Why did Jews turn away from Jesus

[undead_rat]

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.

Well then, I must stand corrected (as is often the case.)
However, I must point out that, just as with the guard of soldiers at Jesus’ tomb, these soldiers were sent in response to a request (and, perhaps, payment?) by the Jewish religious leaders.
We have a parallel in modern times where of-duty police officers may be hired (in uniform) for private functions.

 

[James248]

Well then, I must stand corrected (as is often the case.)
However, I must point out that, just as with the guard of soldiers at Jesus’ tomb, these soldiers were sent in response to a request (and, perhaps, payment?) by the Jewish religious leaders.
We have a parallel in modern times where of-duty police officers may be hired (in uniform) for private functions.

Yes.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

You might as well ask why Judas turned away from Jesus. He certainly knew about the miracles.

We don’t know them well enough to read their minds. However, one clue might be just the fact that they were the establishment big shots, who were threatened by the authority of Jesus. Also, like Herod and others, they were tools of the Roman Empire, and their own authority and safety depended upon their willingness to make sure there was no rabble rouser on the horizon, especially one who might be viewed as a king and challenger to Herod as well as Caesar.

 

[ericc]

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.

Jesus wasn’t seeking appointment for political leadership nor kingship. His mission was very clear. Any fears of the Pharisees were self created and rightly so. You have a person who can see though their misdeeds, wrong teachings.

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.

Jesus created no popular uprising. He was very busy teaching about the kingdom of heaven. He taught no violence. He respected Roman law. So how did the Pharisees come to that conclusion about Jesus? That was merely an excuse to do away with one who threaten their position.

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.

But Jesus preached nothing about rising against the Romans. Even his disciples thought he was supposed to be the redeemer from Roman rule, but they thought wrong. There is no grounds for the Pharisees to lead them to think Jesus was a rabble rouser. But Jesus did give them a hard time. If Jesus were to be kinder to them, I’d think they would have gotten along just fine.

The Pharisees were very concerned about Rome unleashing its ferocious military might on Jerusalem.

Not really.

Jesus was criticising them so frequently and making them look bad and looking stupid. When leaders were made to look bad, it is natural to take out the “competition”. None of Jesus teachings were anti-Rome. He broke no Roman law. Rome/Pilate was the borrowed sword. Whereas Barabas the guy they freed was a law breaker, a bandit.

I’d say Jesus dealings with the Romans (healing of centurion’s servant for eg) would have put him in a favorable light with at least one of them. He even tells them to pay their taxes to Rome. He preaches no violence towards Caesar or breaking any Roman law.(e.g. the adulterous woman story)

It is even clearer that in his trial that the Jewish leadership didn’t have any evidence to condemn him that they have to resort to bullying Pilate to do the dirty work. And Pilate didn’t really want to. Compare this to John the Baptist. John wasn’t a real threat to them and he had his supporters too.

 

[StGerardMajella]

Jesus wasn’t seeking appointment for political leadership nor kingship.

He proclaimed Himself to the the Son of God, and He was crucified with a sign over His head stating “King of the Jews”. You cannot ignore the political implications of what this would have meant to the Jewish and Roman leaders at the time.

Jesus created no popular uprising. He was very busy teaching about the kingdom of heaven. He taught no violence. He respected Roman law. So how did the Pharisees come to that conclusion about Jesus?

Throughout the New Testament, we see crowds of hundreds (if not thousands) following Christ everywhere He went throughout His public ministry. He was very much a leader and a threat to the establishment. The Pharisees were very concerned if Christ’s followers were to continue to grow even further, as it could result in the Pharisees losing political power, with Christ and His apostles taking over political and religious control of the country.

There is no grounds for the Pharisees to lead them to think Jesus was a rabble rouser.

See above. A miracle worker proclaiming to be the Jewish Messiah, the Son of God, with thousands of followers and at odds with the establishment leaders would very much be a threat to the Pharisees.

Not really.

Yes, really. If the Pharisees had given into the wishes of Christ’s followers, and appointed Christ as Messiah and King of the Jews, the Pharisees very much feared the violent reaction of their Roman overlords. Caiphas went so far as to state to the effect that it would be better for Christ to lose his life, than for all of Israel to be decimated.

 

[hu324b]

I think the answer is in the parable of the sower and the explanation after from Jesus.

Matthew 13:18-23

18 “Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19 When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20 The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21 But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. 22 The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful. 23 But the seed falling on good soil refers to someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”