Episode 312: Sarah Emanuel - The Meaning of Messiah
In this week’s episode of The Bible for Normal People, Jared sits down with Sarah Emanuel to discuss the concept of “Messiah” from a Jewish theological perspective. Sarah explores what post-exilic Israelites might have thought and meant when they talked about a deliverer, what shapes those beliefs took near the time of Jesus’s life, and what sorts of misconceptions people have today when they use the word “Messiah.”
Mentioned in This Episode
Class: “The Bible is Not a Rule Book” with Jared Byas
Books: The Jewish Annotated New Testament
Join: The Society of Normal People community
Support: www.thebiblefornormalpeople.com/give
-
Pete: You're listening to The Bible for Normal People, the only God-ordained podcast on the internet. I’m Pete Enns.
Jared: And I’m Jared Byas.
Pete: Before we jump into today's episode, we wanted to tell you about our October class led by Jared called: The Bible is Not a Rule Book.
Jared: That's right. I'll be teaching on Tuesday, October 28th from 8:00 to 9:00 PM Eastern Time, and I'm gonna be talking about how most of us, even the non-evangelicals among us have been told the Bible's job is to hand us moral answers.
Sometimes that looks like a rule book. Sometimes that's treating it like a crystal ball that can tell us our purpose in life. So how can we use the Bible in a way that's helpful without making it try to be something it was never intended to be?
Pete: So Jared will look at problems with the rule book approach, problems with the magic eight ball or crystal ball approach, and practical ways the Bible can be used in our life, leaving those other approaches behind.
So mark your calendars for October 28th from 8:00 to 9:00 PM Eastern Time, and go to thebiblefornormalpeople.com/rulebook to sign up. Sign up today.
Jared: And I’m Jared Byas.
Jared: On today's episode, it's just me, Jared, and I'm talking about The Messiah with Sarah Emanuel.
Sarah is Assistant Professor of Theological studies at Loyola Marymount University and co-host of the podcast Feminists Talk Religion. Her research attends to the Jewishness of Christian origins, which is very interesting and plays into what we talk about today and the relationship among text culture and identity.
Hope you enjoy this conversation with Sarah Emanuel.
Sarah: This is a Jewish concept, and to be Jewish at this time period is to be a cultural other and to carry with you thousands of years of oppression and memories of that oppression. And so for a deliverer to come and bring about a new world order, it's remarkably political.
Jared: Sarah, thank you so much for jumping onto the podcast. I'm actually very excited about this conversation. I think it's a great topic. So thanks for jumping on and being willing to talk to us about it.
Sarah: Yeah, really good to be here.
Jared: Excellent. Okay, well let's just jump right in. 'Cause we're talking about Messianic expectations and I think as, as modern day Christians, there's just layer upon layer of interpretation that's been put on this.
There's just so many expectations, we don't really even know where they came from. So can we go back to the beginning and say, uh, where does this idea of Messiah come from? In the, in the earliest days of the Jewish tradition. Like where? Take us back to the beginning.
Sarah: Okay. So that is a big question and unfortunately a harder one to answer than I wish.
So before I get into it and give my take on that, I have a major qualification, which is unfortunately, I think we sometimes speak as if we know more than we actually do. And so, uh, you know, I, I will, I will do my best to speak to where I think the scholarship is currently. Um, but you know, it's where the scholarship is currently, right?
And things could change and we know very, very little when it comes to the ancient past and its relations, um, to the texts that we're examining. So you asked, you know, where does this idea of a Messiah come from? What's the beginning? That's really hard to answer in part because this term Messiah shows up in texts that are difficult to date.
So, for example, when we're looking at the Hebrew Bible or Jewish Tanakh or Christian Old Testament, uh. It's really hard to know when each book was written or when each section of each book was written or revised. Um, are we looking at something that was perhaps originally constructed in some kind of way before the Babylonian exile in the sixth century BCE, and then revised and, and altered in a post-exilic world?
Or are we looking at something that, as an idea, formed for the most part, totally after the exilic period? It's just, it's so hard to know when certain concepts begin. Um, uh, within these stories and how much they've been altered or nuanced throughout different time periods by different thinkers.
Um, it's also important to keep in mind that we don't always know how terms or ideas, um, have, have changed in particular settings. So for example, what I can say is, as of now, it seems to be the case that the concept of a Messiah at one point was different from the concept of a Messiah by the time, for example, Jesus was born.
So going predating Jesus, um, by centuries, you know, Messiah likely just meant anointed one or king. Um, and, uh, eventually that term became affiliated with other concepts. Um, and it most likely became affiliated with other concepts in a post-exilic world getting closer and closer to the Hellenistic period.
Um, and Jesus' own time in the, um, Hellenic Roman world.
Jared: You mentioned anointed one, and I think that, at least in the tradition I would've grown up in, also has baggage. So that, can you just say more about what does it mean to be an anointed? 'Cause you sounded, it sounded, the way you said it, it sounded pretty simple.
Like, oh, it just means anointed one. But in my tradition, that was also this kind of grandiose thing. So what, what did it mean? Say if we're talking just pre-exilic and post-exilic, if that's as close to the historical areas we can get, what would it have been to be an anointed one, say pre-exilic.
Sarah: Uh, to be, um, you know, marked with some kind of oil
Uh, to symbolize some kind of, um, king, uh, kingly or priestly, uh, status, maybe even prophetic status, but just a, a, a marker of status.
Jared: Okay. A status marker. That's good. Okay.
Sarah: Oftentimes in relation to kingship.
Jared: Okay. That would've been pretty common in terms of, uh, kingship or even the priesthood you said.
Sarah: It could be. Yeah. Yeah. But I mean, this is the, this is another caveat when I even say, you know, we see these concepts in these ancient texts that are hard to date and hard to know. It's hard to know what time period we're looking at specifically. Um, it's also not as if these texts are talking at length about this term, Messiah.
Or anything. I mean, sometimes we're looking at a sentence or two and trying to construct a whole narrative around it. So. Um, I could say, yeah, earlier, uh, to be anointed, meant to be marked with some kind of oil to signify some kind of status such as kingship, but there's not text upon text upon text giving me, um, a nuanced understanding of that.
Jared: Good. And then would you say though that there is, while we can't maybe pinpoint exactly the trajectory or the evolution of it, that by the time we get to say like the second temple period or around the time of Jesus that it's, it's shifted, like how has the concept shifted then by the time we get to around the time of Jesus' birth or, you know, a couple of centuries before?
Sarah: Yeah. So Jesus, based on our Gregorian calendar system is born in 4 BCE. The second temple period has been going on for a, a, a few hundred years. Um, so has the Hellenistic period. Um, and you know, the Roman period is, you know, in, with regards to the Roman period's relation to Jesus, it's, it's been a, a number of decades, um, by the time Jesus is born. So Jesus is born into this very, um, Hellenistic Roman world.
Jared: Um, can you, can you say just a minute, just 'cause it's, you know, Bible for normal people. Can you say what Hellenistic means? Because I think that may be a concept that's new to people.
Sarah: Yeah, for sure. Um, Greek, the Greek period. Um, so, uh, Hellenization refers to the Greek-ification of surrounding areas. Uh, and, uh, the Greeks were very, very good at Greek-ifying their surroundings. Uh, so much so that we see, uh, uh, translation of Hebrew texts of Hebrew, Hebrew sacred texts, uh, into Greek. So much so that the New Testament, even though Jesus is technically born in the Roman Empire, um, the, the New Testament that was talking about Jesus under the Roman Empire, it's all written in Greek.
So, um, by the time Jesus is born, yes, he's born under the Roman Empire, but the Roman Empire at this time period is deeply, um, impacted by Hellenistic thought, by Greek thought. And, uh, the second temple has been around for a bit.
Jared: Mm-hmm.
Sarah: Um, so it's not like Jesus is born, you know, 20 years, uh, into the second temple period.
We're, we're hundreds of years into it. Um, and so by the time Jesus is born in 4 BCE, and even as you said a few centuries earlier, um, even pre-Roman Imperial system, deeply in, you know, the, the Hellenistic Second Roman period. We start to see a connection between this term Messiah and other themes or concepts, um, related to, and these are big terms, so I can unpack them.
Jared: Mm-hmm.
Sarah: Um, but related to, um, apocalypticism, eschatology, uh, and I would say resurrection.
Jared: Yeah, I mean, I think that'd be great. Let's maybe unpack each one in terms of how a messiah as a concept kind of plugs into each of these ideas.
Sarah: Absolutely. So apocalypticism, broadly speaking, refers to, uh, the idea that the world is made up of goodness and badness.
Um, apocalyptic ideas often maintain that dualistic ideology. There's good and bad in the world. Um, and, uh, and with it are often, um, sadnesses and fears about hardship and also longings for something more, something that can perhaps, um, make life better. Or make, if it can't make this life better, maybe make another life better.
So that's where resurrection comes into play. Not everyone, not every Jew in the second temple period is thinking with, um, with resurrection in mind, even if they are thinking about the world as being made up of, of goodness and badness and hoping for an intervention of sorts or hoping for a change of sorts.
But some people are. Um, and uh, we see one of the first instances of a Jewish nod toward resurrection in the Maccabean texts where there is, um, a story of, uh, an unnamed mother and her seven sons, and they are being forced, uh, to rid of their Jewish identities, um, to prove their allegiances to the Greek world.
And, um, the mother, uh, instructs her sons to not, she says, don't give up your tradition, um, the world, there are things about this world that are just very difficult. She kind of seems to lean into this apocalyptic mindset. Um, and alongside this apocalyptic, there's goodness and badness in the world. Um, she seems to hint at this belief in, well, if there's badness, now if we just maintain to our sense of goodness, if we maintain righteousness, which for her was maintaining Jewish custom, then maybe in another life we’ll be rewarded.
Jared: Mm.
Sarah: So we start to see this hint toward this idea that maybe post death in another, um, kind of, uh, world order, um, persons will, um, so long as they're righteous. And of course that's subjective. What does righteous mean? It depends on the author.
Um, but persons who are righteous from the perspective of the author will finally experience goodness. Um, again, not every Jew is thinking with regards to resurrection, um, but we're starting to see that happening by the time Jesus is born.
Um, people thinking that, okay, if, if badness is around now, maybe in another world, maybe through resurrection, um, we'll experience some kind of goodness.
Jared: Yeah. So how does, how does the idea of Messiah fit then into those, into those concepts?
Sarah: Yeah, so, um, I'll bring in Messiah and I'll also bring in eschatology.
So eschatology is just, you know, ideas of end times. Uh, so some folks are thinking, okay, there's goodness and badness in the world, and maybe one day a messianic-like figure. And that too is it's, we need to fully unpack, you know, different kinds of messiahs at this time period. But maybe a messianic-like figure on behalf of the Jewish God or in relation with the Jewish God will come and either initiate, um, a new kind of world, an eschaton, um, or, um, uh, help maintain a new kind of eschaton one in which this sense of badness is no longer.
Jared: Which came first, and maybe this is not gonna be a helpful question, but in my mind is the idea of like a hero type figure, who's gonna come save the day? Does that evolve independent of the, of the idea of Messiah and then those get those meet up at some point or, 'cause it just feels like, where did, is it Messiah is more of a kingly thing and then we have this hero, and of course the hero's gonna be the king?
I'm trying to kind of put together how we go from this idea that we need a hero is a, maybe not a great term, but we need someone in this apocalyptic times. Like, things don't look great and we need someone to really champion our cause in this cosmic sense. How did that get tied to the idea of Messiah?
Sarah: You know, I wish I could give a very clear and easy answer to that and I do not think I can. What I can say though, and it probably doesn't answer your question directly, but it's related, I think is um, I think we start to see some kind of glorification of David.
Jared: Mm. I see.
Sarah: That then perhaps over time gets altered and nuanced and attached to other ideas of goodness and badness and hope for something else.
So, so David was, um, king, uh, around, uh, 1010 BCE. He, um, is the king after Saul, uh, and the king before Solomon. And, um, the Davidic line, likely in David's own time period or, um, you know, those who came after him, their own time period, like they weren't glorified. Um, I mean, they weren't, they weren't beloved so much so that the northern Kingdom of Israel entirely seceded from, um, that kingship.
So, um, eventually there's a divided monarchy. There's a kingdom in the north and a kingdom in the south. However, something happens, um, I'd say after the 720s BCE. So, um. David is king, 1010.
Then Solomon, um, is, is king, 970 BCE. And then, um, 930 BCE, we get this division of two kingdoms where there's a, a kingship in the north and a kingship in the south. And then in the seven hundreds, Assyria becomes this massive superpower and, uh, invades ancient Israel and they start with the north. And so in 722 BCE, the north is decimated.
That kingship never, um, in the Northern Territory, recreates itself. Um, the north is just never the same again. And then Assyria goes southward, uh, where Jerusalem technically is, where that Davidic line is continuing and, um, they retreat in 701, the Assyrians. And so there's, there's the aftermath of war, but the Jerusalem temple stays standing.
Um, and David is remembered as the king who set up Jerusalem as a political center for ancient Israelites. And so something happens in this post-Assyrian invasion, I don't know, discursive space in the sense that people are trying to theologize, okay, why did the north, um, crumble and why did the south survive?
And I think that's when we start to see the kernels of a glorification of David. And David was, you know, an anointed one. He was a messiah in that sense. So in this post-701, I should say, space, we start to see this glorification of David, and then we have the Babylonian exile, and then we have the return of some Jews.
Um, in a post-exilic world, this group of people is no longer self-identifying as Israelite, but as Jew. And they, some return to Judah and rebuild and are thinking about rebuilding in the sort of, you know. It's different. It's post-exilic, but we're still seeing this callback to David and even in this, in texts that are recalling the pain and trauma of exile, there's this hope to get back to a David-like time.
And this sort of metaphoric cope of, okay, well we will make it, we will persevere. We will have a Davidic-like king who will help us. And I think that eventually, um, gets nuanced and nuanced and nuanced and gets attached to these other, um, apocalyptic and eschatological hopes.
Jared: Yeah. That was a great, that, that was a, puts a lot of pieces together and I, I like that idea of, it makes sense that there's sort of, when we're in times of crisis, we look back to the golden age and who was in charge in the golden age? It was David. And so that kind of mythos kind of carries through for centuries and kind of evolves over time.
Sarah: Yeah. Yeah. Or a supposed golden age.
Jared: Well, yeah, yes of course. As all golden ages are. Supposed.
Um, but no, no, that's really helpful to see how those tie together. It's sort of like when you're in these apocalyptic moments and things look bleak, you're sort of looking for the new David in our story.
That's who we kind of go to and then that gets attached to these other ideas. We're probably pulling from other cultures and stuff as well. So, um, what then, kind of thinking about that, 'cause there's the David element. When we go to, um, the New Testament, um, what are some of the, when do we start getting like, some specific expectations? Because it starts in this very maybe vague sense and moves to as, I don't know, maybe as the, as the teachers and um, scribes and other folks start really, getting into the weeds, so to speak about this.
They're starting to attach different specific expectations. Well, no, it's gonna be like this. No, it's gonna be like that. And so what are some of the things that emerge from that that become maybe a little bit more shapely in terms of the form of what a Messiah was expected to be when we're getting into this New Testament period?
Sarah: I'm glad this is where we're going because there's a huge caveat to what I said about David, which is not everyone thinking, uh, Messianically is necessarily thinking about David. So even though so much tends to connect back to David or back to this hope for a David-like being, David isn't necessarily the center for everyone.
And also another caveat is we often assume that Jews at this time period are all thinking about a Messiah in some way. And they, they likely aren't. So there could be many Jews, um, by the time Jesus is born, who are too busy doing other things or don't have the privilege to, uh, contemplate about apocalyptic and eschatological and Messianic thing.
So it's not like, you know, every Jew is, is thinking and hoping for a Messiah. Um, but I, I think by those who are thinking messianically, I think by the time Jesus is born there are multiple expectations floating around and, and one broad one that then gets nuanced, depending upon the person. So I think by 4 BCE, there's a general, uh, again, for those who are thinking Messianically, a general understanding that, um, life isn't fair and that, uh, bad things happen and bad things have happened.
And, uh, that, that's just the way it is, which I think is different from earlier. Um, earlier sources. I think earlier sources go, uh, go to a place of self blame, of collective self blame of the world is bad. Things are happening. We must have messed up. And, and if we've messed up, that means we could change it.
Let's figure out what we need to change. What did we do wrong and what can we fix? Um, and by these, you know, late centuries, BCE, there's this shift in understanding of, um, hardship, which is hardship happens. It is what it is. Um, and it isn't necessarily our fault. Um, in fact, instead of changing who we are, let's maintain who we are.
Let's be strong about it. Um, but then, then comes this hope, um, that, uh, there will be some kind of deliverer who will help bring about a change, whether that is fully here on, on Earth. Um, or in some kind of new divine realm or some kind of combination of the two. That's where the nuances come in.
It depends on the, the person, but there's this general idea that, um, life is hard. It's not fair. Um, let's hold fast to who we are and if we just keep staying on this course, um, we will be helped by a Messiah, a deliverer who will bring about a new world order, who will bring about an eschaton. Then it gets into all sorts of nuances again.
What will that eschaton look like? Will it be just a new kingdom fully earthly? Will it be a divine realm? Will it be, um, a mix of both? What will happen, uh, to those who have already died? Is there, is there resurrection? Um, does, is that a thing? Um, and if so, um, will, will the righteous dead all, all be resurrected at the, the oncoming of this new world order?
Uh, if one doesn't believe in resurrection, is it just too bad for those who have already died? Um, will the Messiah be fully human? Will the Messiah be divine? A mix of both, right? That's where things get really, um, complicated, depending upon who's talking. But I'd say by the time Jesus is born, that overarching hope of a deliverer is in place.
Jared: Yeah. Uh, okay. I have two different directions I want to go. I'm trying to figure out which way to go first, but I think maybe I'll go with. Uh, around this time, are there people who are claiming to be this deliver? Like if there's a starting to be an expectation? I think I, I, for some reason now I'm remembering it's been like 20 years, but how can you forget?
I think of, uh, like, uh, Simon bar Kokhba, I think is one. The revolts. Like these people who were self-identifying as like, well, maybe I'm the, the one to deliver us and gathering these followings behind that. How prominent was that around the time of Jesus? Or maybe even a century or so after.
Sarah: Oh, that's an interesting one.
I don't know because it's even like, even when we're talking about Jesus, it's unclear if he ever self-identified as the Messiah or if others only put that onto him. So I think something we have to keep in mind is we're lacking so much information and we're, we're lacking firsthand information and we're lacking autobiographical information.
Jared: So we don't have people, we don't have a lot of data that says there were people going around saying, come follow me. Like, I'm gonna deliver us back to the good old days.
Sarah: Not that I'm comfortable, um, making a whole argument around, no.
Jared: You are, you're such an academic. That's exactly, that's great. Yeah. Yeah. Um, okay. Alright. Well then, so, but that's good. I mean, that in itself is telling that there isn't a lot of data to go on that, that you would feel comfortable saying, yeah, we have, we can point to this and we can point to that and we can sort of say, these are people, this was a prominent thing.
So with that, when we get to the New Testament. Um, and, and I would just say the early church in general, right, the early church tradition, which we can include the New Testament timeframe in, how does this get more crystallized? Are there things that are getting more emphasized than others? And do we even see that diversity in the New Testament itself, where there's an emphasis, say in the Pauline or, or you know, in the letters versus in the gospels?
Do we see diversity as this thing starts to get more crystallized?
Sarah: Absolutely. Yeah, there's, uh, the, the New Testament is not monolithic whatsoever. There are lots of different ideas about, uh, Jesus, about, uh, how to follow Jesus, um, from gospel to gospel and even Pauline letter to Pauline letter, uh, to the point that some scholars sort of say, okay, we'll never know, uh, what, uh, Jesus actually thought or said.
We'll never even know what Paul actually thought or said. Um, but, uh, yeah, there's not one easy understanding of the Messiah in the New Testament or outside the New Testament, outside of its affiliation with this, um, with, with a deliverer of, of sorts from, from hardship.
Um, one thing though that does seem to connect the dots a bit in the New Testament is that Jesus as the Messiah, which Christos is just Greek for Messiah. Christ is not Jesus's last name. It is a title. If one is saying Jesus the Christ, they are claiming that Jesus is the Messiah. Um, and Jesus as the Christ in the New Testament seems to be, um, Davidic seems to be connected to some kind of, um, Davidic, um, line, Davidic royalty.
Um, but in terms of, uh, Jesus's divinity, I'd say that's where things get more complicated. Gospel to gospel. Um, and Paul in relation to the gospels, um, and what I mean by that is there seems to be different ideas about, um, you know, Jesus's actual status. Is he fully human? Um, who is just taking on this Davidic like, um, uh, kingship who, who will sort of just, as a human, usher in a new, um, world order here on earth, um, over and against Roman occupation?
Or is he in some way interacting with the divine realm, not only through his relationship with the God of Israel, but also through the belief that runs through the New Testament that Jesus was resurrected. So if he was resurrected, what does that mean? And you know, was he always human? And then as a resurrected being is now sort of in the, the Davidic realm.
And did that change his ontological status or was he always in some way, shape or form connected to the divine realm and then, you know, sort of became human, but still had connections to the divine realm And then post-Resurrection sort of went back to this, this divine space?
That all is dependent upon the author. And, we see even more diversity outside the New Testament. I mean, if you get to the Dead Sea Scrolls, we're, we're seeing the hopes of two Messiahs. One who's Davidic and one who's priest-like, so, um, yeah. Nuance upon nuance upon difference. Upon difference.
Jared: Yeah. Well, um, okay, so in terms of the New Testament expectations of how Jesus does or doesn't fill this function, this title, this, uh, role of deliverer, um, what you just said, I'm trying, trying to restate it for folks. The divinity. So there does seem to be some through line that it's connected to this Davidic piece, but then when it comes to the divinity, I would almost put it as there's the divinity axis.
Is, is there a pre-existent Jesus that has always been connected to the divine before all time? Um, all the way through, you know, maybe the middle ground is no, he becomes divine through this resurrection process. Or somehow he, he takes on the divine all the way to no, he is, he's not divine at all.
That, that doesn't make sense. So that's like one axis that we get some diversity in the New Testament, and the other is the delivery part of it is, is Jesus here to deliver us in an earthly way from the Roman oppression, or is it Jesus is here to deliver us in a spiritual way that's outside of the current political, geopolitical climate?
Um, does that diversity exist as well in terms of the delivery part of the Messianic expectation?
Sarah: Yes and no. I think a connecting piece is, um, in terms of the deliverance, that there will, that, that it is connected to the social and political moment, that Jesus as the Messiah will deliver folks.
And of course, that's also a question like, who, who's included in this deliverance? Uh, but will deliver folks, um, from Roman oppression. Uh, but what, what that future deliverance looks like, I think is up for interpretation. Is it fully earthly? Is it somehow connected to the divine realm?
Um. When, you know, what will it look like? That part is different depending upon, um, one's theological orientation.
Jared: Yea. Is that a feature of apocalypticism though, where that line gets blurry sometimes? Between the physical deliverance and the spiritual? Partly because in some ways the apocalyptic system is brought on by this larger than life enemy, so to speak. It feels bigger than we can manage. And so in some ways the hope has to come from a little bit of this blurring of the lines.
Sarah: I guess I'm curious. Well, what do you mean when you ask the question? Spiritual deliverance?
Jared: Yeah, what I, I mean is, and this is gonna get us into the next question, which is how do you think, what are some misconceptions that we read back into the Bible in terms of these, this Messiah?
Because as, as, you know, the Christian tradition, I would say, you know, a lot of our listeners would come out of a more conservative evangelical tradition, which would put Jesus's deliverance is, is squarely about getting people saved in this eternal from hell and heaven. And that's a whole nother can of worms, um, in terms of what we read back into the New Testament.
But they would put that squarely as like a spiritual deliverance, meaning it's really about saving your soul. And, uh, they would pit that against like an earthly deliverance, which I think more progressive Christians would emphasize. Like the liberation of Jesus being about the, uh, deliverance from the political oppression of the time.
And so that's kind of the spectrum that I'm putting it on and I think. I guess my question is, can we see different nuances of that in the New Testament itself or in the, um, in the early church where we're emphasizing one of those, or the other, or to your point, is that a category mistake that we are really just, that whole category of distinction is, is being put on the Bible.
It's not really there at all?
Sarah: Maybe I'm, I'm, maybe I'm confused because in part, when thinking about ancient context. I, I don't know if you can bifurcate it so much. Yeah. So, so on this, on this on the surface or on the whole, it's, it's very much about the social political moment of pain and suffering. Um, this is a Jewish movement.
Um, uh, you know, and in Jesus's own time, maybe there were some non-Jews, AKA Gentiles, who were interested in Jewish topics and ideas who were joining the conversation. But, but broadly speaking. I mean, this is a, a Jewish concept, and to be Jewish at this time period is to be, um, a cultural other and to carry with you thousands of years, um, of oppression and memories of that oppression.
Um, and so for a deliverer to come and bring about a new world order, that's, that's always already connected to, I guess not only the present moment, but but the past.
Moments of, you know, we've, we've suffered so long, surely we need something different, and so it's remarkably political.
However, when, when, when these texts are talking about eschatology, um, you know, some, uh, and, and some that are canonized and also not canonized. Some are, I mean, many are thinking, I should say actually that this new world order will be forever.
Jared: Mm-hmm.
Sarah: So it's not just a change in the world order brought upon by a deliverer for a moment, it's forever.
And so in that sense, I think you could connect it to this idea of if you are ushered in to that new world order, that I guess quote-unquote “saves” you from the harshness of reality. Um, but maybe, but I, I avoid the terminology of being saved, uh, talking-
Jared: Well, because I, and even, and maybe this is part of the, the challenge too, is when we think in kind of maybe the more evangelical sense, it's this disembodied, uh, other worldly place where it seems like for the New Testament, even the new world order is sort of a new physical, even if it lasts forever, that we don't, we don't make that such a distinction between other-worldly, disembodied, soul like experience versus physical reality. It just happens to be that the new world order is not going anywhere.
Is that a fair way to say that?
Sarah: I'd say so. Yeah. And it's just really unclear what that new order looks like. What do bodies look like? Right? What are bodies like? What is flesh?
Jared: Well, would it be, you know, would it be fair to say maybe I'm, maybe you can correct me if I'm pushing it too far, but I think this Hellenization. Um, and mixing that with, with Jewish theology is, is fairly new in this time period too.
So there hasn't been a long time to really flesh out well, exactly what does this look like? It feels like the idea of an afterlife and all of that is fairly new within Jewish culture at the time anyway.
Sarah: I'd say a couple hundred years.
Jared: So just a couple of centuries. So it, it doesn't, I, I guess for me it makes sense that we haven't really fleshed out all of the nuances. And you can see the nuances go into, say, into the early church. And by the time you get to the medieval period, I mean, we got, like, acomplete, uh, you know, information architecture of the hierarchy of angels, and it gets, you know, very nuanced the longer it goes.
Sarah: Yeah. Yeah, I'd say so. And it's, it's just, it, it, it goes back to one of the first things I said of we can't know. I mean, a text can seem to very clearly be alluding to some kind of eschaton, some kind of new world order brought in by a Messiah and it's, it's just really not clear. Mm-hmm. Uh, what that looks like or what, um, deliverance looks like.
Jared: You know, if you think of the Jewish tradition when it comes to Messiahship. You know, you've had 2000 years of one tradition moving along, and then Christianity has its own and it has 2000 years of these layers. So surely there's some misconceptions when we're looking at the text itself and what it does or doesn't say.
So what are some of the most common misconceptions, both, either, you know, either from the Jewish tradition side or the Christian tradition side that you feel like they're maybe getting, they're reading into it a little too much in terms of the ideas of, of Messiah. Um, when it comes to what we find in the text.
Sarah: Yeah, I think, um, I think I mentioned, uh, some of them, but I'll just reiterate. I think one misconception is that everyone was just deeply thinking and hoping for a messiah. Uh, when we don't know if that's the case. I think because we, at least in the United States context, take on, um, uh, this, this knowing that Christianity thinks deeply about a messiah and is looking to the past, and you know that saying this idea of a Messiah is also ancient.
We just assume that, oh, because of this tradition that has survived and gotten so many followers, thinks about a Messiah, then surely everyone in antiquity at the time in which Jesus was born was thinking about a messiah.
And that's just not the case. So not everyone is thinking in all likelihood about a Messiah. So that's likely one misconception. I think another misconception is that there was a unified understanding of a Messiah and there wasn't. Um, even if the New Testament is in large part thinking Davidically, there are other texts, uh, that were not canonized, that are thinking about a messiah differently, um, or thinking about a priestly messiah or a dual Messiah.
So not everyone is thinking about a Messiah and not everyone is thinking about a Messiah in the same way. I think those are two main misconceptions.
Jared: That's, that's good. And, and maybe before we wrap up, just because I think maybe it would be helpful for people, um, to see, do you have a couple of examples of that in the New Testament of these different conceptions of a Messiah that not everyone was thinking about it in the same way?
Sarah: Actually, I, I'll, I'll even say another misconception, um, before I get into examples, another misconception is I think when we see the terminology Son of God and Son of Man. We assume that Son of Man is referring to some kind of human and Son of God is referring to some kind of divine being. When we, when, if we actually read the text and think contextually it could be reverse.
Sometimes, when you see, oh, this figure is a Son of God, it's referring to a human being that has a deep connection to the God of Israel and when one is Son of Man, it's referring to this literary figure that's in the book of Daniel that seems to kind of, sort of already be a divine entity.
Jared: Mm-hmm.
Sarah: Um, so already there you might see some, um, some writers lean more into Jesus as the Messiah, as Son of God, or Jesus as the Messiah. Um, as Son of Man, oftentimes you'll also see both. And then it gets even more complicated. Um, but Paul, you asked the question of, you know, Paul versus the gospels.
I think there is evidence that Paul, for example, thought that Jesus as the Messiah was always already some kind of divine being, that he wasn't just this earthly person that then gained access to the divine space through his relationship with the God of Israel, or through him being resurrected with that he was always in some way connected to the God of Israel, perhaps in some kind of divine way. Um, and Bart Ehrman makes this argument, um, in an actually pretty accessible book called How Jesus Became God.
Um, and, and Ehrman kind of, um, differentiates that from the synoptic gospels from, uh, Mark, Matthew and Luke. Um, and think, and, and thinking about Jesus as perhaps more earthly, more human, um, which is different from the Gospel of John, who considers Jesus to be always already in the divine space and then becomes, you know, um, sort of he, he takes on flesh, um, and, and is then resurrected.
So I think those are some examples of difference. And again, it goes back to not Jesus as a deliverer or not Jesus as connected to David in some way, but um, connects to Jesus's sort of status. How human is he? How divine is he? How much of both is he?
Jared: Well, before we sign off here, if, if someone is wanting to maybe slough off the layers of expectations that they've put on to Messiah. If they wanna read the New Testament in a new way that's sort of like, how do I take these goggles off that have been given to me over, you know, decades of, of reading this text?
What would be advice, um, that you would give to someone who, who wants to pick up the New Testament in a new way and maybe read it through a different lens?
Sarah: I think one text that one could pick up, um, is the Jewish annotated New Testament, uh, which is a, um, a scholarly collection of, um, engagements with the New Testament that very much thinks about how each text that is canonized in the New Testament, um, interacts with an ancient Jewish context.
So I think, um, picking up scholarship, an accessible scholarship, uh, is one way that that can help. Um, and I guess, but even, even before that, and this may seem simple, but it's harder than one thinks. I think the biggest thing is to really be self-aware, um, and willing to take off those goggles.
So you, you need to, want to take them off and then you need to, um, consistently check in with yourself. And ask yourself, okay, how much am I putting onto this text based on later interpretations? Um, and how much am I thinking about the text in relation to ancient context? Um, and how much can I not know about ancient context?
And is that okay? So I think picking up resources, um, can be helpful, but also just having a deep willingness to take off those goggles and, and have check-ins, um, and being okay with being uncomfortable with what one discovers.
Jared: Excellent. Well, I had high expectations for this conversation and you did not disappoint, so thank you so much, Sarah, for jumping on and talking to us about this.
Sarah: Thank you so much for having me. Yeah.
Jared: Well, thanks to everyone who supports the show. If you wanna support what we do, there are three ways you can do it. One, if you just wanna give a little money, go to thebiblefornormalpeople.com/give.
Pete: And if you wanna support us and want an all access pass to our classes, a free podcast and a thoughtful community of people asking tough questions about the Bible and faith, you can become a member of our online community, the Society of Normal People at thebiblefornormalpeople.com/join.
Jared: And lastly, it goes a long way. If you just wanted to rate the podcast, leave a review, and tell others about our show. In addition, you can let us know what you thought about the episode by emailing us at info@thebiblefornormalpeople.com.
Outro: You’ve just made it through another episode of The Bible for Normal People.
Don’t forget you can catch our other show, Faith for Normal People, in the same feed wherever you get your podcasts. This episode was brought to you by the Bible for Normal People Team.
