Christus Victor: Reason for the the Crucifixion

"Ya'hshuah (Jesus) died for our sins"
This is a basic tenet of the Christian faith whether you are Catholic, Baptist, or Jehovah's Witness. Ya'hshuah died for our sins. Strangely enough, since the time of Blessed Augustine this hasn't had a universal interpretation among Christians.

Here are the various theories of atonement:
Moral Influence
Substitutionary and Penal Substitution
Ransom
Christus Victor
Satisfaction


The ones in bold are the primary ones that I will be addressing.

The most common theory among Protestants is that Ya'hshuah died in place of us as a propitiation for our sins. You will not find this idea among the Church Fathers until the time of Augustine when juridical thinking had taken predominance in the Western Church (Rome). Augustine lived a loose existence in his youth, he had many mistresses, he drank, and was generally as hedonistic as most Roman pagans of the time. Through the influence of his mother, a Christian, he began to search for truth in Religion, but he did not become Orthodox (mainstream Christian) at first. First he was a gnostic. This is important to know because it provides insight into how he viewed sin, the world, and what hangups he carried into his supposed Orthodoxy. The Gnostic sect he entered believed that everything of this world, especially the human body is sinful, disgusting, and utterly depraved. This philosophy would appeal to him, because of his hedonistic youth and experience of how spiritually destructive such a life is. Eventually his mother convinced him on her deathbed to convert to the main body of the Church. Coming into the main body of the Church he continued to hold fast to judgmental juridical thinking out of a curious form of self hatred. He saw sin as a juridical infraction, a crime against God. This was not the view of the other Church Fathers nor is it in the etymology of the word sin. The literal meaning of sin is "missing the mark", the other Church fathers saw it as a sickness that separates us from God, not a crime to be punished, but falling short of our potential to be greater. Another philosophy of Augustine was inherited guilt of the Original Sin. According to Augustine, we are all guilty of Adam and Eve's disobedience. This view is still held by the Roman Church to this day. The Church Fathers on the other hand did not believe that man inherited the sin of our progenitors, but rather inherited the nature or potential to be sinful that until Adam ate of the tree was not in our nature.

Now, that I've covered the base of juridical thinking that comes from Augustine, I'm going to show how this became so prevalent in Western Christianity. First of all, the main body of the Church was not in Rome, but in Byzantium, the Christian kingdom that arose from the Eastern Roman Empire. Rome was but one Patriarchate of the ancient Church, there was also Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Rome was the only Patriarchate that spoke Latin, all others spoke Greek. This lead to a divide in communion between Rome and the other Patriarchates and theology. Rome had to rely on Latin speaking Church Fathers such as Jerome and Augustine, while the vast majority of theologians spoke and wrote in Greek. As the divide lengthened with doctrinal issues like the filioque and was finalized by the Crusades in which Western Christians murdered the Eastern Christians and sacked Constantinople, the Roman Church was cut off from the rest and left with limited resources on theology. Add in the dark ages and rampant illiteracy and you see a bottleneck in theology and ideas. Juridical thinking naturally would spread to the Protestant reformers because they knew no alternative. According to Luther we are "snow covered doves" and are made clean of our iniquities by the blood of Christ. Or as another modern Protestant put it rather eloquently "Jesus is our hazmat suit against the radioactive fury of God's justice". This ties into satisfaction and substitutionary theology which I will now address, showing them to be Western doctrines of men.

Juridical thinking is predominate at this point, because no other ideas are known. This gives rise to the idea that sin is a crime which God must punish instead of a sickness that separates us from the Father. This is where satisfaction soteriology; the belief that God must punish every sin, that he demands satisfaction for our iniquities. Enter Ya'hshuah, the way, the truth, and the life. Ya'hshuah according to this theory had to go to the cross as a propitiation for our sins, because God demands satisfaction for our iniquities and because "the wages of sin is death" Ya'hshuah had to die. There are numerous problems with this theory, but most important is that it makes God an obstacle we have to overcome to get to Heaven. This ties into penal substitution which is the extreme end of this view in that God absolutely has to punish someone for a sin. Simplified, this is like God getting so angry at us for being bad children that he just has to hit someone, so he takes his Son and beats him to death instead of us and then decides he doesn't have to hit anyone anymore and we can all just get along. This is completely unbiblical and was invented over a thousand years apart from Christianity's origins.

John 3:16 (New King James Version) 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Furthermore the concept of Propitiation is often promoted by mistranslations of the Greek text. Here is Romans 3:25 in the Western Christian Protestant King James Version: www.blueletterbible.org... If you click on the number after "Propitiation" in "Whom God hath sent forth as a propitiation" you will notice that the Greek word from which that was (mis)translated is "hilastērion", which means expiation. The distinction is important because it changes the meaning

Noun 1. propitiation - the act of placating and overcoming distrust and animosity placation, conciliation appeasement, calming - the act of appeasing (as by acceding to the demands of)

By saying propitiation you are saying that Ya'hshuah died to meet the demanded punishment for sin (satisfaction).

expiate [ˈɛkspɪˌeɪt] vb (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) (tr) to atone for or redress (sin or wrongdoing); make amends for

Notice the difference? I'll get to that.

As I said, this idea was foreign to the Church Fathers who mainly held to two ideas: the Ransom theory, and Christus Victor. Just as Penal Substitution is built on Satisfaction, Christus Victor is built on the Ransom theory. Now I'm going to show that the Crucifixion and sin are not to be understood in such juridical terms.

Let's take a look at sin and its origins. The first sin came from Adam and Eve's disobedience when they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. God forbid them from eating of the tree saying "on the day you eat of the tree you shall surely die". He is making an accurate statement, not laying down a commandment and future punishment, he does not say "on the day you eat of the tree I will kill you". This flies in the face of supporters of Satisfaction and Penal Substitutionists. God doesn't want us to sin, because it is bad for us, it is a sickness. Sin separated Adam and Eve from the source of life and good and thus brought them under the dominion of sin, death, and the devil, who is prince of this world. However, you might point out at this point that God does punish sin and spent the rest of the Old Testament punishing the wicked and chastising the Jews. Why does he do this if he doesn't require satisfaction or need to let off steam? You may as well be asking why a Messiah was necessary. We needed a Savior to bridge the gap between Man and the Father, Ya'hshuah came so "that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me". First, however, the Messiah had to be born and this could not occur until a woman righteous enough to bare him came to be. Sarah was the first candidate for this but Abraham messed around with his mistress to make a son instead of waiting for the "child of promise". Eventually a child was born unto him by Sarah, but he could not be the Messiah due to their disobedience. They did however produce the father of the people who would bare the Messiah, Isaac, father of the Jews. Enter Moses, favored by God and keeper of the covenant of Abraham and given "the Law". By him the Jews were chosen as God's Chosen People. What were they chosen for? The salvation of us all, but first they needed to be righteous enough to bare the Messiah, which is why they were given the Law. The Law set them apart from all other people and set a new standard of purity among them. They did not always keep the law, which is why God had to chastise them and destroy those who would destroy or corrupt them. It is important to remember that God's punishment, like that of any Father, is a corrective punishment not arbitrary juridical chastisement; there is purpose to it. Eventually after thousands of years of temporary glory, wickedness, exile, and return one came that was "blessed among women", Mariam. Mariam was the final culmination of obedience and an unbroken royal line from the house of David. She was in such synergy with the will of God that she among all women was able to undo the disobedience of Eve and bring Salvation into the world. She is Theotokos, God-bearer, and the one who completed the bridge back into Edin. The importance of the birth of the Messiah and the implications of the Crucifixion and resurrection are explained in Revelations 12

10 Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, “Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down. 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.

This shows that our obstacles that separates from God are sin, death, and the devil "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. The wages of sin are death and death was brought into the world via sin. So, when Ya'hshuah died, being sinless and divine, he could not be held by death and the law of sin and death that held all men who subjected themselves to sin and the devil by "falling short".

Now Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. He is our bridge back into Edin; our return to God. What sets Christus Victor apart from all other atonement theories is that it applies equal importance to both Crucifixion and Resurrection. Ransom theory holds that Ya'hshuah died to fulfill the law of sin and death as a ransom to the devil who could not hold him due to his perfection, this is only half the picture. Substitutionary atonement and Penal Substitution focus almost entirely on the Crucifixion and the pain Ya'hshuah suffered to placate the pissed off dad. Christus Victor sees the Crucifixion as a victory culminated in the resurrection. Ya'hshuah undid on the cross what Adam did in Edin, he made amends for us and freed us from sin, death, and the devil by destroying their power over us.

Through his resurrection that we must all take part in, we may be one in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Ya'hshuah is the way his atonement on the cross isn't the end in of itself but the start of the way. Ya'hshuah likens himself to the narrow path unto life, a path is meant to be followed, and he left us with instructions on how to take up our cross and follow him. Yes we are saved by faith, but that is simply the beginning of the path, Ya'hshuah would have us walk and start walking now, because it's quite a ways out of this world and back into Edin. For instance, let's say you are caught in a flood and a helicopter rescues you by lowering a ladder. You grab it and start climbing and you are currently in the middle. When it was lowered you were saved, as you are climbing you are being saved, when you get to the top you will be safe. You are only halfway up and there is no other ladder, if you fall off though you had the opportunity to be saved, you will not be saved unless you grab hold again.

When Paul says "we are justified by faith and not the works of the law" he is talking of Mosaic law, the purpose of which was fulfilled (completed) by Ya'hshuah. When James says "faith without works is dead" and "show me your faith without works and I will show you my faith by works" he is not contradicting Paul entirely. James was certainly more traditional, but conceded at the council of Jerusalem to not require circumcision of the Gentiles. This makes a clear distinction between what law must be upheld and what law is superceded. Ya'hshuah established a New Covenant which was established on the Ten Commandments and earlier Noachide laws, but taken to new levels and expectations. We are expected to follow this new path and crying Lord, Lord is simply not enough, because "faith without works is dead". Ya'hshuah's position is clear in that faith is only a part of the way, so is Paul contradicting Ya'hshuah? No, he set standards of Christian worship and living and told us to "walk in the light" which implies action and not faith alone. The old law is fulfilled and the Messiah has come, now we must leave this world and return to God.

Enter Ya'hshuah, the way, the truth, and the life. Ya'hshuah according to this theory had to go to the cross as a propitiation for our sins, because God demands satisfaction for our iniquities and because "the wages of sin is death" Ya'hshuah had to die. There are numerous problems with this theory, but most important is that it makes God an obstacle we have to overcome to get to Heaven. This ties into penal substitution which is the extreme end of this view in that God absolutely has to punish someone for a sin. Simplified, this is like God getting so angry at us for being bad children that he just has to hit someone, so he takes his Son and beats him to death instead of us and then decides he doesn't have to hit anyone anymore and we can all just get along.

Just as a side note... there is no way that I'm going to be able to match you're eloquence in presenting this information, but as long as I can get my idea across... that will be inconsequential.

Anyways, I agree with a lot of the ideas that you put forth. Although one thing that I feel you failed to mention (you might have mentioned this and I just didn't pick it up), was the whole point of why God had to sacrifice his son as opposed to any other human being. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God and took a bite from the fruit taken from the tree of knowledge, they essentially showed their sheer ingratitude towards their creator. God had to expel them from paradise specifically because they rejected it. At that point... humanity had just incurred a divine debt. It would be completely impossible for a mere human being to sacrifice himself to repay this debt. A divine sacrifice had to be made. The amazingness of this is that God loved us so much that he decided to come down and die for our sins. He Himself was the divine sacrifice.

A rather comical way to look at it is from Satan's perspective. Imagine how happy Satan was when he realized that he was finally the victor and was able to defeat God by killing him on earth... Then imagine how effin' pissed off he was when he realized that his whole plan backfired and he didn't kill God at all, but rather he helped God save humanity from himself! Hah... Satan's a jackass.

Ya'hshuah undid on the cross what Adam did in Edin, he made amends for us and freed us from sin, death, and the devil by destroying their power over us.

Exactly.

reply to post by kallisti36


That is a brilliant article, kallisti36, thanks for your explanation. It all makes sense to me!
Vicky

reply to post by kallisti36
How did Jesus fulfill the Law?
OK, that's one question, another one I may have that may not be on topic so much, is, What prophecies did Jesus fulfill? Did Jesus come to make a complete demonstration of what had been spelled out at Sinai?
If so, where on earth does it say anything like that in any part of the Bible?
I believe that Jesus rejected the religion of his day, but did not say that he was here to make a reformation, to take us back to Moses. He brought about a new religion and a new Law and a new God.
Thinking that somehow an angel in a bush saying "I am" is some ultimate revelation of God, in my opinion is utter foolishness and can not stand the scrutiny of a rational mind. There is absolutely no evidence, I believe, to justify the idea that the only true God, and the Father of Jesus is someone going by the name, YHVH, or whatever derivative of that sort of word that you choose to go with.
You people are lost and you need to find your way, somehow, back to Jesus, and leave the old notions of what a god is, in the dust bin of history. Dragging out the old goatskin to pour your new wine into will end with you in Hell, and excuse me and I mean no offense but God is your judge and the idea that you will be exempt from examination on that Great Day is the road to Hell. You must repent and become converted, or there is no reply that you will be able to give in answer to the accusations laid out before you and all the angels in Heaven.

reply to post by kallisti36

I enjoy your presentations and this one is almost flawless...
...with this exception...

The Ten commandments were not 'the law'...
...they were the words of the covenant under which 'the law' operated.

Exodus 34:28 "And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments."

So if the old covenant was the Ten Commandments...
...then the New Covenant can't be the Ten Commandments.

Hebrews 8:13 "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

The New Covenant is not a repackaged Old Covenant.


So there is a New Covenant that is not the Ten Commandments...
...under which 'the law' has been fulfilled.

The law was the external ceremonial/sacrificial elements...
...that were an exploded diagram of what would happen to Jesus when He 'dwelt (tented) among us...
...and having lived out the law that had been rehearsed in type and symbol for 1500 years...
...it was fulfilled.

The passion of Christ was the fulfilled law that is now in the hearts and minds of believers...
...who under this New Covenant are not longer 'under law' but 'led by the Spirit.

Galatians 5:18 "...if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law."

So your contention that we went from law to Christ and onward to law/ten commandments is flawed...
...and your missing element is union with the Spirit...
...who first reveals to us this Gospel and leads us in real-time.

reply to post by kallisti36


Agree for the most part, but here are some points that I think need to be discussed:

1- hilastērion, according to the Liddel/Scott lexicon, means "the mercy seat" or place of sacrifice to take away sins. So I can agree that it means "to make amends", but then one wonders why such amends had to take particular forms according to the sin. That is, various sacrifices were needed for different offenses. If it were simply a matter of making amends then one would expect a single type of sacrifice in every case.

2- Re. ransom (antilutron), consider 1 Tim. 2:5-6-- "For there is one God and one mediator between God and people: the person Anointed Jesus, who gave himself as the ransom payment for all as a testimony at the right time." Related words/concepts can be found in Gal. 3:13 and 1 Peter 1:18. Clearly the NT portrays the idea of payment for wrongs committed as at least part of the reason for Jesus' death.

3- Re. the "fall of man", I agree with the concept of separation from God and life, and that both Adam and Eve received what they were warned about. Yet there is another sin committed by Adam alone: rebellion against God, when he blamed his sin on Eve directly and God indirectly for making her. Eve was tricked into eating the fruit but Adam was not; neither is there any support for the often-made charge of Eve tempting him. THAT is where we get the cursed ground (since Adam was made from it) and why Adam alone (check the Hebrew) was to be driven out of Eden. Eve chose to follow him, just as God predicted (it was not a command or curse), and the rest is history. It's very plausible that had Eve chosen to stay, it would have been she who would give birth to the Messiah.

Another purpose of Jesus' death was to free the Jews from the "curse of the law", a law they never could keep for very long. God had made a unilateral promise to Abram/Abraham, and as Heb. 9:16-17 says, "In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living." So in order for the Promise to take effect, the death of the testator-- God Himself-- had to be legally established. This is what all the animal sacrifices pointed to, and why Jesus was crucified at the very day and time that the Passover lambs were being slain.

4- Re. Christians' relationship to the old law, again I appeal to the writer of Hebrews, esp. chapter 7. We are told that "with a change of priesthood comes a change of law", and since Jesus is not in the order of Levi but of Melchizedek, no part of the old law can apply-- as Jesus also explained in his illustration of the old and new wineskins. Now we are under the law of love, "because love does no harm to its neighbor" (Rom. 13:10), and all our righteousness comes from being "in Christ".

reply to post by jmdewey60


Repackaged Marcionism?
I do believe I stressed the importance of the new covenant and how the old one is completed. So, other than accepting the God of the Israelites as the same God and Father of Ya'hshuah (as is evident in His own words), how have I offended you?

reply to post by kallisti36

Repackaged Marcionism?

A derogatory pronouncement that needs no elaboration?
Marcion was a prominent person among the organic Christianity, before there was an official orthodoxy established. My observation of how government works would make me believe that he was more likely correct in his reflection of what normal Christianity was, and the later orthodoxy that was put together to combat the religion of ordinary believers would have been a highly distorted interpretation and would reflect the desires of a political organization with its own agenda, and not for the purpose of the spiritual enlightenment of men.
If Marcionism was somehow just an aberration, why was it so difficult for the powers that be to stamp it out? My answer would be that this is evidence that he was not an aberration but just someone with the wherewithal to make a good description of what it was that he was involved in.

reply to post by kallisti36

. . and how the old one is completed.

Well, good question.
I re-read your initial post and I have to think that your major offense was having a serious subject, where most threads seem so frivolous to me that I feel no need to even read them, much less to comment on them. So I probably took the opportunity to vent a little and I did not mean most of it to apply to you personally.
Probably what set me off is this one concept, that I quote in this post. I don't think the mission of Jesus was to prove the righteousness of the Mosaic law, by following it, perfectly, or anything else of the kind. I think he had a real disdain for all of it except for the Passover, which he seemed rather keen on.
I find your description of "the Jews" as representing the Israelites inaccurate to a very annoying degree.
And how do you get the idea that the mother of Jesus carried the blood of David, or whatever, when it seems clear enough that she was in a priestly family?

reply to post by SaberTruth


You wrote:

["and since Jesus is not in the order of Levi but of Melchizedek, no part of the old law can apply"]

How is that? Melchizedek functioned as a shyster in the old contract-contexts too.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by kallisti36

 

Repackaged Marcionism?

A derogatory pronouncement that needs no elaboration?
Marcion was a prominent person among the organic Christianity, before there was an official orthodoxy established. My observation of how government works would make me believe that he was more likely correct in his reflection of what normal Christianity was, and the later orthodoxy that was put together to combat the religion of ordinary believers would have been a highly distorted interpretation and would reflect the desires of a political organization with its own agenda, and not for the purpose of the spiritual enlightenment of men.
If Marcionism was somehow just an aberration, why was it so difficult for the powers that be to stamp it out? My answer would be that this is evidence that he was not an aberration but just someone with the wherewithal to make a good description of what it was that he was involved in.

edit on 18-6-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Marcion of Sinope was considerably removed from all of the events of the gospels, unlike St. Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch who were taught by apostles in the early Christian centers. They reflect a much more "organic" Christianity than a rogue Presbyter from Rome. Marcion's ideas are somewhat easy to come by if you only give the OT a cursory reading and can't reconcile the Father of Ya'hshuah with the God of the Israelites. However, it is evidently clear from the text that they are the same. You have constant references to the prophets, to Moses, Ya'hshuah's claim to be the Messiah, and direct references to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So, Marcion used a heavily edited version of Luke (a very Gentile Gospel; also not written by one of the twelve), invented his own cosmology, and wouldn't permit his flock to read anything else.

His teaching "was stamped out", because it was divisive and dangerous to Orthodoxy and as self assured as it might sound, the truth. It's revisionist history, nay revisionist Christ and that is something that must never happen. To this day we have people capitalizing on this confusion to write asinine titillating books to undermine Christianity and make money. This is the legacy of Marcion.

reply to post by jmdewey60


"Do not think I have come to destroy the law, I have not come to destroy but to fulfill (complete)"

reply to post by troubleshooter


The New Covenant as shown in Matthew 5-7 and scattered through Luke and Mark is built on the 10 commandments "You have heard it said (old law), but I say (new law expanding on the old)". I didn't mean to imply that Mosaic Law was still in effect, rather it has fulfilled its purpose in bringing forth the Messiah.

reply to post by kallisti36

"Do not think I have come to destroy the law, I have not come to destroy but to fulfill (complete)"

If you look at the context of that verse, you would see that it could not be referring to the statutory Law spelled out in the Books of Moses, but was of fundamental law which he went on to spell out, according to his own understanding.
You still can not explain how Jesus did this wonderful and miraculous keeping of every imaginable law, and what could be found in those books handed down purporting to have been written by Moses himself.

reply to post by kallisti36

His teaching "was stamped out", because it was divisive and dangerous to Orthodoxy. . .

I think you make my point for me, that orthodoxy means: a bland, politically correct, Jew-friendly, not thinking for yourself, accepting what you are told to believe, type religion.

reply to post by kallisti36

You have constant references to the prophets, to Moses, Ya'hshuah's claim to be the Messiah. . .

I typed into the Google search box: Jesus claims to be the Messiah, and got a web site that breaks it down and the first two references were to the Samaritan woman and to Peter. In the first, she says, "I know that the Messiah will come. . ." but it does not mention how she knows that. In the second, Jesus replies to Peter's proclamation, "You did not learn this from men. . .". He did not say, "Yahweh told you this through the Book." He said, "My Father told you this." So there is no direct connection between the Old Testament and Jesus accepting from certain people, the description of the Messiah.
After the fact, Peter would preach that the resurrection of Jesus was foretold by David, concerning, supposedly, his descendants. It could be that the Pentecost Spirit caused him to see that there was a connection that could be made, and one that would be useful when speaking to a gathering of men to a Jewish festival. I don't think that you can use backwards reasoning to use the verses in Psalms to prove that it was actually Yahweh who raised him from the dead because you can possibly find that name in there.
I believe that Peter was making a point about how God loved his Son, and was not making the point that whatever the conventional understanding of the identity of God was in the time of David, was just proven correct, with the new information that in fact Jesus was resurrected.

Luke 24:26-28

He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christb have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Luke 2:25-38--

Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. ...

There was also a prophetess, Anna, ... Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.

Notice in these two passages that people were expected to be knowledgeable about the promised Messiah through the OT scriptures. It wasn't just Simeon and Anna who knew about this; their special revelations were about being told they would see the Messiah before they died.

Now we have to consider that the vast majority of English Bible translations today are based on the Masoretic text, which post-dates the NT by several centuries. Prior to that was a rival to the LXX that the rabbis made deliberately to keep Christians from using the OT to prove Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus and the people of his time used the original LXX as their authoritative scriptures, and these clearly showed Jesus to have fulfilled them.

I keep hearing words like "clearly" but I don't see how it is clear.
Anointed by God, for something, but what?
Not for what they may have expected, probably coming up with some sort of theory about what the Messiah would be. A king who would destroy all his enemies, like a heroic warrior, single handedly crushing the sculls of individual soldiers, a whole big battlefield of them, then going to a nearby creek and taking a drink, and being refreshed as if he had just taken a bit of a walk.
Jesus was anointed in the physical world by a prophet who would have none of it, and then was spiritually anointed by the presence of God, for a special mission. A mission unknown to the religionists of the day, and one he struggled constantly for years to get across. What good did their book knowledge do them?, nothing.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I keep hearing words like "clearly" but I don't see how it is clear.
Anointed by God, for something, but what?
Not for what they may have expected, probably coming up with some sort of theory about what the Messiah would be. A king who would destroy all his enemies, like a heroic warrior, single handedly crushing the sculls of individual soldiers, a whole big battlefield of them, then going to a nearby creek and taking a drink, and being refreshed as if he had just taken a bit of a walk.
Jesus was anointed in the physical world by a prophet who would have none of it, and then was spiritually anointed by the presence of God, for a special mission. A mission unknown to the religionists of the day, and one he struggled constantly for years to get across. What good did their book knowledge do them?, nothing.

The point is that people were looking for the Messiah, and that Jesus used the OT to show them all the scriptures that pointed to him as that Messiah. He was anointed to do exactly what Jesus said in Luke 4:18-19--

The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.

Jesus was the living, breathing communication (the meaning of "Word") that explained it all. But note that Jesus stopped short in that quote of Isaiah; continue reading in ch. 61 there for the full original text. He came to do the part he read; the rest would come later. First he came as the sacrificial lamb, but next he will come as the conquering king. Knowing these two fulfillments solves the paradox of the various scriptures saying one thing or the other.

But Jesus rebuked people for not knowing, so as I said, it must have been clear in the OT before the rabbis got hold of it and obscured it. What good it did the people to see Jesus was that he showed by example and taught whoever would listen what the Messiah was all about.

The reason for anything left unrevealed was explained later by Paul in 1 Cor. 2:6-8--

We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

reply to post by SaberTruth

...Jesus used the OT to show them all the scriptures that pointed to him as that Messiah.

Jesus just about gets killed, but for an apparent miracle that probably made him invisible to the town's people, and was able to leave and go back home.
There is a reason that he got that sort of treatment and that was he picked up the scroll and was saying things from it and he looks to have thrown in some other parts from the same section of Isaiah, that fit into his idea of what he was about. The reason they were offended was that he stopped short of anything that would identify the recipients of these blessings as being only the Jews. The implication being, that it would actually be the people they thought of as the heathen who would be participants, while they liked so much the parts where it said that the nations would be their servants, as they became the rulers of the world.
So Jesus took their own scriptures and turned them up side down in front of them, which put them into a murderous rage.