Interplanner
Well-known member
Since the loss of independence in 330 BC, intertestment Israel looked for a restored monarchy. The desecration by Antiochus was insulting, but the event that matters most to the mood of the NT was the census of 4 or 6 AD.
The Roman pivoting arrangement was bad enough. The temple tax made the Romans believe that the Jews were worshiping Roman deities, at least enough to tolerate them, and their own at their temple at the same time. It was uneasy. It was not helped by the difficult paranoid persona of Herod, the one who built the huge temple, Caesarea's port, etc., but also slaughtered in Bethlehem. But when the census happened, it triggered a revolt in Galilee, noted in Acts 5:32.
From that point on, the Galileans were spoken of not merely due to dialect, nor as less intelligent fishermen, but as potential disruptors, insurrectionists, etc. Oddly, Christ chose many from there.
They wanted a monarchy Christ. That is what Peter thought he was acclaiming in his confession, but not Christ. Christ immediately told him that his people would be one day built on Peter, but that church would in turn be built on the facts of his death and resurrection. It implies a huge change in Peter.
But the momentum of seeking a monarchy Christ had so much force that Peter is compelled to take him aside and tell him 'this will never happen.' People who say things like this are saying they intend to interfere, to change the outcome, etc.
So what did God do then? He hid the meaning of the death and resurrection from the disciples. This is repeated several times in Mark and Luke, however, in Matthew we only find them full of grief. I think that it is a self-absorbed sorrow. It is still hidden in the arrest scene, where Peter decides to protect Christ. "That's enough" says Christ and heals the victim.
After the Gospel event had happened, and he was raised, he gave the extensive training in what the OT was actually about, so that by Pentecost we find Peter, empowered by the Spirit, teaching that the resurrection was truly the enthronement of Christ in Ps 16 because of his accomplishment for those who are near and those who are far off. It was not about a monarchy but about the mission of God to the nations.
The Roman pivoting arrangement was bad enough. The temple tax made the Romans believe that the Jews were worshiping Roman deities, at least enough to tolerate them, and their own at their temple at the same time. It was uneasy. It was not helped by the difficult paranoid persona of Herod, the one who built the huge temple, Caesarea's port, etc., but also slaughtered in Bethlehem. But when the census happened, it triggered a revolt in Galilee, noted in Acts 5:32.
From that point on, the Galileans were spoken of not merely due to dialect, nor as less intelligent fishermen, but as potential disruptors, insurrectionists, etc. Oddly, Christ chose many from there.
They wanted a monarchy Christ. That is what Peter thought he was acclaiming in his confession, but not Christ. Christ immediately told him that his people would be one day built on Peter, but that church would in turn be built on the facts of his death and resurrection. It implies a huge change in Peter.
But the momentum of seeking a monarchy Christ had so much force that Peter is compelled to take him aside and tell him 'this will never happen.' People who say things like this are saying they intend to interfere, to change the outcome, etc.
So what did God do then? He hid the meaning of the death and resurrection from the disciples. This is repeated several times in Mark and Luke, however, in Matthew we only find them full of grief. I think that it is a self-absorbed sorrow. It is still hidden in the arrest scene, where Peter decides to protect Christ. "That's enough" says Christ and heals the victim.
After the Gospel event had happened, and he was raised, he gave the extensive training in what the OT was actually about, so that by Pentecost we find Peter, empowered by the Spirit, teaching that the resurrection was truly the enthronement of Christ in Ps 16 because of his accomplishment for those who are near and those who are far off. It was not about a monarchy but about the mission of God to the nations.
