by
Damien F. Mackey
“Josephus relates that Simeon suddenly appeared among the
Temple ruins,
as though out of the bowels of the earth, dressed in white and
covered with a
purple mantle. At the sight of him the Romans were terrified,
but after recovering from their fear, bound him in chains. His strange
appearance was probably connected with messianic expectations on his part …”.
Simeon Bar Giora | Jewish Virtual Library
Simeon
Bar Giora
(D.
70 C.E.)
BAR
GIORA, SIMEON, Jewish military leader in the war against Rome
(66–70 C.E.). Simeon was born, according to Josephus, in *Gerasa, a
large Hellenistic city in Transjordan, where the Jews lived in peace with the
city's non-Jewish population. Some scholars, however, identify his birthplace
with the village of Jerash in the neighborhood of Hartuv (Press, Ereẓ, 1 (19512),
174, S.V. Geresh), others with Kefar Jorish near Shechem on
the grounds that Simeon's activity began in its vicinity, i.e., in the province
of Acrabatene. Since the word giora means proselyte in
Aramaic, many scholars hold that his father was a convert to Judaism. The main
source of information about Simeon is Josephus who is to be treated with
circumspection, especially where an appraisal of the man and his activities are
concerned, since Josephus entertained feelings of intense animosity toward him.
Simeon,
already apparently known as a partisan leader, first distinguished himself in
the battle at Beth-Horon against *Cestius Gallus (66 C.E.), in
which the Jews inflicted a crushing defeat on the Roman army.
Despite
this achievement, however, Simeon was relegated to the background, since in
Jerusalem the moderate party in control was disposed to come to terms with
Rome.
Simeon
gathered around him a band of ardent patriots and, according to Josephus,
engaged in brigandage. It is obvious, however, even from Josephus' own biased
account, that these acts of "brigandage" were military operations
conducted by the rebels under the leadership of Simeon against their internal
enemies, opponents of the revolt, and sympathizers with Rome. In retaliation
for these operations, the forces of the moderate government in Jerusalem
compelled Simeon to take refuge among the *Sicarii who, under the
command of *Eleazar b. Jair, had captured *Masada. For a time Simeon
remained with them, taking part in their raids. Subsequently leaving them, he
parted company, and "terrorized" the southern part of Ereẓ Israel. Although growing increasingly
stronger, he was unable to capture Jerusalem. The Zealots in Jerusalem, who
were fearful of him, seized his wife but released her because of his threats.
In addition to his continuous war against the party in control in Jerusalem,
Simeon also fought against the Idumeans and succeeded in occupying Idumea with
the help of supporters among the Idumeans themselves. Hebron, too, fell into
his hands. In April 69 C.E. he entered Jerusalem, the gates of the
city having been opened to him by the enemies of *John of Giscala,
who had called on Simeon to come to their aid.
Simeon
thus gained control of the larger part of Jerusalem, both of the Upper and a
considerable section of the Lower City.
The
struggle between Simeon and John of Giscala continued. Constant hostilities
were waged between them in the city, and came to an end only when Titus' forces
reached the outskirts of Jerusalem (April 70 C.E.). Although all the
rebels joined together during the siege to fight against the Romans and
performed deeds of astounding bravery, the advantage enjoyed by the Roman army
proved decisive. The Temple was burned and the devastated city captured by the
enemy.
Simeon
and several of his most loyal friends hid in an underground passage among the
ruins, but, unable to escape, Simeon finally surrendered to the Romans and was
taken prisoner.
The
circumstances of his surrender were extremely strange.
Josephus
relates that Simeon suddenly appeared among the Temple ruins, as though out of
the bowels of the earth, dressed in white and covered with a purple mantle. At
the sight of him the Romans were terrified, but after recovering from their
fear, bound him in chains. His strange appearance was probably connected with
messianic expectations on his part; or by submitting to the victorious enemy he
may have deliberately invited martyrdom.
Simeon
was led as a prisoner in the triumphal procession held in Rome by Vespasian and
his sons to celebrate their victory over the Jews.
Scourged
all the way, he was taken to the Mamertine prison, at the northeast end of the
Forum, and executed at the moment of the culmination of the triumph. That he
and not John of Giscala played this part in the triumphal procession shows that
the Romans regarded him as the most important leader in Jerusalem and as the
rebel commander. This is evident from other extant information as well. His
army was far larger than that of his rivals, having numbered about 15,000 at
the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem. His soldiers were also the best
organized and disciplined. The fact that he was invited to Jerusalem by the
priests and the people may have provided him with some legal basis for his
leadership, although not all the patriot elements recognized his authority.
Since information about them is very sparse, it is difficult to comprehend and
explain the basis of the conflict between their different parties. At times it
is even difficult to distinguish between the parties themselves. Nevertheless,
from extant information it would appear that Simeon b. Giora was the leader of
a clear eschatological trend in the movement of rebellion against Rome, and
possibly filled the role of "king messiah" within the complex of
eschatological beliefs held by his followers. His exceptional bravery and
daring, mentioned by Josephus, undoubtedly attracted many to him, and won him
preeminence among the rebel leaders. In contrast to the bitter hostility that
existed between him and John of Giscala, there was a measure of understanding
between him and the Sicarii at Masada.
Conspicuous
among Simeon's characteristics was the enmity he bore toward the rich and the
sympathy he showed to the poor, even to the extent of freeing slaves. This
approach of his doubtless had its origin in his party's social outlook, opposed
as it was to the existing order also in regard to the economic system and
social justice.
Jay
F. Guin
(2016) goes so far as to identify the extraordinary Simeon Giora as Saint
Paul’s man of sin:
2 Thessalonians: 2:3-12
(Wrapping Up the Man of Lawlessness) | One In Jesus
2
Thessalonians: 2:3-12 (Wrapping Up the Man of Lawlessness)
Closing
thoughts
So
I started with just the text and Gordon Fee’s commentary on 2 Thess. And I soon
worked with just the text as I found Fee too unwilling to consider the
possibility that these events had already happened. He prefers a metaphorical
interpretation — an interpretation that doesn’t really serve Paul’s purposes in
writing 2 Thessalonians.
If
we assume that Paul is right (and that 2 Thess isn’t some so-called
Deutero-Pauline text but truly honest-to-God inspired scripture), then
there has to be an answer. Follow the evidence.
When
I finished my own, independent study, I went through over a dozen commentaries
and found that nearly all offer no theory at all. Some suggest that Paul is
offering a metaphor for any rebellious leader (seriously?). Some assume
the Left Behind theory. Some list obviously absurd
interpretations (Hitler, Stalin, the Pope) to demonstrate the impossibility of
knowing what is meant. Some conflate this text with the mark of the antichrist,
the beast, 666, and all that — which is unwarranted. He’s not called a beast or
given a number by Paul. We can’t just assume to be true what we wish to be
true.
Regarding
Luke 17:23, Evans notes,
In
Luke’s church the tragic war with Rome (A.D. 66–70) may very possibly be in
mind. Many Jews followed a would-be messiah named Simon bar Giora (as well as
other leaders). Through his leadership it was hoped that Rome would be defeated
and the kingdom of God inaugurated. These hopes and aspirations proved to be
unfounded, and the city of Jerusalem, along with its temple, was destroyed.
Craig
A. Evans, Luke, Understanding the Bible Commentary Series,
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1990), 264.
Regarding
Matt 24:26,
Such
“false Messiahs and false prophets” active during the siege might include Simon
bar-Giora (Josephus, War 4.503–544 etc.) who was regarded as a
“king” (510) and eventually paraded and executed in the Roman triumph as “the
enemy’s general” (War 7.153–154), and also “many” false prophets noted
anonymously in War 6.285–288; that last passage goes on to relate (6.289–300) a
series of signs and wonders occurring in the period before the city was
destroyed which some took (wrongly) to be omens of deliverance.
R.
T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Commentary
on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co.,
2007).
Menahem
and Simon bar-Giora, two of the would-be messiahs of the war against Rome (A.D.
66–70), presented themselves in public in the Temple before being killed, one
by rival Jews, the other by the Romans during Titus’s triumph.
N.
T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is,
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 63.
Thus,
the historians agree that Simon bar Giora made fairly prominent messianic
claims, was the primary leader of the rebellion against Rome (the Romans made a
point to execute him in Rome), and a brutal, cruel leader. It’s easy to imagine
Paul, with apostolic foresight, speaking very harshly of someone claiming to be
the Messiah (and so denying Jesus) and leading God’s people into a futile,
suicidal, brutal war with the Romans against the announced will of God. The
language of 2 Thessalonians has the tone appropriate to such a person.
Some
argue that Paul seems to be arguing that the Rebel will appear just before the
Second Coming, but this same claim could be made as to Jesus’ words in Matt 24
— and yet they aren’t right. I think we’re unconsciously reading our own
traditions — the Anti-Christ theories — into the text.
For
Paul’s original readers, if he’d covered Jesus’ speech over Jerusalem recorded
in Matthew 24 in his teaching with the Thessalonians — and why not? — then he’d
quite naturally say that, obviously, since Jerusalem is not yet fallen, the
Second Coming hasn’t yet happened. Indeed, the only thing we know for sure
regarding the timing of the Second Coming from the scriptures is that it would
occur after Jerusalem is destroyed!
With
one exception [1], no one that I’ve found associates Simon bar Giora with the
Man of Lawlessness because most don’t see Paul as talking about the destruction
of Jerusalem — and yet based on the Gospels, the destruction of Jerusalem is
the ONLY thing Paul could be talking about because it’s the ONLY event that
Jesus assures his followers will precede the Second Coming. And it seems
unlikely that in the same series of letters in which Paul says the Second
Coming will come “as a thief in the night” that he’d be adding to the events
that make the timing knowable.
Paul
himself says he’s repeating lessons already taught. And it makes perfect sense
that the lesson taught in Matt 24 would have been a part of Paul’s teaching.
After all, in 15 years, the Temple would be destroyed and Jerusalem would fall.
His students needed to know how to fit these cosmic events into their
understanding of Christianity.
It’s
not complicated — just obscure because few Christians study the history of the
fall of Jerusalem and see it as being as significant as it was to Jesus and
Paul.
….
No comments:
Post a Comment