E
EarlyActs
Guest
To mention the Zealots in the background of Jesus' time is to take a huge step about establishing context. I was reminded of this especially when viewing the Philips/Zefirelli script again where Barrabbas meets Jesus at a temple pool (4h 7min) to inform him that "everything was ready" to form a coherent attack against Romans.
Jesus told him that he needed to forgive his enemies. If we just take that expression by itself universally, we could miss what is going on. We might conclude with Riley that "Christianity applied is socialism." For one thing, we had just been shown an important understanding by Jesus about his mission. He was going to be killed and resurrected, and that was by plan. This crashed all thought that he was trying to be the king or a king.
We can compare this to rumors that he might ruin the temple. The script has him tell a ruler "Destroy this temple, and I can raise it again in 3 days."
In both cases, the script has Judas take exception to Jesus, to plant in Judas a reason for betrayal. If Judas was the first redistributionist, he just got his reason.
So in this sense, the script is extremely useful because it tells the disciples (and us, and Judas) that they would not understand about the death and rising again until later. And it has Jesus tell Barrabbas (at the most strategic time for uprising) the same basis in the Gospel: "I have come to bear the sins of the world; anyone who follows me must also bear their sins." Granted, the 2nd sense is not the same.
So we see from this that they are sins; that's confirmed. And God take vengeance in His time, but it was not for Barrabbas to take. Nor was it practical--it was naive for the Zealots to try. That was the reality of that time period. To have to "die by the sword" was the only direction it could go.
Earlier in the script, there is a further demonstration of the naivete. A group of Zealots are executed for an attempt on Herod Antipas' life. As he is dying, one yells back: "if you take our lives, 1000 will follow after us." They did try that too, and lost them all in the Great Revolt.
Jesus' Gospel and mission was an offer to Israel that would take them beyond the losses of their lack of independence.
But in the truth of the Gospel was the seed that needed to change men's hearts to grant freedom to and honor property of all people. It would take time. Romans 13, for ex., would describe government authority as a lowly servant of the governed, meant to treat all people fairly, thus holding the king (Caesar) responsible to God, which the apostles had done early on.
In the 2nd cent. of the church a bishop in Little Asia was asked by a Roman administrator what to do about the futile direction of food and circuses (socialist economy) and the reply was the Christian doctrine of 'self-rule' of each household. The PATRIOT'S HISTORY, (Schweiker and Allen) p31, shows that these things were repeated in the Mayflower Compact.
So for a strategically overwhelmed and pain-ridden Zealot, in the 1st generation after Jesus, Jesus was right. But eventually, substantial reform for government was taught, in which households/families were highly self-reliant, and government served and protected that.
Jesus told him that he needed to forgive his enemies. If we just take that expression by itself universally, we could miss what is going on. We might conclude with Riley that "Christianity applied is socialism." For one thing, we had just been shown an important understanding by Jesus about his mission. He was going to be killed and resurrected, and that was by plan. This crashed all thought that he was trying to be the king or a king.
We can compare this to rumors that he might ruin the temple. The script has him tell a ruler "Destroy this temple, and I can raise it again in 3 days."
In both cases, the script has Judas take exception to Jesus, to plant in Judas a reason for betrayal. If Judas was the first redistributionist, he just got his reason.
So in this sense, the script is extremely useful because it tells the disciples (and us, and Judas) that they would not understand about the death and rising again until later. And it has Jesus tell Barrabbas (at the most strategic time for uprising) the same basis in the Gospel: "I have come to bear the sins of the world; anyone who follows me must also bear their sins." Granted, the 2nd sense is not the same.
So we see from this that they are sins; that's confirmed. And God take vengeance in His time, but it was not for Barrabbas to take. Nor was it practical--it was naive for the Zealots to try. That was the reality of that time period. To have to "die by the sword" was the only direction it could go.
Earlier in the script, there is a further demonstration of the naivete. A group of Zealots are executed for an attempt on Herod Antipas' life. As he is dying, one yells back: "if you take our lives, 1000 will follow after us." They did try that too, and lost them all in the Great Revolt.
Jesus' Gospel and mission was an offer to Israel that would take them beyond the losses of their lack of independence.
But in the truth of the Gospel was the seed that needed to change men's hearts to grant freedom to and honor property of all people. It would take time. Romans 13, for ex., would describe government authority as a lowly servant of the governed, meant to treat all people fairly, thus holding the king (Caesar) responsible to God, which the apostles had done early on.
In the 2nd cent. of the church a bishop in Little Asia was asked by a Roman administrator what to do about the futile direction of food and circuses (socialist economy) and the reply was the Christian doctrine of 'self-rule' of each household. The PATRIOT'S HISTORY, (Schweiker and Allen) p31, shows that these things were repeated in the Mayflower Compact.
So for a strategically overwhelmed and pain-ridden Zealot, in the 1st generation after Jesus, Jesus was right. But eventually, substantial reform for government was taught, in which households/families were highly self-reliant, and government served and protected that.