Did the Pharisees support revolting against Rome in the First and Second Roman-Jewish wars?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Curious11

Guest
Well did they? And why exactly did Christians fail to support the first one if they were reportedly being persecuted by the Roman Empire?
 
Yes I did, but in general it doesn’t really specify what their role was.
 
Well, in short, because the Christians already knew to get out of Jerusalem before A.D. 70. Some accounts claim they received a supernatural message, but probably more likely they recognized the impending Roman attack as a fulfillment of the Lord’s words about the “end times.”

Further, by this time (and this is a guess), St. Paul would have written his statements about the legitimacy of civil authority, and likely keeping this in mind and Jesus’ admonition to give to Caesar, Christians had little stake in overthrowing imperial authority.

And finally, there was no Roman persecution of Christians in Judea. The Palestinian persecutions of Christians took place at the hands of Jewish and Herodian powers. There was a local persecution prior to this, but it was largely confined to the city and area of Rome (the Neronian Persecution, wherein Sts. Peter and Paul died). The next Roman persecution would not come till about A.D. 90 under Domitian.

The irony of this is that the Jews were a recognized and protected sect, and yet were the most troublesome subjects in the Empire. Christians were not recognized or protected. They were even persecuted, but were the more peaceful and loyal inhabitants of the Empire, short only of worshiping any but the One True God.
 
Last edited:
porthos11 said:
St. Paul would have written his statements about the legitimacy of civil authority, and likely keeping this in mind and Jesus’ admonition to give to Caesar, Christians had little stake in overthrowing imperial authority
Click to expand...
But as I understood it, it has always been taught that Christians must obey the government as long as it does not violate God’s law. Nero was persecuting Christians, so shouldn’t they have been justified in rising up in revolt? Must a Christian accept all government tyranny? News must have reached that Christians were being killed in Rome. And they could have contemplated a pact with Jews of alliance against Rome
 
Curious11 said:
40.png
porthos11:
St. Paul would have written his statements about the legitimacy of civil authority, and likely keeping this in mind and Jesus’ admonition to give to Caesar, Christians had little stake in overthrowing imperial authority
Click to expand...
But as I understood it, it has always been taught that Christians must obey the government as long as it does not violate God’s law. Nero was persecuting Christians, so shouldn’t they have been justified in rising up in revolt? Must a Christian accept all government tyranny? News must have reached that Christians were being killed in Rome. And they could have contemplated a pact with Jews of alliance against Rome
Click to expand...
The point is, Christians were not in the habit of revolting. They showed the best example of bearing injustice as a spiritual work of mercy. History tells us they continued to pray for the Emperor, and I presume this was regardless of whether this Emperor was a friend or persecutor.

No Christian accepted government tyranny, which is why we have heroes from among them. We call them martyrs, and their warfare was more effective than revolts, as you can see. There’s a reason the Roman Empire became Christian and not Jewish.
 
Last edited:
I’m sure I’m misunderstanding you, but are you saying Christianity implies pacifism, or that martyrdom is better than resistance to oppression?
 
Curious11 said:
I’m sure I’m misunderstanding you, but are you saying Christianity implies pacifism, or that martyrdom is better than resistance to oppression?
Click to expand...
Generally, martyrs become canonized saints, so I daresay yes.

That said, resistance to injustice is not only sometimes necessary, but in many cases, also morally obligatory.

But “resistance to oppression” does not automatically mean “revolt”. That’s something probably drilled into American and modern republican mindsets, but our first-century Christians did not live in a post-Enlightenment world. They accepted that the civil order was legitimate and that it was only a temporary home.

Look at what happened. The Jews caused trouble, and lost their Temple, and eventually, their city for two millenia. Christians did not. They lived and participated in the Empire’s life: economic, civil, military. It was by their example, not power or violence, that Christianity eventually became tolerated, then official. Christians resisted injustice by their refusal to burn incense to the Emperor and the Roman gods, and won their victory by their blood. Do you really think the martyrdoms of the Roman Christians are defeats? No! They are victories in the finest kind of warfare. They DID resist, and they won. Martyrdom did not equal pacifism.

You cannot say the same for the Jews.
 
Last edited:
But could the Christians have taken up arms against Rome for persecuting them and not break God’s law? If this happened in the 21st century, no one would expect christians to just take it and not rise up in self defense, even if the blood of martyrs is the seed of the church
 
Curious11 said:
But could the Christians have taken up arms against Rome for persecuting them and not break God’s law? If this happened in the 21st century, no one would expect christians to just take it and not rise up in self defense, even if the blood of martyrs is the seed of the church
Click to expand...
Don’t apply 21st-century principles to first-century Imperial Christians.
 
Why? Shouldn’t we choose martyrdom even today if that’s the best thing you can do as a Christian?
 
Christians were sometimes the only one in their families to not be Pagan. They may have feared for the sake of their families lives, if they were found out.
Christians would go into hiding in the catacombs to survive.
They were not all skilled in fighting. Can you imagine going against a Roman Legion?
 
Curious11 said:
I’m sure I’m misunderstanding you, but are you saying Christianity implies pacifism, or that martyrdom is better than resistance to oppression?
Click to expand...
No, Christianity does not imply pacifism. However, sometimes revolting does more harm that good (esp if you can’t win), like with the early Christians against Rome. If the Christians would have revolted, then the Romans would have slaughtered them.

Another example was the Polish Catholics against the Communist. So they used non-violent and “subtle” ways of going against the Government… like the Marian Procession with just the frame, or the building of just an Altar for Christmas mass in the atheist city the Communists created (both done by St. John Paul II).

Or how St. John Paul II convinced the Pols in the 1980s to only protest peacefully via the Solidarity movement and then he visited Poland. That stuff was powerful.

MLK Jr did the same thing back in the 1960s.

When you have no chance of winning against a oppressive govt/society, it’s one thing to have some martyrs, but you don’t want to cause a genocide against your people either.

I hope this helps.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
You have to understand, we truly do fight not against flesh and blood but principalities and powers.

For hundreds of years war was waged in Rome by Christendom, but look what happened, and who won. By a miraculous sign no less.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top