“King Just [1]
The Gospels of Matthew and Luke clearly states that Jesus was of royal blood, a true and rightful king, a descendant of David and Solomon. If this is true, we could give at least one important qualification to be the Messiah, or to present it as such. It is clear that certain people, of radically different origins and with very different interests, were ready to recognize the legitimacy of this claim. In Matthew 2:2, three wise men came looking for “one who would be born as King of the Jews.” In Luke 23:2, Jesus is accused of “.. perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a king.” In Matthew 21:9, triumphantly entering Jerusalem, Jesus is greeted by a crowd shouting “Hossanna the son of David.” There is no doubt that Jesus here is proclaimed king. The gospels of Luke and John are explicit in this regard. In both, Jesus is unequivocally hailed as a king. And in John 1:49, is Nathaniel who says to Jesus: “You are the King of Israel.”
Of course, we end up with the inscription “King of the Jews” (INRI) that Pilate ordered affixed to the cross. Apart from this, the Gospels tell us virtually nothing. In John 6:15 there is a curious phrase, that “… understanding Jesus were coming to seize him and make him king, withdrew again to the hills alone, also in John 19:21-22 we see that,” said Pilate to the chief priests of the Jews: Do not write: King of the Jews, but he said: I am king of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written, “but in these passages is not detailed at all. We are not indicated if the title was granted or not, whether it was official or not, recognized or not. No information on how Pilate wanted to be understood that appellation. What motivated you? What did he achieve with his actions? At some point in the past it was assumed, based on speculative interpretations that Pilate put the title in a mocking tone. Assume anything else would have been raised a number of awkward questions. Today, most Christians blindly accept as proven fact, that Pilate put the title by way of mockery. If someone reads in the Gospels themselves, without preconceptions known not find any evidence to indicate that the title was put in all seriousness, or not be perfectly legitimate and recognized by – at least – part of Jesus’ contemporaries, including Pilate. Jesus was, in fact, “King of the Jews.” It was later tradition that would persuade people otherwise. To suggest that Jesus was then the King of the Jews, would not be contrary to the evidence, would be against tradition long-established widely. In Matthew’s version of the birth of Jesus, the Three Wise Men (the Magi) ask: Where is he that is born King of the Jews?. If the title placed by Pilate was a burlesque joke, what we must assume for the question of “Magi”? Was this a joke too? certainly not. But if they are related to a legitimate title … Why Pilate?
The position of the expected Messiah was seen gigantic by the circumstances prevailing in Palestine at the birth of Jesus. This period was known by those who lived as “The last time” or “The Last Days. It was believed that the nation had fallen into a cataclysmic evil. The last dynasty of legitimate Jewish monarchies had become extinct since the year 63 BC, Israel itself had become a territory of the Roman Empire, and forced to undergo a secular ruler – as blasphemous offense against all principles of Judaism – dare proclaimed himself a god. And the throne of Israel was occupied by a puppet of the Romans regarded as an unjust usurper. Herod, who ruled over Palestine at the time, could not even claim to be a Jew by birth. He was a native of Edom, a desert region in the south, whose inhabitants were not Jews. Since the beginning of his reign, Herod tried to establish its legitimacy and acceptance. Repudiated his first wife and married a Jewish princess seeking known, at least, some recognition of the people. He rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem with unprecedented grandeur. He proclaimed devoted servant of the God of Israel. These gestures failed to assert its authority. Continued to be abhorred and hated by his subjects. Even his most generous acts were greeted with hostility and ridicule, and this fueled his natural predisposition toward tyranny and excess.
The fact that someone like Herod is ruling over the chosen people was seen as a curse. God had caused distress to His people, a punishment for their misdeeds past and present. Any social abuse may be committed by Herod, was seen as a symptom of a much bigger problem, the dilemma of a people abandoned by their God. Through all of Palestine was spreading the desperate cry for a spiritual leader who would bring people back to their Lord and could achieve reconciliation with dignity. The spiritual leader at the time of their appearance, would be the Righteous King, Messiah. As king would save his people, would restore God’s covenant with man. Assisted, directed and guided by God, execute the divine will. The drive out the Romans out of Palestine and establish his own system just so glorious as that which tradition ascribed to David and Solomon.
The Christian tradition does not reject the claim of Jesus being the Messiah. Only rejects the real meaning of the title of Messiah, only because it was not clear enough for centuries. Accepting Jesus as Messiah, while denying their monarchy and political role, is to ignore the facts, ignore the historical context, ignore what the word meant and meant Messiah. The Christians regard Jesus as “apolitical”, a completely spiritual figure that meant no challenge to Roman authority and temporal worldly, a figure that had no political aspirations for himself or secular, who called his followers into a realm ” not of this world. ” However, biblical scholars in recent centuries have considered this interpretation increasingly untenable. Few experts, if any, would deny that the expected Messiah Jesus was mainly a political figure who would free Israel from Roman rule. Judaism of that time did not differentiate between religion and politics. There is further evidence of the royal right of Jesus in the biblical account of the killing of innocent babies committed by Herod (Matthew 2:3-14). Although it is highly questionable as a historical record, this story is testimony to the genuine fear that Herod was the birth of Jesus
“Hearing this, King Herod was troubled … and gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people, asked them where the Christ was born. They said to him: In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the Prophet … “[2]
Despite the anger that this caused him to Herod, he certainly would never have felt threatened by rumors of a mystical and spiritual figure – a prophet or a teacher which abounded at that time in the Holy Land. If Herod felt threatened by a newborn child, it would mean that the child itself, a just and lawful king, for example, a claim that even Rome could accept estabiblidad seeking peace and convenient. Only a political threat of this nature could explain the anxiety of Herod. It is not the son of a poor carpenter who fears the usurper, but the Messiah, the anointed legitimate sovereign right. A figure that, under certain conditions inherent herd could enjoy popular support and, if not overthrow it, could at least leave it in a politically very committed.
Of “privileged backgrounds [3]
The image of Jesus as “a poor carpenter” of Nazareth is highly debatable. For now, we simply note two points. The first is that the word “carpenter” is not in the original Greek, just someone who works with wood. The more accurate translation would be “Master”, involving the mastery of any art, industry or discipline. Would apply to a teacher, for example, as anyone who works with his hands. [4]
The second point is that Jesus was not, surely, of Nazareth. There is evidence proving that Nazareth did not exist in biblical times. It is unlikely that the city existed before the third century CE. “Jesus of Nazareth, like much of biblical scholars think is a misinterpretation of the original Greek” Jesus the Nazarene “and these words do not indicate any location, rather denote the membership of Jesus to a specific group or sect, with religious and political orientation specific. “The Nazarene movement,” as termed by experts.
Almost no precise information on the social situation of Jesus. But what exists indicates that Jesus’ family was wealthy. And that education was provided was of a type available only to upper class people and economic resources. All stories, for example, described him as a cultured and educated, this is something, as we know, unusual for those days of widespread illiteracy, when education was essentially an upper-class privilege. Jesus is obviously a literate and well educated. In the Gospels, we see him wisely discuss with the elders of the Act by its terms, it clearly has a way with words to be familiar with the prophetic books of the Old Testament, quoted will be developed between them with the experience and ease of a professional scholar, and if some of his followers are poor fishermen and craftsmen of Galilee, others are wealthy and influential – Joseph of Arimathea, for example, Nicodemus and Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward.
Public Recognition
Maybe it means much more than the previous evidence, the simple fact that Jesus, in a number of critical situations in the gospels, acts as a sovereign, and does so quite deliberately. One of the clearest examples is his triumphant entry into Jerusalem riding a donkey. Bible scholars agree that this incident – obviously important in the career of Jesus, and calculated to attract maximum attention from his contemporaries – served a specific purpose. Fulfill a prophecy of the Old Testament. In fact, in Matthew 21:4, it becomes clear that the procession was intended to fulfill the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9, which predicts the coming of the Messiah:
“… Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey …”
Given the familiarity of Jesus and the teaching of the Old Testament, there is little doubt that he knew of this prophecy. And knowing this, it is very difficult that would have turned inadvertently or by “pure coincidence.” The entrance to Jerusalem alone could have been executed with the calculated intent to be identified, especially to the people, with the expected Messiah, in other words, the Righteous King, “The Anointed One.”
[1] Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln, The Messianic Legacy, PP26-32. Adapted in part
[2] Holy Bible, Micah 5:1-2.
[3] Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, The Messianic Legacy, pp.30-31.
[4] The story of the carpenter Jesus based on Mark 6:3. However, Dr Geza Vermes of Oxford University, on “Jesus the Jew,” illustrates the metaphorical expressions commonly used in carpenter and son of a carpenter in ancient Jewish literature, pp.21-22.
