Finally, what about the first two questions that confront us? How did Jesus belong to the Jewish culture of his day? What goals did he strive to achieve? It is my conviction that the person and ministry of Jesus are inseparable from the Judaism of his time. He acted as a prophet, warning Israel against a disastrous path and offering something completely different in its place. His aspiration was the regeneration of the people of God, their true return from captivity to the Kingdom of God. However, this could not be achieved by simply repeating his revelations and symbolic actions to convince as many people as possible. This was to take place in the course of the decisive events indicated by his two great symbolic acts. What happened in the Temple testified to messiahship, the Last Supper pointed to the cross. Our attention now turns to this strange combination of ideas, more significant, but also more destructive in the conditions of the time, than anything we had previously studied.

4 Crucified Messiah

Prelude

in the previous chapters I have tried to portray Jesus of Nazareth, the prophet who announced the coming of the kingdom of God. He sharply criticized contemporary Judaism, and also called on his listeners to follow him on the path of renewal and revival of Israel. In this regard, it is impossible to ignore two questions, the answers to which this chapter will be devoted: first, did Jesus consider himself to be the Messiah, and if so, in what sense? And, secondly, did he really expect to die, even go to his death, fulfilling his calling, and what significance did he attach to this event?

Let's first dwell on three important points. It is unlikely that any of the Jews in the first century would have thought that the role of the Messiah would be in any sense divine. Neither Peter's words, "Thou art the Christ," nor Caiaphas' question, "Art thou the Christ?" were dictated by theological reflections on the Trinity. Likewise, the expressions "son of God" and "son of man," which in some Jewish circles may have been associated with the Messiah, did not refer in any way to deity. The questions of whether Jesus believed himself to be the Messiah or whether he really was the Messiah cannot be equated with the question of whether he was or did not consider himself to be the Messiah. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Secondly, the time has come to put an end to the silence, which hides only timidity under the mask of prudence. After all, it is precisely this theory that still prevents researchers from recognizing in Jesus (to use modern language) a serious, thoughtful theologian. In recent times, we have seen that not only Paul, John, and the writer of Hebrews, but also Matthew, Mark, and Luke were highly gifted and creative theologians. Why are we forced to see Jesus as a narrow-minded, primitive man, denying him the ability to think through his actions, a quality that many of his contemporaries and followers no doubt possessed?

Third, our desire to understand how Jesus perceived his calling does not mean that we are trying to study his psyche. Obtaining clear information about the psychological state of one of our compatriots, who is ready to answer questions in a language we understand, is already a rather difficult task. Assuming the possibility of achieving the same results with a person belonging to a different era and culture is like looking blindfolded for a black cat in a dark room, which is most likely not there. However, from a historical point of view, we have the opportunity to study man's awareness of his calling. We can do this with Paul, John the Baptist, or even the Emperor Augustus. This is all the more possible in the case of such a narcissistic person as Cicero. In a recent book, a similar attempt has been made with regard to the mysterious "Teacher of Righteousness, who left a mark on the contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls. We can examine their words and actions, as well as guess their goals and desires with a high degree of probability. In this way, we do not subject these people to psychoanalysis. We are only doing the usual work of historians.

So, how did the Jews who lived in the Second Temple period imagine the Messiah? First of all, it should be noted that in the first century there was no single and generally accepted concept of the Messiah. The idea of the kingdom itself is much broader than the messianic one. It is necessary to take into account the real circumstances of Israel's life, as well as the expectations of the kings, whether the Hasmonean dynasty or the Herodian dynasty. The hopes and aspirations of the rulers never existed in themselves, but were an accurate reflection of the hopes and aspirations of the entire people for liberation, for the end of exile, for the victory over evil, and for the return of Yahweh to Zion. The coming King had to perform two main feats, as evidenced by numerous literary sources, as well as the history of the life and work of the kings of Israel. First of all, he had to build or restore the Temple. And besides, he had to enter into a decisive battle with the enemy. David's first act after his testimony to the throne was to fight Goliath, and his last was to design the Temple. Judas Maccabee defeated the Syrians and cleansed the Temple. Herod defeated the Parthians and rebuilt the Temple. Bar Kokhba, the last of the contenders for the role of Messiah, dreamed of victory over the Romans and the rebuilding of the Temple. In this way, each of them sought to achieve the fulfillment of the prophetic promises made to Israel and to bestow divine justice on the world. To answer the question, "Did Jesus consider himself to be the Messiah?" it is necessary to ascertain his intention to accomplish these two tasks.

It is unlikely that the followers of a man who imagined himself to be a King, but ended his life on the cross, would agree to recognize him as the true Messiah. Jesus did not rebuild the Temple. Not only did he not defeat the Romans, but he himself perished at their hands, like the leaders of all the rebellions they suppressed. Israel never got rid of its enemies, and paganism still ruled the world. However, the belief in Jesus as the true Messiah was deeply and ineradicable in the minds of the early Christians, for which there is historical evidence. Already in Paul's day, the word "Christos" was inextricably linked to the name of Jesus in several different combinations. Early Christians continued to use the word with its royal sound, even when it was fraught with inconvenience and danger. The question inevitably arises: "Why?"

One can hardly be satisfied with the answer: "It's all about the resurrection." Even such a miracle would not have made the Jews of the Second Temple believe that the resurrected man was the Messiah, since they did not even think about it during his lifetime. If one of the martyred brothers mentioned in 2 Macc. 7, resurrected three days after suffering terrible torture and death, people would probably say that strange things were happening in the world. However, no one would have thought of calling him the Messiah. Therefore, we should remember that Jesus was crucified as a pretender to the royal title, as the inscription on the cross stated. The resurrection conclusively proved to the astonished disciples that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, although his crucifixion seemed to disprove such assumptions. All of this forces us to return to the question: What is it about Jesus' ministry that demonstrates his claim to be the Messiah?