From: Apocalyptic
and History: Matthew 24 Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2013
[Page 171]
CHAPTER FOUR:
OTHER TROUBLES OF THE ERA
(Matthew 24:21-26; Mark 13:19-23;
Luke 21:23b-24)
1. UNPRECEDENTED NATURE OF THE CATASTROPHE
(Matthew 24:21-22;
Mark 13:19-20; Luke 21:23b-24)
Jesus briefly but vividly expresses the
intensity and danger of the war when He describes it in these terms, “For then
there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the
world until now, no, and never will be.
And if those days had not been shortened, no human being would be saved;
but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened” (verses 21-22).
There are four distinct elements to
the predictions found in these two verses:
(1) The
degree of destruction would be unprecedented; (2) the degree of destruction
would never be repeated; (3) total annihilation would be a realistic danger;
(4) the "elect" would survive the catastrophe due to God cutting
short its length. The credibility of
such language as a description of the fall of Jerusalem will be considered as
we examine the Old Testament roots of each of these themes.
Before doing that we need to examine
Luke’s account, “. . . For great distress shall be upon the earth and wrath
upon this people; they will fall
by the edge of the sword, and be led captive among all nations; and Jerusalem
will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are
fulfilled” (Luke 21:23b-24).
[Page 172] Luke
only mentions part one of the four elements common to Matthew and Mark’s
accounts: Their “great tribulation”
becomes “great distress . . . and wrath.”
Clearly the same idea. He immediately proceeds from that to the fall
of Jerusalem and its subjugation to the Gentiles. The cosmic rhetoric he removes (though he
makes passing allusion to it in other places); he provides a down-to-the-earth
description instead. Assuming Luke to be
an accurate interpreter, then we have strong evidence here that the intent in
Matthew and Mark is to present in vivid language the same event. Since the central thrust of both Matthew
and Mark so far has been the destruction of Jerusalem this is what we would expect. Hence one may fairly say that Luke makes
explicit what is implicit in the other two.
Before we pass on to a consideration
of the cosmic rhetoric in the other accounts, we need to consider the meaning
of Luke’s statement that “Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until
the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.”
What are “the times of the Gentiles”?
Some take it as equivalent to the
time when the gospel would be available for the Gentiles.[1] Expressed in this broad sense the
interpretation seems erroneous since Luke recorded in Acts 10-11 how decades
prior to the destruction of Jerusalem Gentiles began to enter the church.[2] If we take this approach, it would be
desirable to refine the expression to mean that it would be a time when Gentiles
would be acceptable on a par with Jewish converts or a period when
converts came, primarily, from the Gentile community. Both would fit well a post A.D. 70
interpretation. Yet there is nothing in
the context that would seem to point to this being the theme, however.
Some kind of reference to the theme
of political/military power subjugating Jerusalem--which is the subject
emphasized right on the surface of the text--would be far more
appropriate. In the minimal sense it
could refer to the time it took Rome to complete its conquest of the city.[3]
It could be taken as the time
Gentiles would exercise control over Jerusalem.
It its broadest extension this would cover at least the period under
Jews regained control over Palestine in the 1940s or when the Temple area was
regained much [Page 173] later in the century. Reading the text this way has been the
seedbed of much premillennial interpretation.
On the other hand, who knows whether the Jewish state will be permanent. One does
not have to be either antisemitic or a doomsayer extreme rightwinger in Israel
to realize that many Arabs passionately hate the “Jewish presence” and would
love to see it removed. A faulty
pseudo-peace and a generation down the road Israel might vanish as a Jewish
entity. For that matter, one could (if
moderately cynical) wonder whether Israel could exist even today without the
significant support of key outsider powers--the United States in particular. Hence Gentile powers remain, if not in
“control,” then certainly “vital.” Has
then the “time of the Gentiles” truly ended?
Hence this commentator is inclined to make it the entire period from the
fall of Jerusalem to the parousia.[4]
Nor is the idea of a time limit upon
national humiliation--no matter how broadly construed--an unknown one in the
Old Testament. Tyre was to suffer
humiliation for seventy years (Isaiah 23:15-17). The tribes of Israel were repeatedly
subjugated by nearby enemies--until they returned to Yahweh (Judges
2:16-23). Some of the terminology used
by Luke would have been familiar to the reader of the Septuagint. Just as Luke quotes Jesus as referring to the
“distress” and “wrath” that would overtake Jerusalem, the same two Greek words
are used in the Septuagint in Zephaniah 1:15 to describe an earlier threatened
punishment on Jerusalem.[5] Likewise
Luke’s expression “trodden down by the Gentiles” is the Septuagint Greek Old
Testament of Zechariah 12:3.[6]
A. UNPRECEDENTED DESTRUCTION
Old Testament precedent. In the vision
of Isaiah, he speaks of the nations God would use to bring temporal judgment
against Babylon. Their assault would be
so vigorous that it seemed as if the entire human race would perish,
"Hark, a tumult on the mountains as of a great multitude! Hark, an uproar of
kingdoms, of nations gathering together!
The Lord of hosts is mustering a host for battle. They come from a distant
land, from the end of the heavens, the Lord and the weapons of his indignation,
to destroy the whole earth" (13:4-5).
[Page 174] By
being on the losing side, the Israelites were well acquainted with the
horrendous loss of life that could occur in such situations. When a city fell "their corpses were as
refuse in the midst of the streets," Isaiah reminded the people
(5:25).
Such passages as these speak of vast
destruction, but do not use the rhetoric of unprecedented. Such does occur, however, in Daniel 12:1, “At
that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who
has charge of your people. And there
shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation
till that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one
whose name shall be found written in the book.”
If a temporal judgment is under consideration, it is significant
that there is no claim that it would never be exceeded by a worse one (contrast
the depiction in Joel 2, below). The
emphasis is on a comparison with past disaster, not future
calamities. On the other hand, since a
resurrection day scenario comes next (Daniel 12:2-4), an interpretation in a
strict eschatological context would seem more appropriate.
First century occurrence of such
phenomena. To the Jews themselves, the Great Revolt and
the resulting destruction of the Temple certainly seemed to justify the type of
language Jesus utilized. Josephus speaks
of the calamities associated with the revolt as being more “considerable” than
those of any other nation had met since “the beginning of the world.”[7]
B. DEGREE OF
DESTRUCTION WOULD NEVER BE REPEATED
Old Testament precedent. Joel 2 uses the imagery of a powerful,
unprecedented destroyer. Not only that,
but one so powerful that none would ever appear like him again,
[Page 175]
Blow the trumpet in
Zion; sound the alarm on my holy mountain!
Let
all the inhabitants of the land tremble, for the day of the Lord is
coming, it is
near, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness! Like
blackness there is spread upon the mountains a great and powerful people;
their like has never been from of old, nor will be again after them,
through
the years of all generations (2:1-2).
Three possible approaches have been
taken to this text. A few interpret it
as a reference to a contemporary foe of Israel.[8] Most take it as a reference to a devastating
locust plague.[9] A third approach interprets the passage as
referring to a future superdangerous foe that would have the capacity to
annihilate that nation.[10] A bridging approach, linking the second and
third interpretations together, is that military and locust images are
indiscriminately blended together because literal locusts become the precedent
for the future destruction.[11]
Except for those who consider the
locust plague identical with the one described in the preceding chapter, none
of these approaches considers the destruction--even if by a literal army--as
having been accomplished immediately in Joel’s own near-term. Those who take the third approach can easily
see an ultimate fulfillment (either sole or duplicative) in any fall of
Jerusalem or even a literal ending of the universe, as in traditional Christian
cosmology.
A reference to devastation by
literal locusts would seem to be Joel’s actual intent. Any attempt to make this into a prototype for
a latter military disaster is needless.
The Old Testament has no difficulty in seeing God’s guiding hand behind
military disasters upon Israel and views these as divine judgments in and of
themselves. Hence there is no particular
need to look upon a plague of devastating locusts as a Divine judgment requiring
any further supernatural action above and beyond the one threatened.
The warning of mass disaster via
locusts was one that would have brought to mind a frightening precedent
recorded in the Pentateuch: God had sent
judgment upon Egypt by an unprecedented devastation by such creatures (Exodus
10:14-15). It would be doubly galling
for Israel to be on the receiving end of the identical calamity that had
befallen her one time taskmasters.
[Page 176]
First century occurrence of such phenomena.
Jesus uses the same imagery of unprecedented destruction as well as that
of it never occurring again. The best
interpretation of the synoptic texts, however, takes it in a “literal” and
straightforward military fashion: as an
unprecedented catastrophe at the hand of armed enemies of such a nature and
scope that it would never be repeated again.
If this approach be valid, “reconciling” the predicted event of Joel 2
and the synoptic apocalyptic does not become an issue--the first deals with a
natural catastrophe never duplicated and the latter to a religio-military one
that would never be repeated.
The military defeat option, however,
is a common interpretation of Joel as well.
Hence consideration needs to be given to how the rhetoric of Jesus might
be consistent with that of Joel within such an interpretative framework. Assuming that Jesus actually spoke these
words and His being well grounded in the Torah and prophets (and we believe
both to be sound assumptions), there would have to have been a rationale in His
own mind for the inclusion of such a heavy emphasis on an “unprecedented” and
“never to be duplicated” event. Even if
we take the other approach and see the statement as a construct of Matthew or
other early Christians, one would anticipate a rationale for the language as
well.
One thing that strikes us as we compare the
two passages is an important descriptive difference. In Joel 2:2 it is the massiveness of the
alien army that is under discussion (over the mountains are spread "a great
and powerful people"), while this element is totally lacking in Jesus'
prediction. In Joel the key factor is
the unprecedented destruction is carried out by an unprecedented size military
force. In Matthew 24 the fact of
unprecedented destruction is at the forefront.
Historically, we know that this was caused by a moderate size (rather
than mammoth) Roman army. Hence, the
destruction might still be perceived as unprecedented in proportion
to the forces at play.
But what of the “unrepeatability”
aspect of Jesus’ claim? Although the
Jewish people suffered in greater numbers in the German Holocaust and
the purges of the Soviet Union, the Jewish nation never endured a
greater disaster than that [Page 177]
inflicted by the Romans. The distinction is an important one. The Jewish nation effectively ceased to exist
with the destruction of the Temple and it only came back in existence again
with the founding of Israel. (Howbeit in a secular incarnation rather than a religious one.) Hence the kind of suffering Jesus referred to
could not be duplicated in the interim.
For those who accept the Pauline definition
of the Judeo-Gentile Christians as the true Israel (discussed earlier), then
the fall of Jerusalem was a tangible outward expression of the rejection of the
“physical” Israel that had refused to submit to the Messiah. As the ultimate rejection, barring
conversion, anything that happened in the future (however unjust and undeserved
a calamity) could never quite be on the same par as what happened in A.D. 70.
Even from a Jewish religious
standpoint, it would seem that the destruction of Judaism’s Temple and its
functioning system of worship strikes at such a vital center of its religious
identity, that no disaster afterwards could be quite comparable. It could exceed it in scope, deaths, and pure
horror--all shattering in their own right.
But to undergo mass destruction and the desolation of one’s
central place of worship puts the enter catastrophe in a different interpretive
context.
Perhaps this approach would be even
more striking if we put it in the context of a different religious system, that
of Islam. If some irresponsible
terrorist group would be to commit the ultimate sacrilege of a nuclear destruction
of Mecca, what else could be compared to in past or, even future, Islamic
history? It would be such a hideous
splintering of the central cultic site that no numerically superior disaster
would be quite comparable to it.
C. TOTAL ANNIHILATION WOULD BE A
REALISTIC DANGER
Old Testament precedent. Just as Jesus spoke of the potential for
total annihilation (Matthew 24:22), the fate of Babylon is presented as
dangerously close to the same result, "I will make more rare than fine
gold, and mankind than the gold of Ophir" (Isaiah 13:12). In Zephaniah 1:18 we find a similar dire
threat, [Page 178] "Neither their silver nor their gold
shall be able to deliver them on the day of the wrath of the Lord. In the fire of His jealous wrath, all
the earth shall be consumed; for a full, yea, sudden end he will make of
all the inhabitants of the earth."
Finally, the book of Esther recounts the aborting of the conspiracy to
utterly annihilate the Jews of her kingdom.
First century occurrence of such
phenomena. The danger was not to the human race but to
all those in the place of danger, i.e., those in Jerusalem. Josephus pictures the siege as a period of
horrible conflict within the city walls, in which basic humanitarianism
disappeared as factionalism reigned and hunger starved the population. Horrible as the fall of the city was, the
very act of its fall guaranteed the survival of many who would otherwise have
perished. Both in the
city itself and the surrounding country.
In a broader--not literal, but not
fully symbolic sense either--the language could be applied to the depopulation
of the region rather than the extermination of its residents. This was certainly the case of the Bar
Kokhba revolt of 132-135 A.D.[12] On a less permanent basis one can reasonably
assume a similar, temporary, movement during the Great Revolt itself.
Margaret Davies puts an interpretive gloss upon the text that
makes it refer to the potential death of any “vulnerable human being”
(our emphasis, rw), i.e., not all people but only those such as babies and pregnant
women who were always in the greatest danger in such hostile circumstances.[13] Although the cessation of hostilities would
be a special blessing in such cases, it is hard to limit the meaning in
such a drastic manner. Rather, the
danger was, indeed, to all human beings--at least those living in the
geographic heart of the conflict.
D. DIVINE INTERVENTION WOULD CUT
SHORT THE DURATION
[Page 179] Old Testament
precedent. In the Old
Testament God was repeatedly pictured as using wars against those unwilling to
accept His will. It also conceptually
flips over the concept and speaks not just of God "causing" war, but
also "stopping" them as well.
Both ideas are found in the contrasting verses of Psalms 46:8-9,
"Come, behold the works of the Lord, how He has wrought desolations in the
earth. He makes wars cease to the end of
the earth; he breaks the bow, and shatters the spear, He burns the chariots
with fire!"
Jeremiah uses the imagery of
earthquake as part of a symbolic depiction of war (Jeremiah 4:23-28). Here, again, God reins in the devastation
short of its logic result of annihilation, "The whole land shall be a desolation; yet I will not make a full end” (verse 27).
The idolatry of the people was so
pervasive in the days of Isaiah (65:1-7), that a total destruction of the land
might seem appropriate. In spite of the
insistent provocation, God had not given up all hope and was determined to stop
the forthcoming destruction before it reached that stage, "Thus says the
Lord: As the wind is found in the
cluster, and they say, 'Do not destroy it, for there is a blessing in it,' so I
will do for my servants' sake, and not destroy them all" (verse 8) The following verse speaks in terms of this
being an act of mercy for the "chosen" faithful (conceptually
comparable to "elect" in Matthew 24:22), "I will bring forth
descendants from Jacob, and from Judah inheritors of My mountains; My chosen
shall inherit it, and My servants shall dwell there" (verse 9). The faithful servant class would rejoice over
the mercy they received (verses 13-16).
In the first chapter of the same
book, the prophet speaks of a period of
enemy warfare that would be so successful (verses 7-8) that even the
survival of a handful of individuals would be counted a blessing, “If the Lord
had not left us a few survivors, we should have been like Sodom and become like
Gomorrah” (verse 8).
Joel 2--as we saw above--spoke of a
mammoth unprecedented destruction (verses 1-2).
Even here, the possibility of God acting to protect the land is left
open, " ‘Yet
even now,’ says the Lord, ‘return to Me with all your heart, with fasting, with
weeping, and with mourning; and rend your hearts and not your
garments." Return to the Lord your
God, for He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast
love, and repents of evil’ (verses 12-13).
[Page 180] Indeed,
He assures them that He will act in their behalf (verses 20-27). In Matthew, however, no condition of moral
reform is mentioned, presumably because none is necessary for the “elect” are
already characterized by such a lifestyle..
First century occurrence of such
phenomena. The fact that
the siege came to an end sooner than would have been anticipated justifies the
reference to the “days [being] shortened.”
Though faced with an encircling army, Jerusalem was an easy to defend
location.[14] Yet a number of factors conspired together
to reduce the length of the siege, “These were--the divided counsels of the
Jews themselves, the voluntary surrender of parts of the fortification, the
fierce factions in the city, the destruction of magazines of provisions by
calamitous fire, the suddenness of the arrival of Titus, and the fact that the walls had
never been strengthened as Herod Agrippa had intended.”[15]
In what sense was this shortening of
the conflict done “for the sake of the elect”?
Various explanations could be suggested:
from the standpoint of Christians of the era, it would have considered,
at least in part, as an opportunity for the population to repent and become
part of the new bi-ethnic “elect” of God.
It would also have assured the survival of any foolish Christian who had
not taken advantage of the earlier opportunity to flee.[16] Furthermore, those believers who escaped
death would, in turn, convert others.
Hence it might be in order to bless not just the current “elect”
but those who would be reached by the gospel message at a later date and become
part of that community.[17] Finally, the city’s safety was likely the
prayer topic of many a Jewish Christian.
“The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” wrote
James (5:16b). What would draw forth
more prayers from those who were Jews by birth (though Christians by faith)
than the destruction of Jerusalem?
Hence the shortening of the war could have been out of respect for their
prayers as well.
[Page 181]
2. FALSE CLAIMERS TO BE MESSIAH AND PROPHET
(Matthew 24:23-26; Mark 13:21-23)
Jesus had earlier discussed the
danger of false Christs (Matthew 24:5) and false prophets (Matthew 24:11). In Matthew 24:23-26 and its Markian parallel
He elaborates on this at greater length, thereby indicating the importance of
it in His mind. The reference to “the
elect” being potential victims, Jesus makes plain that Christians would not be
immune from susceptibility to their deception, any more so than the population
at large.
A. THE RUMOR OF SUCH INDIVIDUALS
WOULD DEFINITELY
EXIST (Matthew 24:23; Mark 13:21)
Old Testament precedent for the
danger of false Christs.
In the centuries long before Jesus’ ministry, His nation had trusted in
various foreign powers to “save” or “redeem” it from the danger of some other
existing super-state. Egypt, for
example, is pictured in such terms, as an empty and futile protection against Assyria
(Isaiah 30:1-7; 36:4-10). These national “saviors” or “Messiahs” were the
repeated object of rebuke since they proposed to keep God from fulfilling His
threats against Israel’s unfaithfulness.
They functioned, in effect, corporate false Messiahs.
On the individual level, the Old
Testament speaks of individuals claiming the right to lead Israel or Judah but
who are pictured as moral or religious apostates. They led their people into political
alliances rebuked by the true prophets of the day and even into outright
idolatry. These individuals posed as the
redeemers of the land, when they were really leading it to destruction. Hence, again, the false
Messiah concept.
Even an honorable individual could
receive such excessive trust that the followers transformed him into something
he himself might not even claim. As the
Psalmist warned, “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there
is [Page 182] no help. When his breath departs
he returns to his earth; on that very day his plans perish” (146:3-4)
Yet, having said all this, there
appears to be no explicit Old Testament text alluding to an individual rising
up and directly claiming to be the Messiah.
These rough parallels, however, would certainly make the usage in regard
to specific individuals a quite natural one.
(For additional thoughts on Old Testament precedents for “false Christs”
see verse 5.)
First century occurrence of such
phenomena. The
psychological and physical pressures of the Roman invasion would make the people
unusually desperate for a Redeemer. And
what people need, they either find or invent, even if it be by the process of
self-delusion. Although we lack explicit
reference to such individuals in the period, the intense pressures of the age
make it inherently improbable that they did exist. The pressing need was simply too
great. (For more thoughts on the matter
see the discussion in verse 5.)
The deceivers may have come from
either the Jesus-followers[18] or from traditionalist circles.[19] Although the personal moral responsibility
for the self-deceived and conscious false prophets and Messiahs is not to be
under-rated, their task was made far easier by the volatile society in which
they functioned. There was “a widespread
search for an anointed king who would prove to be a liberator”[20] and such leaders gained a following far
beyond what they would have obtained in more tranquil settings.
The warning of Jesus carried the
implied message that He was not personally coming during the siege;
whatever coming there would be would be a symbolic one. Otherwise one of the claims of finding the
Christ would have ultimately been right, for He was there!
B. THEY WOULD EVEN TO ABLE TO WORK
PSEUDO-MIRACLES
(Matthew
24:24a; Mark 13:22a)
[Page 183] Old Testament
precedent for the danger.
The Torah is quite candid that the professional Egyptian magicians could
duplicate some of Moses’ supernatural acts--though not all. They could reproduce his turning a rod into a
snake (Exodus 7:10), though Aaron’s rod/snake attacked and ate theirs
(7:11-13). Moses turned the drinking
water into an unpalatable “blood” like substance (Exodus 7:20-21) and this
could be duplicated by the magicians (7:22-23), though one must assume upon a
smaller scale since the main bodies of water are referred to as already
polluted due to Moses’ act.
The infliction of obnoxious frogs
upon the land (8:1-6) was matched (8:7), again at least on a more modest scale
by the court magicians (8:7). Beyond
this they could not go. The text
specifically refers to their inability to duplicate the next wonder performed
on nature (8:18) and at least one plague (of boils) is referred to as
inflicting them just as much injury as others (9:11).
Implicit throughout the duplicated
acts is the inference of quantitative superiority of those performed by
Moses (i.e., they affected a greater area or number) and a qualitative
one as well (Aaron’s rod consumed their snakes and the boils inflicted
the magicians just as much as anyone else).
The “qualitative” superiority (for lack of a better term) was also
involved in their failure to stop or reverse the wonders Moses, through Aaron,
had performed.
A polytheist might also, at least
upon some occasions, work an apparent miracle as a proselytizing tool. As the danger is described in Deuteronomy
13:1-3,
If a prophet arises
among you, a dreamer of dreams, and gives you
a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to
pass,
and if he says, “Let us go after other gods,” which you have not known,
“and
let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or
to that
dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether
you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your
soul.”
A distinction is made in the text between
prophets and the foreteller by dreams.
Although other texts speak of visions and other revelatory means, this [Page
184] contrast implies that a prophet did not normally receive his message by
such methods. The possibility of
learning of future events via dreams, however, was an accepted truism of the
ancient world.[21] Among the Jews as well, we read of those
who at least once saw the future through their dreams though they are never
classified as prophets (for example, the cases in Genesis 20:3-7 and Genesis
28:10-22).
The passage is candid that even a
pseudo-prophet or deluded dreamer might enjoy success in their efforts. By whatever psychic, subconscious, or other
means they were utilizing (such as well placed friends in the royal court),
when it came to predictions of the future those not committed to Yahweh might
enjoy major, provable “vindications” of their own.
The gods being recruited for might
by Baal of the nearby Canaanites or the more distant deities of some future
invader[22]
--the point was the same in any case.
Even if an individual could perform a purported miracle, it was not
enough to sanctify the worship of any other God but Yahweh of Israel.
First century occurrence of such
phenomena. Matthew quotes
Jesus as having stressed this same danger in the Sermon on the Mount: In Matthew 7:21-22 is the warning that
entrance into “the kingdom of heaven” will even be denied to those who claim to
“prophesy,” “cast out demons” and “do many mighty works in your name” if they
were not recognized by Jesus as among His true followers (verse 23). Paul speaks in terms of the arising of a
“lawless one” (the “man of sin” in some translations) who would have “power”
and perform “pretended signs and wonders” (2 Thessalonians 2:9) that would
confirm the convictions of those who rejected the gospel (verses 10-12).
The New Testament makes no explicit
reference to the fulfillment of these warnings.
The presence of pseudo-miracle workers in our world would argue that
such is a “natural” phenomena of religion, that a true reality inevitably
produces a counterfeit for those not able to measure up to the demands and
requirements of the original. Hence one
would expect the prediction to have been fulfilled in the time prior to
the fall of Jerusalem though one can not explicitly document it.
[Page 185]
C. THE DANGER OF SUCCESSFUL
DECEPTION WAS PRESENT
(Matthew 24:24b; Mark
13:22b)
Old Testament precedent. Unless the
warnings of the Torah and prophets were empty ramblings, they carried the
implicit warning that their readers themselves might fall for such religious
subversion. Indeed, the writings of the
prophets are full of condemnations, condemnations written in such sweeping
terms that they assume large scale apostasy from the moral and religious norms
of the Torah. In regard to polytheism in
particular, Israel was subject even in its early days of occupying the promised land with a chronic pattern of faithfulness/falling
away/restoration, not on a one-time basis but a recurring one. (Consider the “Judges cycle” in this regard
in Judges 2:11-23).
First century occurrence of such
phenomena. Within the
context of the fall of Jerusalem, there is no direct reference to Christians
falling for the religious delusions of grandeur or national independence. The epistles either date before or after that
Great Revolt (this author finds the traditional dates preferable), but in
either case they don’t purport to describe that period. Yet they do provide indication that
Christians were just as capable as anyone else of gullibility--at least
some of them and on some occasions.
“To Lead Astray If Possible”
Oddly enough the words “if possible”
(in the phrase, “to lead astray, if possible, even the elect”) is often read as
an indication that it would be impossible for such a deception to occur.[23] It would seem rather redundant to argue of
the danger of an impossibility. Years ago my family was traveling through the
Mojave Desert and stopped at a rest area.
At it was a sign warning of the danger of snakes and other dangerous
creatures. Would it have made any sense
to post a warning sign if there were no danger?
[Page 186] Of
course, the text does not claim how many would yield to deception. It is asserting “the difficulty, not the
impossibility of drawing them away from the truth.”[24] Alert to the danger, they were less likely
to be entrapped--less likely, but not unable.
D. SINCE THEY WERE FOREWARNED,
THEY WERE TO REJECT
SUCH CLAIMS
(Matthew 24:25-26; Mark 13:23)
Old Testament precedent. The Old Testament warnings of false prophets
and even pseudo-miracle workers (see discussions above) were obviously intended
to be heeded or they would not have been given in the first place. Hence with the warnings came the implicit
plea that the hearers reject such individuals.
Indeed, it is made explicit in Deuteronomy 13:1-3 (quoted above).
First century occurrence of such
phenomena. Again, because
of the lack of New Testament epistles from the decade or two prior to the Fall of Jerusalem, evidence from that source is
lacking. If Revelation be assigned
shortly prior to that tragedy (and I am among that minority who take that
view), then we find some indication of contemporary Christians successfully
exercising their capacity of spiritual discernment and judgment. In Ephesus in particular we read of how they
“tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and found them to be
false” (Revelation 2:2).
In other cities the danger was still
present and the ultimate issue in doubt.
At Sardis there would those “who hold the teaching of Balaam” (2:14), an
allusion to an Old Testament polytheistic prophet. This may hint at similar prophetic claims
being made. There was also a problem
with certain members who were holding “the teaching of the Nicolatians”
(2:15). In both cases the teaching
needed to be rejected through repentance (2:17).
[Page 187] At Thyatira a woman nicknamed “Jezebel”
by John (for its obvious condemnatory Old Testament connotations) is called “a
prophetess” and her teaching is rebuked (2:20).
An unidentified proportion rejected her teaching (2:24).
Whether we regard Revelation and the
epistles attributed to Paul as of a pre-70 date or not (and a large number of
scholars argue that both types are found in the traditional Pauline canon), a
theme repeatedly found in them is that of early Christians encountering what
apostolic orthodoxy insisted was erroneous, false, and sometimes outright
dangerous. Hence, it is clear that the
early church was alert as to the danger of a drift away from those
standards. (Of course, to the advocates
of rejection it was doubtlessly regarded as progress and an indication of their
greater spiritual discernment.)
“In the Wilderness”
Whether pseudo-Christs appeared in
the wilderness in the era immediately preceding the Great Revolt, we do not
know. We do know, however, that
pseudo-prophets did arise, some of whom may have made claims of
inspiration if not that of being an outright prophet. Josephus refers to those who “under the
pretense of Divine inspiration” went “into the wilderness” and brought together
a large band of followers. According to
him, they claimed “that God would shew them the signal of liberty,” which may
also hint at miraculous signs being promised.
In reality Felix took their behavior as a sign of imminent revolt and
slaughtered many of the assembled multitude.[25]
The wilderness would be a natural
rallying place, away from the immediate presence of Roman soldiers. It would enable at least limited time to
organize forces to attack the occupation forces before the Romans could
retaliate. The effort would be enhanced
if the individuals put out prophetic claims (cf. the incident above) or
outright claimed Messiahship.[26]
For precedent, they could always
have pointed to John the Baptist who did his work in the wilderness.[27] Qumran represented a permanent wilderness
community of the day as well.[28] Hence rallying in the wilderness (for either
peaceful or violent purposes) walked firmly within the traditions of the land.
[Page 188]
“In the Inner Rooms”
Although revolutions may be fought
in the countryside, they are far more often plotted in the backrooms of
urban centers. Hence the imagery
“suggests a revolutionary plotter”[29]
meeting with compatriots and fellow conspirators in such a setting. In an urban environment, one has ready access
to the maximum number of people. The
financing is more readily available there.
There will be a far higher proportion of political discontents with time
on their hands than in farming country.
There will even be potentially subversive contacts within the occupation
forces or collaborating officialdom.
It is hard to launch a
revolution from an occupied city, but it is at least equally hard to
successfully execute one without an extensive apparatus within it as
well. Although this is especially true
in a modern context, these factors reflect a permanent reality throughout
history. With rare exceptions,
successful revolutions are fathered in the cities and given birth to in the
countryside.
There was a Jewish belief (at least
at a late date) that the Messiah would secretly be in the world before
revealing Himself when the right, glorious moment finally came.[30] John 7:27 seems to have this concept in
mind[31] and
in that passage the conviction was utilized as a reason to deny Jesus messianic
recognition. Since Jesus’ prediction
in Matthew 24 was spoken of the destruction of the temple, this phrase could
refer to the Messiah appearing from a secret refuge in the meeting rooms and
facilities that were part of the temple complex.[32]
[2]Cf. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of
Luke, in the New International Greek Testament Commentary series
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978; 1989 reprint), 774.
[3]Ray Summers, page 259; cf. William Manson, The Gospel of Luke, in the Moffatt’s New
Testament Commentary series (London:
Hodder and Stoughton, Limited, 1930; sixth printing, 1948), 234.
[4]Wilfrid J. Harrington, 241; Stoger, 157-158;
Elbert M. Williamson, Message to Theophilus:
Studies in Luke’s Gospel (Miami, Florida: LOGOI, Inc., 1972), 125.
[5]Tiede, 364.
[6]Frederick W. Danker, Jesus and the New
Age: A Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel,
Completed Revised and Expanded (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Fortress Press,1988),
335.
[7]Wars, Preface: 4. Cf. Preface: 1, where he speaks of the
war as the “greatest” in human memory.
[8]On the proportion taking this view see
Ronald Simkins, Yahweh’s Activity in History and Nature in the Book of Joel, Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies,
Volume 10 (Lewiston [New York]: Edwin
Mellen Press, 1991), 159. For a summary
of the pros and cons for each of the three views see 159-169. Simkins ultimately opts for the locust
interpretation.
[Page 190] [9]For example, Allen, 68; Julius A. Bewer,
“Joel,” in John M. P. Smith, William H. Ward, and Julius A. Bewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel, in the International
Critical Commentary series (New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1911),
95-96; James L. Crenshaw, Joel,
in the Anchor Bible series (New York:
Doubleday, 1995), 119-120; cf. p. 49; Thomas J. Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, in the Wycliffe
Exegetical Commentary series (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1990), 43; Theodore Laetsch, The Minor Prophets
(Saint Louis, Missouri: Concordia
Publishing House, 1956), 119-121; H. C. O. Lanchester, The Books of Joel and
Amos, Second Edition, in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
series (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1915), 50-51; G. W. Wade, The Books of the Prophets Micah, Obadiah,
Joel and Jonah, in the Westminster Commentaries series (London: Methuen & Company, Ltd., 1925),
97-98; John D. W. Watts, The Books of
Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habbakkuk and Zephaniah, in the Cambridge
Bible Commentary: New English Bible
series (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1975), 25.
[10]Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, in the Word
Biblical Themes series (Dallas, Texas:
Word Publishing, 1989), 48.
[11]Thomas E. McComiskey, The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and
Expository Commentary (Gand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Book House, 1992), 271,
274, interprets it not as referring to literal locusts but to an army
devastating the land in a locust-like fashion.
Peter C. Craigie, Twelve Prophets; Volume 1: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, and Jonah,
in the Daily Study Bible Series (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984), 98, argues that,
“The recent locust invasion, horrifying enough in itself, was but a
foreshadowing of a more awful event to come. . . .” Elizabeth Achtemeier, “Joel,” Introduction to the Apocalyptic
Literature, Daniel, The Twelve Prophets, edited by Leander E. Keck, et
al., Volume 7 of The New Interpreter’s Bible
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996),
316, concedes the use of locust imagery
but argues that it represents “God’s mysterious enemy from the north” (page 316).
[Page 191] [12]Robert C. Gregg and Dan Urman, Jews,
Pagans, and Christians in the Golan Heights:
Greek and Other Inscriptions of the Roman and Byzantine Era, South
Florida Studies in the History of Judaism, Number 140 (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1996), 291.
[13]Margaret Davies, 168.
[14]199.
[15]Williams, page 436.
[16]Cf. John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the
Evangelists, translated by William Pringle (Reprint. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
n.d.), 3:139.
[17]Owen, 314.
[18]Anderson, 297;
Hammerton-Kelly, 37; Saldarini, 115.
[19]Meier, Matthew, 285, attributes it
to both.
[20]Gerard S. Sloyan, Jesus in Focus: A Life in Its Setting, Revised Edition
(Mystic, Connecticut: Twenty-Third
Publications, 1994), 75.
[21]Richard Clifford, Deuteronomy,
Volume 4 of the Old Testament Message--A Biblical-Theological Commentary
(Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier,
Inc., 1982), 81.
[22]Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy, in the
Old Testament Library series (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1966), 97.
[24]Williams, 437.
[25]Wars II:13,4. The same incident is referred to in his Antiquities
XX:9:6, as well.
[26]Cf. Ripley, 199.
[27]Cf. Stock, 368.
[28]Cf. Ibid.
[29]W. K. L. Clarke, Concise Bible Commentary
(New York: Macmillan Company, 1953),
742.
[30]Stock, 368.
[31]Montague, 268, Newman and
Stine, 745, and Schweizer, 454.
[32]Jacobus, 244.