It's been awhile since I posted in this blog, yet in this post we'll begin to look at a transliterated word that when put in simple English words will probably open the Scriptures and enlighten the understanding of a number of readers who choose to search it out.
To begin with, what is a "transliteration?" How does it differ from a translated word?
To translate is to take a word in a foreign language and convert it, or interpret it into one's own language. One example is how the Greek word theos is translated into God in the English.
Now a transliteration is when a translator takes a Hebrew or Greek word and adjusts it a little bit to make it sound more like English, in essence, creating a new English word.
Therefore it is good to know when you are looking at a transliterated word. It is vitally important to know the literal meaning of the transliterated word. Why? Because the transliterated word can have multiple definitions than the word in its original language does not confer. A good example is with the Greek word baptizo which was transliterated in the English as baptize. The word in the Greek means to submerge; to immerse. Yet, other definitions have been attached to it that do not convey the word's intent. Definitions such as pour and sprinkle have been added that are contrary to the original meaning of the word and it's intent, thus creating new doctrines foreign to the Scriptures.
In light of this it brings me to the focus of this post: the word "Christ." Christ is another word that has been transliterated even as the word Messiah has been transliterated. Christ has been transliterated from the Greek word christos, which in simplest terms means anointed.
Ok. You probably already knew that, yet do you understand what it means for Jesus to be "the anointed?" This is going to be the dossier of this post.
Why did Pilate ask Jesus if He is the King of the Jews? (Mt. 27:11) Which Jesus declared to Pilate to be true. (Jn. 18:36-37) Remember the magi that came to Herod looking for the one born King of the Jews, which not only troubled Herod but all of Jerusalem? (Mt. 2:2-3) Remember how after Jesus fed to 5,000, that afterwards He knew that they would come and take Him by force to make Him king? (Jn. 6:15) Why, why, and why? Let me lay the foundation by looking back to the OT.
Now Hannah had referred to the Lord’s “king” in her prayer in 1 Samuel 2:10, which may seem surprising, inasmuch as kingship had in her day not yet been introduced in Israel. Prior to the book of Judges, numerous references in the Pentateuch make clear that God intended for Israel one day to have a king (e.g., Ge 17:6; 49:10; Nu 24:7, 17–19; Dt 17:14–20; 28:36). We also find that the word translated “king” here can designate the governor or chieftain of a settlement or city-state (note “the king of Jericho” in Jos 2:2). his anointed. Anointing with oil was widely practiced in ancient Israel and in the ancient Near East. Egyptian officials were anointed to high office, though it is unclear whether the Egyptian king himself, the pharaoh, was also anointed. From the Amarna letters, it appears that local kings in Palestine were anointed as an expression of vassalage to their Egyptian suzerain. Among the Hittites also, it was common for the suzerain to bind his vassals to him by formal rites undergirded by religious sanctions. Among these rites was the anointing of the vassal ruler. Hittite kings themselves were also anointed with the “holy oil of kingship,” and their titles sometimes referred to their anointed status, e.g., “Tabarna, the Anointed, the Great King.” Similar practices are represented in the OT. While both religious objects and religious personnel were anointed (Ex 30:22–33; 40:15; Lev. 16:32; Num. 3:3), it was the king who ultimately held the title “the Lord’s anointed” (e.g., 1Sa 16:6) or, in shortened form, “his anointed” (e.g., 12:5) (Also, 1 K. 19:16 - of Jehu; plus 1 Chr. 16:22 = Ps. 105:15; 1 S. 9:16; 24:6-7; 26:9; 2 S. 1:14, 16) This title expressed the king’s vassal status as the Lord’s earthly representative and his consecration to and authorization for divine service (on vassal kingship, see notes on 8:7; 10:1; 12:3; 24:6). The king’s status as the “anointed” implied his divine enabling and his inviolability. - Cultural Background SB
Not just in Israel, but in the ancient Near East generally, kingship was intertwined with religion. While in Egypt the king himself was worshiped as divine, in Mesopotamia kingship was regarded as one of the basic institutions of human life devised by the gods for mankind. The concept of divine sponsorship of kingship was foundational in the cognitive environment of the ancient Near East. In Israel, the emphasis fell on God himself as the Great King, with the human king to serve not as a demigod, but as vice-regent (vassal) to the Great King. The “law of the king” in Dt 17:14–20 makes it clear that the king in Israel was to be subservient to the divine law and was “not [to] consider himself better than his fellow Israelites” (Dt 17:20). The people have not concluded that they don’t want God leading them anymore: No one in the ancient Near East would want that, and that is not a king like the nations have. Rather they want a king who would successfully bring the deity into play so that they could carry out their national agendas instead of waiting on the action of the deity alone (as when he appointed judges over them). They wanted God’s power, but not his control. - Cultural Background SB
Now one more look at anointing before I conclude this post.
Anointing is known from Hittite enthronement texts; Egyptian and Mesopotamian kings were not anointed, though the pharaohs anointed their vassals and officials. It is possible that anointing represents a contract between the ruler and the people, hence the anointing of David by the people in 2Sa 2:4. Texts from Nuzi show individuals anointing each other when entering a business agreement, and anointing with oil occurred in Egyptian wedding ceremonies. ruler. In this context means something like “king-elect” or “one who is designated as leader of the people.” inheritance. The Lord’s “inheritance” comprised both the land and the people of Israel (Dt 32:9). In acceding to the people’s demand for a king, Yahweh did not relinquish his rights as Great King over his inheritance to the human monarch. Rather, the human king was to be Yahweh’s vice-regent and was to subordinate himself within an authority structure that Yahweh himself would stipulate (v. 25). Prior to the monarchy, judges had been raised up by Yahweh on an ad hoc basis and had both received and carried out Yahweh’s instructions. With the inauguration of kingship, however, the tasks of receiving and carrying out Yahweh’s instructions were initially divided between prophet (Samuel) and king (Saul). The former would be Yahweh’s mouthpiece to the king, and the king was to carry out Yahweh’s instructions as received through the prophet. This authority structure is evidenced in the first charge Saul receives in vv. 7–8, and grasping its significance is essential to understanding the nature of the eventual breach between Saul and Samuel/Yahweh. - Cultural Background SB
I hope this post has perked your interest in how you view, interpret, or understand what Christ/Messiah conveys in the Scriptures, especially in the minds of the 1st century believers who were immersed in it, unlike us today.
I will continue down this course and build upon these blocks that we may truly understand the concept of "the Lord's Anointed" in a way that will open up your understanding of a core doctrine of our faith in a manner that you have possibly never been taught. Until then, I encourage you to study on this topic on your own, that you may compare your notes with my future posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment