B
Binky1
Guest
Why did the Jewish priests and Jews turn on Jesus? They knew the Messiah was coming and some were aware of the miracles Jesus had performed.
- Status
S
STT
Guest
C
ChineseCatholic
Guest
Too many assumptions loaded into the question!
1.) How many Jews actually knew about Jesus?
Told from the perspective of Biblical history, Jesus of Nazareth looms large precisely because we are hearing the story from the “inside” of an organization - the Church.
Outside of that, i’d be quite surprised to hear if Jesus of Nazareth was a name that spread beyond a few priestly and rabbinical circles (because of the challenges he’d throw down to the establishment) and the assemblage of people who fit the into the what we moderns would call “Lower Socio-economic status” types - the poor or those who undertook jobs that were frowned upon by larger society. And those were probably locked to a specific location within the province of Judaea.
2.) Regarding those Miracles…
Yeah - except the fact that the ancient world was filled with people making those claims.
Apollonius of Tyana is the Graeco-Roman equivalent of essentially a "Pagan Messiah’ who underwent a very similar career to Jesus, including being handed over to the Romans for judgement.
John the Baptist also had a sizeable following, with people claiming he was the Messiah.
3.) And speaking of Messiahs or Meseachs…
Did Jesus really fit the pre-conceived notions of what a Meseach/Messiah would be for the Jews living in Late Antiquity?
All evidence points to expecting someone like a David or a Solomon - someone who would free them from the grip of Roman Tyranny and restore the kingdom of Israel.
In contrast, our Lord was a very spiritual person, who challenged political power of the day only when it started to violate God’s Commandments. Beyond that it was “Render unto Caesar”
This was not the person they were expecting…
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
Because they believed in their Covenant with God?
meltzerboy
New member
First of all, in Deuteronomy, Moses had warned the Jewish people about miracles and that these are not signs of a prophet if that prophet leads them away from the G-d with whom they are already familiar.
Second, not all Jews “turned on Jesus.” Many followed Him while many did not, and still others were probably not even aware of Him except perhaps as another leftist rabbi with revolutionary ideas.
Third, Jesus claimed He was G-d. That claim did not match the Jewish notion of Messiah, which does not mean Savior, let alone G-d. And Jesus’ mission also did not match that of the Messiah.
C
Crusaderbear
Guest
It was the leadership who doubted Jesus. They had a preconcieved list of what the messiah had to be/do, Jesus missed on several points, so was rejected.
U
undead_rat
Guest
Let’s me answer this one part at a time. The Jewish priests did not turn on Jesus. They were against Him from the very beginning of His ministry. These religious leaders were enamored of their own priestly power and envious of YHWH’s obvious favoritism towards Jesus. His criticism of their evil ways enraged them. They loved money, and Jesus’ attack on the Temple money changers may have been the last straw.
As for “the Jews,” this term implies that Judaism was homogeneous. But such was far from the case. In ancient Israel politics and religion were intertwined, inseparable really, and many sects and parties existed, especially in Jerusalem.
What is termed “the common people,” were working class farmers and laborers who supported Jesus ministry and did not betray Him. Many of them would have been in town only for the Passover.
On the other side of the coin you would have found fanatic groups that fancied themselves as kind of a religious police. These parties would have been easy for the Jewish religious leaders to manipulate with accusations of blasphemy and heresy, and they were manipulated. They were dangerous and prone to violence, and those who loved Jesus would have been very reluctant to get in their way.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Interesting. I wasn’t aware of that but I’m very much aware of a similar verse in the New Testament, Galatians 1:8, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!”
S
StGerardMajella
Guest
Great comments all. I think we need to keep the political situation in mind as well. To appoint Jesus as a Jewish king or messianic figure would inflame the wrath of Rome.
Honestly, the Pharisees were between a rock and a hard place. They really had no choice but to have Jesus condemned or face violent retribution from Rome. I don’t envy their position. These were very, very precarious times for Jerusalem.
Individuals claiming to be the Messiah were apparently common at the time. The Pharisees would have had several rabble-rousing political upstarts that they would have had to keep in check to protect both themselves and the entire Jewish population from certain extermination at the hand of the Romans.
The Pharisees were very concerned about Rome unleashing its ferocious military might on Jerusalem.
meltzerboy
New member
It is also important to note, according to more recent research, that the Pharisees themselves were not of one mind on the matter of accepting Jesus as the Messiah, and they were not all self-righteous. Jesus scolded those who were hypocritical since the latter were not representative of the teachings of the sect as a whole nor of the tenets of Judaism.
Further, there were far more Jewish sects during ancient times than was previously believed, as many as 20 to 30, apart from the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, and so on. Jesus was no doubt thought to be yet another leader of a Jewish sect who stood in opposition to the major Pharisaic denomination.
meltzerboy
New member
Yes, the term “Messiah” was used quite often to denote kings of Israel; the Hebrew term has absolutely no connection to the English word “Savior.”
J
James248
Guest
They did expect a King who would set Israel free from their colonial masters, so the term still applies in the context of Jesus’s time.
U
undead_rat
Guest
I am sorry, but I cannot agree with the “placating Rome” theory. The Roman installed government was quite capable of dealing with annoying preachers on their own as proven by the arrest of John.
Jesus was advocating payment of taxes to Rome and obedience, a far cry from presenting any kind of a threat to Rome. He was careful to keep His role as Messiah under wraps.
In fact we now have a spurious theory which holds that Rome itself invented Christianity as a way of moderating sedition and violence in Israel.
The Jewish religious authorities were concerned mostly with their own power. prestige, and wealth. Jesus either threatened or attacked all of these things.
If these “religious” were so concerned about Roman might, then why did they allow such a disastrous revolt against Rome just a generation later?
P
Peter_J
Guest
I’m a little rusty, but as I recall many actually consider Jesus’ criticisms of the Pharisees to be criticisms of his own party – I.e. He was basically a Pharisee himself.
S
StGerardMajella
Guest
So, if the Pharisees had appointed Christ as King of Israel, the Romans wouldn’t have cared? I don’t find that theory quite plausible.
As a political calculation and a pragmatic matter, the Pharisees were clearly cognizant of the threat from Rome in the event a King of Israel was proclaimed without Rome’s consent. They were under Roman occupation, after all.
If they had ignored Rome, and appointed Christ as King of Israel, what do you think they thought would have happened then?
While they may have personal concern for their own welfare, they also had an obligation and concern for the entire Jewish nation. Caiaphas said as much.
Political matters tend to reach a boiling point. Some scholars estimate that as many as a million Jews were killed at that time.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Certainly, the itinerant rabbi portrayed in the NT often sounds ‘School of Hillel’ and internecine rowing was/is one of the ways Judaism ‘works’.
U
undead_rat
Guest
Theses hypothetical questions have no basis in fact. Jesus never asked either the Pharisees or anyone else to appoint Him king of Israel. As He said more than once, He came to serve, not to be served.
And “Ignoring Rome?” Rome had nothing to do with the Pharisees’ failure to understand Jesus.
The only reason that Rome became involved with the trial and execution of Jesus was that the Jewish religious leaders no longer possessed the authority to put anyone to death.
J
James248
Guest
As an aside, Rome was also wary of Christ as well. The Romans sent soldiers to oversee the arrest of Jesus.
U
undead_rat
Guest
Rome? That city was a long ways away.
I don’t know that there is any historical basis for the assertion that the Roman authorities in Judea sent any soldiers to this arrest. Perhaps you could please cite the relevant passage?
And if, in fact, Roman soldiers were there, wouldn’t that presence have been at the request of the Jewish religious authorities?
J
James248
Guest
By Rome, I mean the Roman government,
John 18: 3,12
So Judas got a band of soldiers[c] and guards from the chief priests and the Pharisees and went there with lanterns, torches, and weapons.
So the band of soldiers, the tribune, and the Jewish guards seized Jesus, bound him.
NABRE
Yes, it would. However, Pilate would have gotten information from the priests that they were going to arrest a rabble rouser and troublemaker.
- Status