Why was Jesus rejected?

An argument sometimes made by Preterists, Amillennials and Post-Millennials against Futurists and Premillenialism that isn't based on interpreting Prophecy but more as a moral argument.  Is that Jesus was rejected by the Jews of His time because they expected a violent warrior Messiah who'd overthrow Rome not a Suffering Servant, and now we Premillenals have become exactly like them.

First of all I believe in Universal Salvation, so yes mainstream Futurism's desire to see the End Times as Jesus coming back to finally lay the smack down on the heathen and reward us I don't consider appropriate.  However literal the Violence of the Second Coming is, it's ultimately for the benefit of those being judged, and in many cases the harshest judgments will be for those who thought they were righteous believers.

Preterists still think Jesus came back to carry out wrathful vengeance on the heathen, they just think He did it indirectly, using Roman armies to burn Jerusalem and a Roman Emperor to burn Rome.

Secondly, this narrative about why Jesus was rejected isn't Biblical, it isn't even really traditional, it has it's roots in Hollywood fiction of the last 100 years, from Ben-Hur to the 60s King of Kings remake to Jesus Christ Superstar all wanting to depict Jesus as a Gahndi or Martin Luther King Jr figure.  Because it suites those in power to promote a narrative that the peaceful strictly non violent revolutionaries are the ones to be praised and idealized, because when the people actually start breaking things is when regimes get overthrown.  The fact is the narrative that Gahndi's efforts are why Britain left India is itself a product of British propaganda, there were violent rebellions which they couldn't handle anymore, but they didn't want to admit to being beaten so instead want us to believe they just listened to Gahndi's peaceful rational plea for Independence and left willingly.

Now Jesus did teach a peaceful message, to turn the other cheek and love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.  But plenty of Christians throughout history have taken part in violent Revolutions and didn't see a conflict.  I'm not making this post to pass judgment on if they were right or not.

But in John 11:43-56 we see that the Priests and leaders of the Pharisees were the ones who thought He was too provocative, not that He wasn't violent enough.  They were the stability obsessed Centrists of their time, comfortable with the status quo and didn't want anyone rocking the boat.  In fact they boldly proclaimed "we have no King but Caesar", they declared their loyalty to Rome.

The only people really expecting Jesus to overthrow Rome at first were His own disciples who still needed things clarified for them at the Ascension in Acts 1.

Also if you read what Josephus said about the Zealots as a sect, you'll find they weren't a particularly Millenarian movement at all, they were political Anarchists in modern terminology and absolutely did NOT want to restore the Davidic Monarchy.  So these scenes in modern works of fiction of the Zealots going to Jesus trying to ask Him to be their Earl of Richmond or Duke d'Orleans are not even remotely plausible.

Some specific rebels here and there did proclaim themselves King.  But even they weren't claiming to be the Messiah or to fulfill any prophecies.  What most people keep saying about there being "Many Messianic claimants in the first century" is actually false, no one was claiming to be The Messiah but Jesus.  Josephus uses that word only of what Jesus was believed by his followers to be.

It wasn't till Bar-Kochba that Jewish Anti-Roman Rebels started claiming religious Messianic Mojo for themselves.  There is plenty of TNAK basis for the Messiah as a Warrior King, but they (when interpreted at face value) depict a conqueror expanding Israel's Empire, not a rebel agaisnt Imperialism.

Jesus' Message was popular with the masses, it was those in power who didn't like it, the "crowd" at the trial before Pilate was a planted crowd.

And what the Pharisees especially really didn't like about Jesus' message was the inclusion of the Gentiles and Samaritans.  Jesus was not a nationalist saying that in His kingdom the Goyim will at best be second class citizens.  He said many of them will get in before some of the Children of the Kingdom.

So yes, I am a Futurist because I take seriously that Jesus has promised to return to the Earth, overthrow the present world order and create a Communist Utopia.  

Now some radical Leftists often don't like Futurism because they feel it neuters Christians from taking action to make any actual progress now by telling us to just wait for Jesus to come back.  But Jesus told us to be the Salt and Light of the Earth, we are to be making an effort to improve things now as much as we can no matter what Eschatology is true.  However a notion that we're already in the Millennium or New Jerusalem encourages Christians to think we're supposed to rule the Earth, which is why that interpretation first emerged the same year Christianity became Rome's state religion.

Modern Futurists are frequently not immune to trying to create a theocracy either, but that's a product of over a thousand years of Christianity being the imperial religion of the West.  My point is there are really no Futurists staying out of politics because they're just waiting for Jesus to come back, the problem is too many Christians regardless of their Eschatology have an inverted concept of what our values should be.

Actually the Christians most inclined to go for being complete separatists staying out of politics tend to also have a "we're already in the Millennium" viewpoint, simply interpreting Revelation 20's picture as the Camp of the Saints being a set apart people and the resurrected Martyrs ruling spiritually in Heaven.  That's the gist of Revivalist Post-Millenialism.

But as for Reconstructionist Post-Millennials.  If to you the Prophecies of the Coming Kingdom are simply fulfilled by Christianity being the Politically dominant religion of The World.  Then it's pretty easy to look at the last 17 Centuries and consider the Status Quo to be Mission Accomplished, or see conquering Heathen nations as how one continues the mission.  And most Reconstructionists in America are just as Conservative as the Premillenials, maybe often more so.

Almillenialism and Full Preterism meanwhile tend to disagree with this world being where The Kingdom will ever manifest at all.  To them New Jerusalem is "Heaven" and the Material world is a Prison they can't wait to escape from.  

It is Premillenialism that naturally leads to seeing ourselves as currently emissaries representing God in a World that still needs fixing.