T
The_Preacher
Guest
The issue is not the etamology of the word, but the common understanding of it’s implication at the time of it’s use. By example, I’m quite sure the present, and unfortunate use of the word “hoe” has nothing to do with it’s origine. That’s my professional field these last twenty years, the social setting (“sits in laben” to be fancy-smancy) of the writing of the Bible. At the time of Jesus, indeed since the exile, Messia would have been understood as nothing other than that decendent of King David, sent and empowered (anointed) specifically by God, to reestablish God’s rightful dominion. And incidendently give the Romans their comeuppings, the Babalonians having faided into history. By example, the Church formally seperated itself from Jeudism in 70 AD when the leaders of the rebellion declaired their general the messiah, an unacceptable transgression of the Christ’s perogative.I read the responses Muslim Woman provided, they rely on the Bible for a partial answer. I’m not really sure there is an Islamic source that reveals what Muhammad would have understood the Messiah to mean.
Ibn Kathir, who analyzed the Title linguistically, suggested that the Arabic root of Messiah means to “touch,” and so it refers to Jesus’ power to heal. It is true that the Messiah would possess such powers, but to say this is why Jesus is the Messiah is wrong.
Messiah means Anointed One, and as the Islamic responses note, Kings, Prophets, and Priests were anointed. The Messiah however, would be all three, He would be a King, a Prophet, and a Priest. And there are Messianic prophecies in the OT that reveal the Messiah would be a Divine Savior.
God bless,
Tomasz