MennoNet.com

barnhart wrote: ↑Sat Jul 12, 2025 7:21 pmI could contest a few details but the fact I am challenging is that Rome acknowledged the distinction between religion and power. The word religion didn't even exist yet because to Rome worship was power and power was worship, they claimed authority because their gods were stronger. To suggest Jesus was apolitical because his kingdom was spiritual is to intentionally overlook the revolutionary potential of his Kingdom. Indeed, in a few hundred years the roles were reversed and Pilot, in the form of the emporer, was asking, hat in hand, for an audience with Jesus in the form of his church.

The message of the Kingdom of God was spiritual, but it was also profoundly subversive.

Bootstrap wrote: ↑Sun Jul 13, 2025 6:14 am

barnhart wrote: ↑Sat Jul 12, 2025 7:21 pmI could contest a few details but the fact I am challenging is that Rome acknowledged the distinction between religion and power. The word religion didn't even exist yet because to Rome worship was power and power was worship, they claimed authority because their gods were stronger. To suggest Jesus was apolitical because his kingdom was spiritual is to intentionally overlook the revolutionary potential of his Kingdom. Indeed, in a few hundred years the roles were reversed and Pilot, in the form of the emporer, was asking, hat in hand, for an audience with Jesus in the form of his church.

Exactly. Tom Holland makes this point really powerfully in Dominion: in the Roman world, there was no clear separation between religion and political power. Worship and authority were all mixed together. The emperors themselves were often treated as semi-divine, with temples, sacrifices, and titles like “Son of the Divine.”

So when early Christians said “Jesus is Lord,” it wasn’t just a personal spiritual confession—it was a direct challenge to Rome’s claim to ultimate authority. It was saying that Caesar was not the true Lord.

That’s also why Herod felt threatened when the Magi came asking, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews?” He immediately saw that as a threat to his throne and tried to kill the child. And it’s why the Sadducees, who held power by cooperating with Rome, saw Jesus as a danger.

The message of the Kingdom of God was spiritual, but it was also profoundly subversive. Over time, it turned Roman values upside down—so much so that, as Holland points out, the emperors eventually had to come, hat in hand, to seek legitimacy from the church. It’s a mistake to treat it as if it were only “spiritual” with no challenge to the existing order.

Bootstrap wrote: ↑Sun Jul 13, 2025 6:14 amExactly. Tom Holland makes this point really powerfully in Dominion: in the Roman world, there was no clear separation between religion and political power. Worship and authority were all mixed together. The emperors themselves were often treated as semi-divine, with temples, sacrifices, and titles like “Son of the Divine.”

1 Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged.2 The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe 3 and went up to him again and again, saying, “Hail, king of the Jews!” And they slapped him in the face.

4 Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews gathered there, “Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him.” 5 When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, “Here is the man!”
6 As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!”
But Pilate answered, “You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.”

7 The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”
8 When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, 9 and he went back inside the palace.“Where do you come from?” he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer.

10 “Do you refuse to speak to me?” Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?”
11 Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”

12 From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”

13 When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge’s seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaicis Gabbatha). 14 It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.
“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews.
15 But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!”
“Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked.
“We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered.

19 Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews. 20 Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek. 21 The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews.”

22 Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”

Szdfan wrote: ↑Sun Jul 13, 2025 1:09 pm John 19:1-23 is an overtly political passage about Jesus's crucifixion, which suggests that Rome (or at least Pilate) saw Jesus in political, not spiritual terms. In this passage, Pilate shows a complete lack of concern about Jesus's spiritual claims, but focuses on the political connotations of Jesus's claim that he is the Messiah.

1 Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged.2 The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe 3 and went up to him again and again, saying, “Hail, king of the Jews!” And they slapped him in the face.

This is political humiliation that Pilate and the Romans inflict on Jesus, not spiritual or religious. They clothe him with political symbols. They mock him as the "king of the Jews," which is overtly political, not spiritual language.

4 Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews gathered there, “Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him.” 5 When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, “Here is the man!”
6 As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!”
But Pilate answered, “You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.”

The question here is, who has power? Who has authority? Pilate is willing to let Jesus go, but receives pressure from the Jewish religious authorities to go crucify him anyway.

7 The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”
8 When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, 9 and he went back inside the palace.“Where do you come from?” he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer.

Why is Pilate afraid when the Jewish leaders tell them that Jesus claims to be the Son of God? Is it spiritual? Is it religious? Is it political?

10 “Do you refuse to speak to me?” Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?”
11 Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”

Again, the question -- who has power? Who has authority?

12 From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”

Again, this is overtly political. Jesus's claim to be the Messiah is not just religious, but also a political one. In order to pressure Pilate, the priests overtly and directly connect the crucifixion to Rome's imperial concerns. They argue that Jesus's messianic claims are not just spiritual, they are disloyal to Caesar. They pressure Pilate with the claim that if he doesn't crucify Jesus, he's committing treason against Caesar.

13 When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge’s seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaicis Gabbatha). 14 It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.
“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews.
15 But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!”
“Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked.
“We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered.

Again, that's political, not theological language.

19 Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews. 20 Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek. 21 The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews.”

The sign above Jesus is a political statement. The priests want Pilate to make it less political, but he refuses.

22 Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”

That’s Rome making a political judgment. While Pilate may not have believed Jesus was a serious threat, his language (capitalizing "King") shows that he's thinking about Jesus in political terms, not spiritual or theological ones.

So I don't think it's correct to say Rome wasn’t concerned about Jesus’s claims until long after his death. The political dimensions are right there in the text.

JohnH wrote: ↑Sun Jul 13, 2025 9:40 am Yet the Roman Empire was never concerned with or cared much about Jesus' claims. They allowed the Jewish religious hierarchy to engage in a degree of self-rule, and were reluctant to carry out said hierarchy's request to execute Jesus - with the designated Roman ruler making it clear he was simply doing what they requested and respecting their self-government.

I don't see the Roman Empire being concerned much at all about Jesus' authority over even kings and kingdoms and empires and emperors until long after his death and resurrection.

The message of the Kingdom of God was spiritual, but it was also profoundly subversive.

The Kingdom of God, by definition, is not subversive, because it represents the highest and ultimate authority. It's like claiming that my authority as a parent over my children is "subversive" vs my older child trying to tell my younger child what to do.

Ken wrote: ↑Sun Jul 13, 2025 1:30 pm What I get from reading that passage, is that absent fanatical agitation from Jewish authorities and the Sanhedrin, the Romans would have likely paid little or no attention to Jesus. Jesus wasn’t a Roman Citizen and executions were common in the Roman Empire so from the Roman perspective there really wasn’t all that much to be concerned about here. Their priority was maintaining political stability across the empire so that tax revenues would keep flowing. If the locals want to persecute some of their own, no big deal as long as order is maintained.

Ken wrote: ↑Sun Jul 13, 2025 2:35 pm A lot of this discussion really depends on one’s frame of reference.

In the 1st Century the Roman Empire was a vast expanse stretching from Britannia and Morocco in the west to Mesopotamia in the east. It had been expanding more or less relentlessly and consistently for 250 years and by the 1st Century had more or less reached its natural boundaries: The Atlantic in the west, the Rhine and Danube rivers in the north, the Sahara desert in the south, and the Parthian Empire (Persia/Iran) in the east. Across all of this vast stretch of empire there was really no retreat at all up until centuries later when the Romans started to abandon the most far-flung reaches of the empire like Britannia and started to break apart into eastern and western empires.

So when a particular province revolted like the Brits did under Boudicca or the Jews did in the 1st Century the Romans just sent in a couple of legions and an ambitious general to put it down. And if that meant razing cities to the ground and wiping out a significant percentage of the population, so be it. That’s just the cost of empire. That was how ambitious Roman politicians made their name as Agricola did in Britannia or Vespasian and Titus did in Judea. You put down a rebellion, go home to Rome, hold a triumph, and then get elected console or position yourself to become emperor. Roman elites actually needed the occasional war or rebellion to make their name and if one didn’t exist they would have to create one.

So the notion that the Jewish zealots in the first century had even the slightest chance of carving out an independent Judea free of Roman rule was pretty ridiculous. No other peoples anywhere else in the Roman Empire had pulled that off for centuries including far more warlike peoples like the Germanic tribes. It would be centuries into the future that the Roman Empire would start to get rolled back. And that was mostly an administrative retreat rather than military defeat.

From the point of view of local Jewish authorities in Judea, Jesus with his large followings might have been a threat and competitor to deal with and clearly he was. But to the Romans at the time he was insignificant. Every corner of the empire had its own local religions and beliefs. Christianity during the time of Jesus was so un-notable that it didn’t make it into any Roman historical records from that time.

History is 20/20. We now know that Jesus and his Crucification was historically one of the most seminal events of the past two millennia. But no one really knew it at the time other than perhaps Jesus’ disciples.