Simonia

–

Or is the idea that holy spirit was the true anointing substance of which oil was only a type?

Indeed. The anointing of Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit by God the Father is an allusion to Psa. 45:6–7 wherein David describes God [the Father] anointing God [the Son] with the “oil of gladness”:

⁶ O’ God, your throne is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a right scepter. ⁷ You loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore, O’ God, your God anointed you with the oil of gladness more than your companions.

The LXX translates the Hebrew by the Greek ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεω (elaion agalliaseō). The Greek word ἀγαλλιάσεω is declined from the lemma ἀγαλλίασις. The Holy Spirit is referred to as “oil” because it is used to anoint; moreover, it is the oil of “gladness” because its anointing produces gladness (ἀγαλλίασις) in the believer. Earlier, in Acts 2, the apostle Peter exhorted the unbelievers,

³⁸ Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Those who received his word were baptized, likewise receiving the Holy Spirit, and that same Holy Spirit produced in them gladness. Hence, it is written,

⁴⁶ And they, continuing daily in one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, ate their food with gladness (ἀγαλλιάσει) and simplicity of heart,

Augustine explained why Jesus of Nazareth was called “Christ,” making reference to the same Psalms:²

Who is there, no matter how slow, but must here recognize Christ whom we preach, and in whom we believe, if he hears that He is God, whose throne is forever and ever, and that He is anointed by God, as God indeed anoints, not with a visible, but with a spiritual and intelligible chrism? For who is so untaught in this religion, or so deaf to its far and wide spread fame, as not to know that Christ is named from this chrism, that is, from this anointing?

Quis non hic Christum, quem praedicamus et in quem credimus, quamlibet sit tardus, agnoscat, cum audiat Deum, cuius sedes est in saecula saeculorum, et unctum a Deo, utique sicut unguit Deus, non visibili, sed spiritali atque intellegibili chrismate? Quis enim tam rudis est in hac religione vel tam surdus adversus eius famam longe lateque diffusam, ut Christum a chrismate, hoc est ab unctione appellatum esse non noverit?

Another question:

And was Jesus being anointed as king of Israel?

Yes, he was, but not king of “Israel according to the flesh” (ὁ Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα),³ but rather, king of Israel according to the spirit (ὁ Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ πνεῦμα),⁴ the “Israel of God.”⁵

The Early Church Fathers noticed such a distinction. Augustine wrote,⁶

Therefore, this spiritual Israel is distinguished from that carnal Israel (which is of one nation) by newness of grace, not by nobility of descent, and by mind, not by race.

Hic ergo Israel spiritalis ab illo Israele carnali, qui est unius gentis, novitate gratiae, non nobilitate patriae, et mente non gente distinguitur.

Likewise, in his Homily on 1 Corinthians, concerning 1 Cor. 10:18, John Chrysostom wrote,⁷

“Behold Israel according to the flesh: have not those who eat the sacrifices communion with the altar?” Again, from the old covenant he leads them to this point also. For because they were far beneath the greatness of the things which had been spoken, he persuades them both from former things and from those to which they were accustomed. And he well says well, “according to the flesh,” as though they themselves were according to the Spirit.

Βλέπετε τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα· οὐχ οἱ ἐσθίοντες τὰς θυσίας κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου εἰσί; Πάλιν ἀπὸ τῆς Παλαιᾶς καὶ εἰς τοῦτο ἐνάγει. Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ πολὺ τοῦ μεγέθους τῶν λεχθέντων ἦσαν ταπεινότεροι, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν προτέρων αὐτοὺς καὶ συνήθων πείθει. Καὶ καλῶς, Κατὰ σάρκα, φησὶν, ὡς αὐτῶν κατὰ πνεῦμα ὄντων.

Footnotes

¹ Psa. 45:6–7 (KJV)
² Book 17, Ch. 16, p. 549
³ 1 Cor. 10:18
⁴ The apostle Paul’s explicit mention of an “Israel according to the flesh,” or carnal Israel, implies the existence of an antithetical Israel according to the spirit, or spiritual Israel. Jesus of Nazareth explicitly stated that “my kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). As his kingdom is not of this world, neither is his people Israel; rather, they are spiritual.
⁵ Gal. 6:16
⁶ Book 3, Ch. 34, §49, p. 85
⁷ Homily 24, Ch. 2, p. 201

References

Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis. “De Civitate Dei.” Patrologiæ Cursus Completus: Series Prima. Ed. Migne, Jacques Paul. Vol. 41. Petit-Montrouge: Imprimerie Catholique, 1845.

Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis. “De Doctrina Christiana.” Patrologiæ Cursus Completus: Series Prima. Ed. Migne, Jacques Paul. Vol. 34. Petit-Montrouge: Imprimerie Catholique, 1845.

John Chrysostom (Ἰωάννης ὁ Χρυσόστομος). “ὉΜΙΛΊΑ ΚΔʹ.” Patrologiæ Cursus Completus: Series Græca Prior. Ed. Migne, Jacques Paul. Vol. 61. Petit-Montrouge: Imprimerie Catholique, 1862.

Kaaba

In Quran there is no claim that Abraham built Kaaba in Mecca.

Muslim interpreters base their claim on verse 2:127

2:127 And when Abraham and Ishmael were raising the foundations of the Temple, [they prayed:] “O our Sustainer! Accept Thou this from us: for, verily, Thou alone art all-hearing, all-knowing!

the Temple here is the translation of البيت (Beit). We see no mention to Kaaba, but to Beit. But muslim interpreters say that Beit in this verse refers to Kaaba.

The traditional interpreters also base there claim upon another verse.

3:196 Behold, the first Temple ever set up for mankind was indeed the one at Bakkah: rich in blessing, and a [source of] guidance unto all the worlds,

Again, we see that Temple in this verse is the translation of Arabic البيت (Beit), which claimed it was built at Bakkah ببكة . Interpreters claim that the letter ب (bi) that precede the word Bakkah is a preposition of place, that is it is referes to a place where this beit was built. This is false, because the letter ب is not used as a preposition of place in this way. The preposition في (fi) should was used in this case. They also claim that Bakkah in this verse refers to Makkah (Mecca), because in Arabic one can change letter M to B. This is flagrant lie, because in Arabic one never can change letter M to B. Yes, in Arabic one can change letter Qaf to Kaf and vice versa or letter Sin to Shin and vice versa, but never letter Mim to Baa.

Now, what is meant by Beit in these two verses?

Without any doubt Beit here is Beit Al-Maqdis, derived from Hebrew Beit HaMikdash, or in English Holy Temple / Scared Temple located in Jerusalem, where Beit means Temple.

Jesús es rey de reyes y señor de señores, en latín, Iesus est rex regum et dominus dominantium. Otra manera de decirlo, Iesus rex regum dominusque dominorum est. Cuando usas -que, debe ir despues de la palabra que “et” precedería. Por ejemplo, “senatus populusque romanus” = Senatus et populus romanus”. Dominus dominorum = Señor de señores. Dominus dominantium = Señor de los que dominan temporalmente

When you use -que, it must go after the word “et” would precede. For instance, “Senatus Populusque Romanus” = Senatus et Populus Romanus”. Dominus dominorum = Lord of lords. Dominus dominantium = Lord of those who temporarily dominate

Sharing is caringFacebookX / TwitterLinkedInWhatsAppTelegramRedditEmail1314 words · 206 views