He Could've Been Ceasar's Son

Meme Generator

Didn't he target the whole world? Then Jesus should've been the Roman emperor's son. That way he would have tremendous influence worldwide and command attention from all over. The Gospel would have been spread faster and wider, the kind that Ceasar Augustus did when he ordered the whole Roman world to submit to a census.

As Ceasar's son he could easily issue a similar decree---everyone must gather at the palace in Rome and listen to Jesus preach. Everyone! Or suffer the consequences. Entire nations would have turned Christians in no time. His mission would have achieved unprecedented quick success. So, why didn't Jesus do it that way?

Or, he could've at least been Pilate's or Herod's son.

And isn't this what churches today want, the very reason why a lot of pastors try to attach themselves to politicians or influential folks in government (or become politicians themselves), because they believe they could easily influence people this way and hasten evangelism? Exactly why they urge us to use what resources or means are made available to us "by God," resources like politicians who are mostly known to be corrupt.

I've seen church leaders commend pastors who manage to work out close connections with such politicians, thinking these ministers are something else. "They're so effective!" Okay, but why didn't Jesus do it that way, though he had all the power to do it thus? Why choose to be the son of a poor carpenter, from a poor family, from a poor town and from a small country---and far away from all the politicians, the rich and top religious leaders?

It was they who went to Jesus and insisted themselves on him.

During his birth, only shepherds were invited, the lowest type of workers that time. Well, when he was about 2, some wise men from the east were also invited, but they were pagans. And from the looks of it, they were even astrologers. Then in ministry, he chose mostly fishermen, one was a rebel zealot, another was a tax collector. Why didn't he just get Herod's officials or Pilate's generals?

Then his ministry partner was his cousin John who, for some reason, refused to be priest like his father Zechariah was (priests were well off because all their needs were lavishly provided for by the people. It was a must) and preferred to live in the wilderness, wear camel's hair and leather belt, and eat nothing but insects and wild honey. Why not partner with Pharisees and law teachers instead?

Or at least he should've convinced John to become priest so they could have greater influence in the Sanhedrin and the priesthood and make evangelism easier and more powerful.

And why did Jesus have to break some laws that irritated the religious leaders? Did he really have to break the Sabbath? Was it not possible to do his ministry in the 6 days before Sabbath, as one Pharisee had suggested? Even if someone was at the point of death on a Sabbath, he could always delay it a while (to skip Sabbath) and do the miracle the day after---like what he did with Lazarus when his rescue came 3 days after Lazarus died.

There were lots of things Jesus could have done to make everything simpler and less troublesome. Less annoying so that everybody could've been be happy. But he didn't. Didn't he and the Father and Spirit carefully plan these things well in advance? Then how come the outcome was like that---he was hated by the religious leaders, hated by the people, and abandoned by his own disciples. In the end, he was nailed to the cross, shouting dismally about why God abandoned him. What a failure. He and his message were rejected. It seemed that only the pagan wise men embraced his kingship, in addition to his women disciples and John the beloved.

Why did everything go wrong?

But did it? Actually, everything went as planned. It was how the Trinity had planned everything, exactly to the letter and dot. They had planned defeat---well, seeming defeat, that is. Because in the Kingdom, triumph takes the form of defeat. Of death. In other words, the world sees defeat what the Kingdom sees as success. It's derived from how the least is the greatest---a Kingdom principle the church has yet to learn to this day. The church is ever a slow learner. It barely copes with Kingdom movement and culture. Everyone still wants to be great and they think being the greatest is success.

Defeat is success in the Kingdom. When the world is mocking you, belittling your works, treating you as trash and deeming you a total failure, you're winning. It's the complete opposite if the world is congratulating you. And that's what the church craves for today---the world's recognition and approval. If they can have their way, I bet they'd prefer being born Ceasar's son than Joseph's, and born in Rome than in Bethlehem. You can tell it by their avid preference for big, moneyed and peopled churches and distaste for small ones.

They think big is success and small is failure. So they go mindlessly and blindly for anything big. They'd give everything just to be big---or the biggest.

But Jesus preferred doing things in the Father's way---the least is the greatest. Seeds ought to fall and die to multiply. No church today wants to fall and die. They all want to save their lives, losing it in the process. That's Kingdom principle. God wants big numbers, but he wants them produced in least of ways. Losing everything. You try to save yours, you really screw everything, though the world may congratulate you.