Why did Jesus not address the issue of the Roman occupation?

[TonyChanYT]

The issue of Roman occupation was in the minds of many Jews, particularly the Zealots. Wiki:

The Zealots were a political movement in 1st-century Second Temple Judaism which sought to incite the people of Judea Province to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the Holy Land by force of arms, most notably during the First Jewish–Roman War (66–70). Zealotry was the term used by Josephus for a "fourth sect" or "fourth Jewish philosophy" during this period.

Some anticipated a Jewish political messiah from Isa 9:

6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.

When Jesus announced the Kingdom of God, some Jews thought that was it. Jesus would be their political messiah-king to overthrow the Romans. John 6:

15 Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.

Jesus knew better. Jesus knew that he was the Messiah-King of a spiritual Kingdom of God. John 18:

33 So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King

i.e., political

of the Jews?” 34 Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” 35 Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” 36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

Jesus was not a geopolitical king.

37 Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”

Jesus came to establish a spiritual kingdom. In his second coming, he will establish a physical kingdom on the new earth.

After Jesus' death and resurrection, he commissioned his disciples to spread the gospel. Acts 1:

6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

They were still thinking about a geopolitical kingdom.

7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Why did Jesus not address the issue of the Roman occupation?

Jesus' first coming was not on the physical conquest of territories but the spiritual conquest of people's hearts. He was the Messiah who died for us to keep us in the spiritual Kingdom of God. In fact, God used the Romans to destroy the temple in 70 AD.

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus was not a geopolitical king.

Jesus came to establish a spiritual kingdom.

You cannot use political terms and say it is not political.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The issue of Roman occupation was in the minds of many Jews, particularly the Zealots. Wiki:


Some anticipated a Jewish political messiah from Isa 9:


When Jesus announced the Kingdom of God, some Jews thought that was it. Jesus would be their political messiah-king to overthrow the Romans. John 6:


Jesus knew better. Jesus knew that he was the Messiah-King of a spiritual Kingdom of God. John 18:


i.e., political


Jesus was not a geopolitical king.


Jesus came to establish a spiritual kingdom. In his second coming, he will establish a physical kingdom on the new earth.

After Jesus' death and resurrection, he commissioned his disciples to spread the gospel. Acts 1:


They were still thinking about a geopolitical kingdom.


Why did Jesus not address the issue of the Roman occupation?

Jesus first coming was not on the physical conquest of territories but the spiritual conquest of people's hearts. He was the Messiah who died for us to keep us in the spiritual Kingdom of God. In fact, God used the Romans to destroy the temple in 70 AD.

Yes, I think Jesus thought along 2 tracks, and not just 1. 1st, he knew from Dan 7 that the 4th Kingdom, the Kingdom of Rome, would be dominant, as a kingdom of iron, trampling everything in its path. And he knew from Dan 9.26-27, the 70 Weeks Prophecy, that Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed by this Kingdom.

And so, Jesus predicted that the "Abomination of Desolation" (Dan 9.27)--which I believe is the Roman Army, the "people of the ruler to come (Dan 9.26)," would punish the Jewish People throughout the NT age, beginning in his generation. It would be useless for Israel to do anything about that, since it was foretold to come. The best thing individuals in Israel could do is repent and embrace their Savior.

2nd, Jesus was thinking in terms of the displacement of Israel by the Gentile nation, the Roman Empire (Matt 21.43), in displaying the Kingdom of God as a temporal kingdom. Israel had been doing that with the Davidic kings and judges for centuries. But now the Kingdom of God would be displayed among the Gentile nations as the Gospel of Christianity was to go forth throughout the NT age.

So yes, the spiritual Kingdom was Jesus' focus, and not in overthrowing the Roman Empire, which was to take place after it splits up and is re-consolidated under Antichrist. Then Jesus will return to establish his eternal Kingdom on earth. These ideas are hotly contested on forums like this one so I assure you--I'm just offering my opinion!

 

[dev553344]

Jesus didn't mention the Roman occupation? Well in kingdoms and nations we have powers that defend us from aggression. So most is best just to leave it alone and let them be the military force for the people. Maybe the Roman occupation was better than some alternative.

But the fact remains that Paul turned the Romans onto Jesus' side later in the gospel.

 

[O'Darby]

Why did Jesus not address the issue of the Roman occupation?

Because that was the one thing that would have ended His ministry in five minutes. It's the same reason Paul tap dances around the issue and urges obedience to authorities. The Romans could tolerate Jewish nuisances, but any hint of a threat to Rome meant a swift end.

There obviously was a theological reason as well, but there was no reason for Jesus to wade into the Roman issue. It also would have fueled the Jewish expectation of a political Messiah and derailed His ministry.

 

[Ziggy]

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
Jesus knew their hearts. They didn't want to be "saved" . They enjoyed the cucumbers: prestige, positions of authority over principalities...
Eph 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Num 11:5
We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick:
Num 11:6
But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes.

Isa 1:8
And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city.

Luk 20:22
Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?
Luk 20:25
And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
Luk 23:2
And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.
Jhn 19:12
And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
Jhn 19:15
But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

Jesus overcame the world, but not in the way they thought he would conquer it.
He stole the hearts that belonged to God, and left the earth that belonged to man.

Jerusalem had been infiltrated by the enemy. Jesus came to save those that were lost in it.

There is no new thing under the sun.
Hugs

 

[Bob Estey]

The issue of Roman occupation was in the minds of many Jews, particularly the Zealots. Wiki:


Some anticipated a Jewish political messiah from Isa 9:


When Jesus announced the Kingdom of God, some Jews thought that was it. Jesus would be their political messiah-king to overthrow the Romans. John 6:


Jesus knew better. Jesus knew that he was the Messiah-King of a spiritual Kingdom of God. John 18:


i.e., political


Jesus was not a geopolitical king.


Jesus came to establish a spiritual kingdom. In his second coming, he will establish a physical kingdom on the new earth.

After Jesus' death and resurrection, he commissioned his disciples to spread the gospel. Acts 1:


They were still thinking about a geopolitical kingdom.


Why did Jesus not address the issue of the Roman occupation?

Jesus' first coming was not on the physical conquest of territories but the spiritual conquest of people's hearts. He was the Messiah who died for us to keep us in the spiritual Kingdom of God. In fact, God used the Romans to destroy the temple in 70 AD.

Off the top of my head, Jesus was not a politician. He taught the basics.

 

[lforrest]

I'm thinking Jesus could have put forward obedience to the authorities, instead of leaving that word to Paul.

This may have complicated things for his ministry, by dashing the hopes of the zealots, and pretty much every other jew that also hated Rome.

It would also make the Pharisees spread that he is a friend of the Romans. Even though they publicly claimed obedience themselves, they would use that against him.

 

[Davy]

The issue of Roman occupation was in the minds of many Jews, particularly the Zealots. Wiki:


Some anticipated a Jewish political messiah from Isa 9:


When Jesus announced the Kingdom of God, some Jews thought that was it. Jesus would be their political messiah-king to overthrow the Romans. John 6:


Jesus knew better. Jesus knew that he was the Messiah-King of a spiritual Kingdom of God. John 18:


i.e., political


Jesus was not a geopolitical king.


Jesus came to establish a spiritual kingdom. In his second coming, he will establish a physical kingdom on the new earth.

After Jesus' death and resurrection, he commissioned his disciples to spread the gospel. Acts 1:


They were still thinking about a geopolitical kingdom.


Why did Jesus not address the issue of the Roman occupation?

Jesus' first coming was not on the physical conquest of territories but the spiritual conquest of people's hearts. He was the Messiah who died for us to keep us in the spiritual Kingdom of God. In fact, God used the Romans to destroy the temple in 70 AD.

You answered your own question.