Systematic Theology 1

As explained by Wright, the term messiah was used in Jesus’ day to refer to the ONE that would bring about the, so to speak, second exodus of Israel and save them from their oppressors. Those surrounding Jesus understood this event to be a violent overthrowing of the Roman government officials. Therefore, if Jesus ever claimed to be the messiah, the Jews living at that time would have placed enormous pressure on Him to take His rightful place as King of the Jews and to catalyze the overthrow of the Romans. To take things a step further, it could be that even Jesus himself also possessed this view of what the messiah would look like, since no one living at that time cared to offer any other alternatives. If we allow this, the identity of Jesus changes from that of a sovereign God-Man carrying out His own will, to that of a humble servant-leader submitting to the will of His God. Many have conjectured that Jesus was not sure if He was the messiah and the Son of God until the resurrection. God the Son, Who existed eternally with God, fully incarnated Himself on this Earth in order to redeem every conceivable part of humanity. 206

Wright defines ‘messiah’ as the one through whom Yahweh would restore the fortunes of his people. Jesus saw the Great Tribulation, the Messianic Woes, coming upon Israel and believed himself called, like the martyrs, to go ahead of Israel and take them upon himself. “The word ‘messiah’ had nothing to do with trinitarian theology.” Much of Jesus’ contemporaries on either side of his life saw people whom they thought were the ones to come in a Davidic style of rulership. They would have understood God’s “Anointed One” as the one that would have militarily defeated the Roman empire and bring Israel into political freedom from oppression, and thus becoming its king. Then this “return from exile” as told by prophets would yield Yahweh’s coming to Zion (hence why Simon and Athronges, Menahem, and Simeon ben Kosiba) were all hailed as “messiahs.” As in regards to Jesus however, it names Jesus as Israel’s representative that is able to bear its sin and bring forgiveness of sins—the end of exile. Jesus, Israel’s representative, he deliberately went to the place where that suppression found its symbolic focus. He drew his counter-Temple movement to a climax in Passover week, believing that as he went to his death Israel’s God was doing for Israel (and hence for the world) what Israel as a whole could not do. And it is through this that Paul himself is able to redefine this restoring the fortunes of God’s people to include, not just national Israel, but all people who are “in Christ” so that all people do not have to live in exile of their sin but can live in the Spirit which Christ’s actions allowed. Still, it does go point out that our understanding of “messiah” cannot be reached on Scriptural accounts alone, we have to have the creeds and the tradition passed down through the church’s history. 312

According to Wright, the Messiah was not understood by Jesus nor his contemporaries to be the Second Person of the Trinity. Rather, the Messiah was to be the individual through whom the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—the God who brought Israel out of Egypt—restored His people Israel as a nation. This was therefore commonly understood as a military endeavor. The Messiah would come to free Israel from its contemporary Egypt: Roman rule and oppression. The land promised to Israel would be granted her and the people of God would live again under the provision of God and his appointed ruler/liberator, the Messiah. According to Wright, if Christ thought of himself as Messiah, it was in this contemporary Jewish vein of thought. Wright seems to have little unction to say that Christ thought of Himself as the Second Person of the Trinity. Instead, Wright makes more sense “as a historian” of Christ considering Himself the chosen redeemer of Israel. He likely would not have anticipated His own death—at least initially. The Messiah was not expected to die, but to rule in power and authority. Resurrection from the dead into glorified body was certainly not in the handbook. This therefore puts a more poignant, intimate and ethnic specificity to Christ’s personhood on earth. While God and man, he needed not know that he was one man with two natures. Regardless, His life was marked by the character of God the Son—submission to the Father. However, His identity was not fully revealed to Him likely either till resurrection or ascension. Wright may then likely contend that we hold the same hope.

According to Wright, messiah in Jesus day meant the one who would save and free Israel from oppression. Israel was under great oppression and a messiah was needed to free them. There is no trinity and incarnational theology. There is no view of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Also, the messiah would be the one to conquer evil. Lastly, there would be a second exodus. This second exodus would result in the second Passover. This would mean that death would pass over those who receive Jesus and what He has done.
Jesus contemptories viewed Jesus as any other prophet. The people in Jesus’ days saw other people who they thought were the messiah. The people in Jesus’ days understood the messiah as more of a military and political figure. They viewed the messiah as the one who would defeat the Roman Empire. That is what they wanted and thought the messiah would be capable of and something they thought the messiah should do. With that, they thought that the messiah would be the one to free Israel. After freeing Israel they thought that He would become the King.
What difference if any does this make of our understanding of Jesus’ identity? It shows that the people of Israel had something in mind, God had something greater for everyone. Jesus is more concerned about spiritual freedom of sin and defeat of Satan. This however makes me wonder about the second exodus, because I am still going to die. (248)

For the most part, first century eschatological prophets were viewed as messianic figures who believed that God was acting through them to fulfill His promise to Israel. Likewise, N.T. Wright describes Jesus as an eschatological prophet as opposed to a religious reformer. According to Wright, he agrees with Albert Schweitzer that Jesus did not expect the end of the world. However, In Jesus’s day, there were many Jews who presumably regarded themselves as messiah. Since His message constantly warned that Israel’s national ideology would lead to ruthless Roman suppression, Jesus believed that through Him, God would do for Israel what they themselves could not. In short, Jesus’s journey to Jerusalem was had him going there to die. All in all, N.T. Wright claims that the temple and YHWH’s return to Zion are the keys to gospel Christology. Instead of attempting to see Jesus as conscious of being the second person of the Trinity, Wright encourages us to simply view Jesus as a young Jewish prophet telling a story about YHWH returning to Zion as judge and redeemer, and then embodying it by riding into the city in tears, by symbolizing the Temple’s destruction, and by celebrating the final Exodus. In doing so, Wright simply hopes to correct our lofty, detached and oppressive view of God.

According to Wright, in Jesus’ day “messiah” pointed to “the one through whom YHWH would restore the fortunes of his people.” As revealed by Peter’s response to Jesus’ foretold suffering, His contemporaries understood the “messiah” as one whose victory would be characterized by something other than suffering and death. They like many believers may have had the idea that the one who would come would have complete knowledge of his impending plight or overcome by much more natural/ cultural manner than actually resulted. If anything this revelation should encourage those who seek to follow the rise Christ to do so humbly, recognizing that our wisdom may only reveal a certain but not final measure of the steps that lay ahead. May this sober His disciples to the reality that His purposes are greater than our understanding of them, though God desires for us to comprehend Him as much as possible, and His results far superior than our suffering/ striving in Him toward them. If Jesus was a man who did not possess a complete understanding of His vocation but still willingly pushed forward – then we too, co-builders with Him are also made capable to follow in His footsteps.
198

Wright explains the Messiah was foretold by the prophets as someone who was going to come as a conquer and deliver Israel out of bondage much like Moses done in Egypt. Jesus contemporaries were looking for a Messiah who was going to over throw the Roman Empire and take them out of bondage. They wanted someone like a military leader who would lead a revolt against Rome. A suffering servant was far from what they were looking for. When Jesus did not come as a conquer He was viewed as another prophet and was discredited as the Messiah. Being Christians of our time we can look back and see that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. Since we get the whole story our view should not be tainted like the Israelites. Our understanding should be that Jesus did come to deliver and set free but not from the hands of the Romans. Jesus came to set the Israelites free from sin and the bondage created by them selves which was greater than any bondage that the Romans could inflict. We as Christians today should hold this same view. There are still those in our time who see Jesus as a conquer and think once they except Jesus in their lives that every bad thing of life will be eradicated. We should see Christ for who He truly is now that we have the whole story but that is not always the case.

Both Aquinas and Calvin argue that God has an active role within Creation, hence the notion of Providence. They argue quite strongly that God did not just create all of Creation and than leave it alone to its own devices. They differ in their views as to how He interacts with Creation. Aquinas tends to present the providence of God in a view of divine ordering, as if He sets things up to go in certain of events. God in sense creates everything in a way that will have them behave in a certain way, thus leading them to do things according to His will. Calvin on the other hand believes that God has an active hand within Creation, directly affecting various individuals according to His own will. If I understand each person’s view correctly, I would have to agree with Calvin’s view of providence in that God does have an active hand in Creation. To think of God as the One Who only sets things up to occur a certain way seems to override the factor of human will whereas Calvin’s seem to accommodate for that.