One of the pillars of Judaism, in which it differs significantly from Christianity, is the hope and faith that the Messaiah is yet to come.
[Christianity seems to have given up on waiting for that event, and redigested some upchuck from Mithraism to argue that it has already happened, it was a life-altering experience, and you never loved them anyhow. Juvenile angst or something. As they grow up they might get over it.]
Judaism holds that the Messiah will come when there is the most need for him, to restore the kingdom and the house of David to glory. More or less.
What is one to make of this? We say bimhaira biyameinu, speedily and in our time, but do we really want that to happen?
It will mean the end of faith if it does.
It will also redeem a lineage whose signal redeeming quality is that it derives from a series of kings -- who both collectively and as individuals were not particularly exemplary.
Let's review, shall we?
David: Adulterer and murderer. Didn't build the Temple.
Solomon: Polygamist and 'accidental' heathen. Built Temple.
Rehovoam: Responsible for the division of the kingdom. Both morally and spiritually bankrupt.
Abiyam: Daddy's boy, 'nuff said.
[Update, Thursday May tenth: Regarding Aviyam, Steg ((dos iz nit der šteg) http://boroparkpyro.blogspot.com/ has a very good post, and a pertinent observation about this name: http://boroparkpyro.blogspot.com/2007/05/nomen-omen-theophorica-wanax.html
Read it, and leave a comment underneath to let him know you where there.]
Asa: Decent fellow, albeit somewhat unremarkable otherwise.
Yehoshafat: Very decent fellow.
Yehoram: Not a decent fellow at all.
Ahaziyah: Offensive idolater and mama's boy.
Ataliyah: Murderous interregentess, Ahazia's mom. Daughter of Jezebel, and a daemon worshipper.
Yehoash: Reign started with matricide, continued on to kohenicide, and finished with idolatry.
Amaziyah: Employed mercenaries to whack the Edomites. Then ruined the effect by worshipping Edomite idols.
Utziyah: Popularly appointed to replace his father Amaziyah. His successes made him arrogant, and he committed sacrilege in the temple with incense, in consequence of which became leprous (untouchable).
Yotam: Not a remarkable man, but probably a good man.
Ahaz: Headstrong and degenerate. There is nothing good to report about his reign. But at least he was not afflicted with tzaaras, unlike his grandfather
Hezekiya: A king worthy of praise, who was in many ways admirable. He sought to eradicate heathen behaviours that had crept in, and reassert independence from the Assyrians.
Menashe: Upon his succession at twelve years of age he promptly undid the good works of his father. Imprisonment by the Assyrians may have made a man out of him - he abandoned idolatry and got his kingdom back. He is not counted as a splendid success, even though his reign was longer than most.
Amon: Degenerate idolater.
Yoshiyahu: A reformer who got rid of much idolatry, who was both a good man and God-fearing. His reign ended badly for him and his people.
Yehoahaz: An idolater who was taken captive by the Egyptians. He died in exile.
Yehoyakim: Half-sibling to Yehoahaz, whom he replaced at the behest of the Egyptians. He was a book burner and tyrant whom the Babylonians waged war against. His body was disposed of with a marked lack of respect.
Yehoyachin: Son of Yehoyakim. Other than that he was hauled off to captivity in Babylon, there is little worth saying about him.
Tzidkiyahu: Brother of Yehoahaz and Yehoyakim. He was brought to power by the Babylonians, but conspired with Egypt against them, because of which Jerusalem was destroyed, his children were slaughtered before his eyes, and his eyes were then put out. He remained a captive the rest of his life in Babylon.
Shealtiel: Son of Yehoyachin. Heir to the kingdom of Judah, which remained in Babylonian hands.
Zarubavel: Grandson of Yehoyachin, who returned with the exiles from Bavel. Last royal of the line of David.
All in all, a line remarkable for the sheer number of idolaters and their misrule. One can well imagine why the exiles in Bavel dreamt of a restoration - there was much in need of restoring.
Clearly the promise of the redeemer is a question of faith - not only in the rectification of the world, but also in the rectification of a family.
Perhaps the family of David is a paradigm for all families, the tribe a paradigm of all tribes, the events that culminate in the redemption a paradigm of events.
The prophets have seized upon the redeemer as a rhetorical device for simultaneously castigating the Israelites while promising a relief from injustice. Carrot and stick.
On the other hand, the reason for the continuing hope for the redeemer is probably not all that different from why the Israelites wanted a king in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
FOG CAUSES FITS
When I woke up on Tuesday the fog was thick enough to cut it with a knife. Much much later it had disappeared. My late lunch in Chinatown wa...
3 comments:
On the other hand, the reason for the continuing hope for the redeemer is probably not all that different from why the Israelites wanted a king in the first place.
Are you trying to be our Samuel, telling us we will wish we hadn't asked for one?
The House of David-just another disfunctional family.
"[Christianity seems to have given up on waiting for that event, and redigested some upchuck from Mithraism to argue that it has already happened, it was a life-altering experience, and you never loved them anyhow. Juvenile angst or something. As they grow up they might get over it.]" Eh, right. Just totally ignore the fact that the entire New Testament was written HUNDREDS OF YEARS before Constantine introduced mithraism into Christianity, and that many African and Middle Eastern Christians have never been under the Roman Catholic or Orthodox traditions (although regrettably a great many non - Catholic/Orthodox Christians in those areas were wiped out by the "religion of peace" Islam).
Post a Comment