[continued from previous message]   
      
   A second and salient fact is that Jesus was claiming or was claimed to be the   
   Messiah [99] or, in Hebrew, Mashiah – the “anointed one”. According to Jewish   
   tradition both priests and kings were anointed by pouring oil on their heads.   
   [100] We read in one    
   famous Psalm of David the declaration, “Thou anointest my head with oil”,   
   [101] meaning “God makes me a king”. But, when the Jews referred to the   
   Mashiah, they meant no ordinary priest or king, but rather a great Savior. At   
   the time of Jesus, two    
   opinions were prevalent regarding the probable nature of the Messiah. One view   
   expected the “anointed one” (in Greek, Khristos; in Latin, Christus; in   
   English, Christ) to establish a kingdom in this world with its center at   
   Jerusalem. In that case the    
   Messiah would, of course, have to be a direct descendant of David, and thus   
   entitled to rule over the twelve tribes. He would also necessarily free Israel   
   and the Jews from the tyranny of foreign rule. Many Jews refused to accept   
   Jesus as the Messiah    
   simply because he did not fulfill these expectations. They said, “When I look   
   out my window everything seems to be the same – how then can Jesus have been   
   the Messiah?” The other interpretation given the Messiah postulated that his   
   coming would    
   inaugurate a heavenly kingdom in which the dead would be resurrected and the   
   holy would ascend to heaven, there sharing in the rule of this new and   
   other-worldly empire. By this standard also, Jesus obviously could not be   
   accepted as the real Messiah by    
   any Jew who chose to look out the window. In any event, Jesus may perhaps have   
   spoken about the second type of Messianic kingdom, [102] but he undoubtedly   
   hinted about a more worldly kingdom as well – a kingdom in which his twelve   
   apostles would sit on    
   thrones and rule over the twelve tribes of Israel. [103] Moreover, that   
   kingdom, Jesus said, was to be established while at least some of those   
   apostles were still alive. [104] After two thousand years, one wonders which   
   of Jesus' disciples   
   as escaped death for so long. Surely this was one critical prophecy, or   
   promise, which Jesus failed to fulfill. It is no surprise that few Jews   
   accepted him as their true Messiah.   
      
   Third, grounds for the alleged crucifixion were based on the charge that Jesus   
   was fomenting a rebellion of sorts. Out of sarcasm or out of sympathy, he (or   
   his surrogate) was crucified with the words, “King of the Jews”, on the cross.   
   [105] Pontius    
   Pilate, no doubt a politically astute man understood, and maybe appreciated   
   that Jesus was seeking a mundane kingdom rather than some quite ethereal   
   empire. The fact that the disciples of Jesus carried swords, and were told by   
   Jesus to carry them, [106]    
   looks odd if their goal was indeed purely religious. Furthermore, Jesus' entry   
   into Jerusalem apparently coincided with a physical insurrection led by   
   Barabbas, [107] and so it happened that Jesus could be crucified between two   
   “thieves”, probably the    
   revolutionary accomplices of Barabbas. [108] By association alone, one may   
   presume that Jesus had at least some relation to their cause, even if his   
   strategy and tactics may have differed a bit. That is, where the Zealots   
   openly fought against Rome,    
   Jesus appeared to have no animus against Caesar, preferring rather to attack   
   Herod and the Jewish bureaucracy, the enemy within rather than the enemy   
   without. Support of Jesus for the Zealot cause is substantiated by the fact   
   that we find no record of    
   Jesus ever openly opposing the Zealots, whereas it is clearly recorded that at   
   least one of his chosen twelve apostles, Simon Zelotes, was in fact a   
   card-carrying member of the group. [109] Furthermore, on one occasion Jesus   
   openly indicated sympathy for    
   the martyred Zealot soldiers. [110] And last but not least, it is good to   
   remember that the Zealots were commonly referred to as the Galileans, and many   
   of them must have been blood relatives of Jesus. [111]   
      
   Fourth, after Jesus left Israel, that is, after the alleged crucifixion and   
   the so-called resurrection (which did not by any account fulfill Jesus' own   
   prophecy to remain in the grave for three days and three nights, [112] having   
   been, according to all    
   accounts, at most only one day and two nights [113] ), after the departure of   
   Jesus, it is significant to note that leadership of the movement fell on the   
   shoulders of Jesus' first brother. [114] Jesus had four brothers in all –   
   James, Joses, Simon and    
   Judas. [115] While James, one of the twelve apostles, is called “James, son of   
   Alphaeus”, [116] the James who is definitely brother of Jesus and son of Mary   
   is often called James the Less. [117] This title is highly reminiscent of the   
   terms used to    
   describe second sons in royal families. In any event, after Jesus left, it was   
   James the Less who assumed the mantle of leadership over the early Christian   
   Jews, and this leadership was accepted by all, including Paul, despite the   
   fierce internal rivalry    
   among the apostles. Why should the apostles have accepted James the Less as   
   their leader, particularly after Jesus had declared all believers as his real   
   brothers, [118] if there had been no political ambition motivating their sect?   
   Frankly it reads too    
   much like a monarchy to think that it was intended as anything else. Even the   
   “General Epistle of James” is written with a completely different style than   
   all the other Epistles, his being expressed with the authority of a man who   
   does not have to    
   establish his right to rule.   
      
   At the beginning of this article, I pointed out that religion and politics   
   tend to merge. In the outer life of Jesus, religion may have been the dominant   
   theme; but, with respect to his inner ambition, politics would appear to have   
   gained the upper hand.   
      
   For Whose Benefit   
   Who benefitted most from the activities of Jesus? By his own words, Jesus came   
   only to serve the lost sheep of the house of Israel. [119] When he sent out   
   his disciples, prior to the “resurrection” at least, he gave clear instruction   
   not to approach any    
   gentiles, i.e. non-Jews. [120] Even after the “resurrection” it would appear   
   that his instruction remained to continue an approach only to Jews. Although   
   there is one passage at the end of Mark which talks about preaching the gospel   
   “to every creature”, [   
   121] most historians and theologians admit that these verses were probably   
   appended at a later time to justify salvation for non-Jews. Indeed this   
   appendage was necessary – otherwise, the decision to approach Gentiles was   
   taken by James the Less, under    
   considerable pressure from Paul and Peter, [122] while the words of Jesus as   
   recorded in John state definitively that only the Jews may hope for salvation.   
   [123] It is evident that Jesus intended his mission to benefit only the Jews;   
   but, in point of    
   fact and from any angle of vision, this program was a failure. Few Jews   
   accepted Jesus as the Messiah and so, even from a purely religious point of   
   view, few Jews could have benefitted from his advent.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)