Interplanner
Well-known member
Although I have heard the criticism that this depiction denies the deity of Christ (I'm not sure where the language is on that), the historic background is strong. In the 3-4th decade in Jerusalem, the way for the Sanhedrin to stop a movement was to find a similarity to what had happened with Judas the Galilean of 6 AD, accuse the person of sedition to Roman admins, and that pretty much solved it.
The apostles were not as astute on this as was the Sanhedrin. So in a dinner scene, Jesus tries to answer the request about reigning in his kingdom. The request by a few of the disciples is for certain seats/positions within it. Jesus goes ballistic that they are thinking this way, and Judas especially now knows he has misunderstood things from the beginning.
It is that kind of scene that our 2P2P friends should note. It is not found in the NT--that there would be a Judaistic theocracy. In fact, as the decades move to the 6-7th, it is Judaism's zealots who harden themselves in thinking so, and force the conflict with Rome, which otherwise is not found among the apostles teaching.
Once again, this comes to a head in the terminology of Luke about cleansing the temple. He says there that the temple had become a place of 'leistes' for which 'thieves' is not the first choice in translation, because there are many apolitical thieves. There has to be an insurrectionist or insurgent or terrorist element. The money exchangers at the temple seemed to have been raising money for a revolt!
The apostles were not as astute on this as was the Sanhedrin. So in a dinner scene, Jesus tries to answer the request about reigning in his kingdom. The request by a few of the disciples is for certain seats/positions within it. Jesus goes ballistic that they are thinking this way, and Judas especially now knows he has misunderstood things from the beginning.
It is that kind of scene that our 2P2P friends should note. It is not found in the NT--that there would be a Judaistic theocracy. In fact, as the decades move to the 6-7th, it is Judaism's zealots who harden themselves in thinking so, and force the conflict with Rome, which otherwise is not found among the apostles teaching.
Once again, this comes to a head in the terminology of Luke about cleansing the temple. He says there that the temple had become a place of 'leistes' for which 'thieves' is not the first choice in translation, because there are many apolitical thieves. There has to be an insurrectionist or insurgent or terrorist element. The money exchangers at the temple seemed to have been raising money for a revolt!