother, who can bring salvation -- a concept that looks far more akin to the divine son of a union between a g-d and a woman, prominent in so many first century Hellenistic religions of the pagan cultures from which the early Gentile converts came, than to the JEWISH understanding of Messiah son of DAVID as the anointed Crown Prince eligible to ascend the throne of Judah.
We do have two HEB/OT texts that point to the concept or symbol of an eschatological Messiah. One is Daniel 9:25-26, which appears to refer to a Jewish-style Messiah, the "anointed" one of David's line, who will rebuild Jerusalem (and presumably lay claim to the throne?). That idea seems par for the course, especially in light of the earlier text in Deutero-Isaiah (ch. 45:1) where the prophet identifies as "G-d's anointed" Cyrus (!), who, as Isaiah's listeners certainly knew, was not a biological son of David at all. This very fact points strongly to what has consistently been the primary Jewish view of the messianic role, i.e., that the Messiah will get the Jews and their land back together --either (as Cyrus in fact did) by sending Jewish exiles back to their land, or (as Yeshua's followers probably expected of him) by restoring Jewish hegemony over the land by kicking out the Roman rulers and restoring the Davidic throne.
Certainly (as someone pointed out earlier) that's what the Romans seem to have thought the Nazarenes were claiming about Yeshua - since this seems to be why they crucified him. As for a Messiah who can bring personal salvation and help people into the afterlife, I don't see where this was ever a Jewish view of the Messiah's task -- he was to be a Redeemer of the people and the land, but only G-d Himself had the power of individual salvation.
It's surely significant that this separation between a redeeming Messiah and a saving G-d was perceived as so important by those who created the early Jewish liturgy, that they put it right at the beginning of the central Amidah prayer (recited three times daily by traditionally observant Jews). No doubt whoever composed it wanted to underscore at the outset the difference between a purely human Redeemer and a Divine Saviour, which Jews perceived as two entirely distinct concepts that had somehow become conflicted in Christianity. Year after year, I'm amazed at how few (Jewish, Christian, or other) have any awareness of these rather crucial differences between Jewish and Christian understandings of Messiah.
We need to be able to differentiate between an apocalyptic, eschatological messiah and the more mundane "anointed leader," who could be a king or a high priest.
Bennoah1@verizon.net