Before Jerusalem Fell

by Kenneth L. Gentry by Kenneth L. Gentry

12.07.2013 Views

282 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL The Jews responded to the favors of Rome (as varying as these were under different local procurators) by offering “sacrifices twice every day for Caesar, and for the Roman people.” ] * 2 This was doubtless regarded by Rome as “a very fair equivalent” 113 to the imposition of the Imperial Divinity’s inclusion in the Pantheon of Rome’s subjects. In other words, it appeased the emperor’s expectation for some form of religious veneration by the Jews. 114 At the outbreak of the Jewish Revolt (which became a full-fledged war from Rome’s perspective when Nero commissioned Vespasian to suppress it), however, this protective offering in honor of Caesar was stopped. Josephus records the event: And at this time it was that some of those that principally excited the people to go to war, made an assault upon a certain fortress cakl Masada. They took it by treachery, and slew the Remans that were there, and put others of their own party to keep it. At the same time Eleazar, the son of Ananias the high priest, a very bold youth, who was at that time governor of the temple, persuaded those that officiated in the divine service to receive no gift or sacrifice for any foreigner. And this was the true beginning of our war with the Remans: for they rejected the sacrifice of Caesar on this account: and when many of the high priests and principal men besought them not to omit the sacrifice, which it was customary for them to offer for their princes, they would not be prevailed upon. 115 The effect of this decision as it reflected upon the Roman emperor was that “its termination in the summer of A.D. 66 was tantamount to official renunciation of his authority .’’l*G This was the focal event that highlighted the extreme seriousness of the revolt of the Jews and that brought Roman imperial forces into the picture. In a real sense, the cessation of the Jewish sacrifices for the emperor resulted in the death of those in “the land,” for a most gruesome and protracted war was waged against rebellious Israel. ] 17 112. Josephus, Wars 2:10:4. See also his Against A,bion 2:5. 113. Henderson, Nero, p. 348. 114. One example exists of at least one emperor who felt it was not enough. The emperor Gaius complained: “YOU offered sacrifices for me, it is true, but you offered none to me,” in Philo, To Gaius 357. 115. Wars 2:17:2. 116. Bruce, History, p. 139. 117. This seems to be the idea involved in the second Beast’s killing those in the Land who did not worship the image of the Beast (Rev. 13:15).

The Role of Emperor Worship 283 But another matter arises in consideration of these tiairs. The very fact that the cessation of Israel’s religious honor of the emperor (through daily sacrifice) determined Rome’s destructive response is indicative of the very seriousness with which the emperor conceived of emperor worship. In Rome’s eyes, emperor worship may well have been deemed a purely political and symbolic act, and not a truly religious act. ] 18 But it was a deadly serious symbolic statement, one of such magnitude as to eventuate in war. Even symbolic actions are of serious historical consequence among most peoples; surely even early emperor worship, even if merely symbolic, had serious political implications that could result in the persecution and war of Revelation. Returning to the motivation for Nero’s persecution of the Christians “there seem to have been two counts in the indictment. By ancient rules each was tried separately. The first count probably, as Conybeare and Howson suggest, was complicity in the fire. . . . The second count was either majesta – almost anything could be brought under this head – or the new crime of being a Christian, the ccime of ‘the Name’, in itself a mere variation, as we shall see later, of majestas or high treason. On this indictment there could be but one verdict “119 As Henderson explains of this terrible episode: “In fact> Christianity and the State were inevitably hostile, just because neither could understand the position of the other. On the side of the State, a very great and a very justifiable value was attached to the conception of the Unity and the Unification of the whole Empire, which was expressed, and could be expressed only, in the idea and observance of Caesar-worship. This reverence paid to the Imperial idea as symbolised by the worship of Rome and Augustus ‘united’, as has been said, ‘the peoples of the Empire from the Ocean to the Syrian desert.’” ’ 20 Thus, lurking behind the persecution, even if not in the forefront, is the cult of the emperor — a harbinger of things to come. Additional questions could be explored with profit: Could it be that the circus Nero sponsored to initiate the persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 was part of the veneration of the emperor, who 118. Except, of course, in the cases of the madcap emperors Caligula (Gaius) and Domitian, and surely that of the insane Nero. 119. Workman, Persecutwn, p. 16. 120. Henderson, Lij2 and Pnncipate, p. 353.

The Role of Emperor Worship 283<br />

But another matter arises in consideration of these tiairs. The<br />

very fact that the cessation of Israel’s religious honor of the emperor<br />

(through daily sacrifice) determined Rome’s destructive response is<br />

indicative of the very seriousness with which the emperor conceived<br />

of emperor worship. In Rome’s eyes, emperor worship may well have<br />

been deemed a purely political and symbolic act, and not a truly<br />

religious act. ] 18 But it was a deadly serious symbolic statement, one<br />

of such magnitude as to eventuate in war. Even symbolic actions are<br />

of serious historical consequence among most peoples; surely even<br />

early emperor worship, even if merely symbolic, had serious political<br />

implications that could result in the persecution and war of Revelation.<br />

Returning to the motivation for Nero’s persecution of the Christians<br />

“there seem to have been two counts in the indictment. By<br />

ancient rules each was tried separately. The first count probably, as<br />

Conybeare and Howson suggest, was complicity in the fire. . . .<br />

The second count was either majesta – almost anything could be<br />

brought under this head – or the new crime of being a Christian, the<br />

ccime of ‘the Name’, in itself a mere variation, as we shall see later,<br />

of majestas or high treason. On this indictment there could be but one<br />

verdict “119 As Henderson explains of this terrible episode: “In fact><br />

Christianity and the State were inevitably hostile, just because neither<br />

could understand the position of the other. On the side of the<br />

State, a very great and a very justifiable value was attached to the<br />

conception of the Unity and the Unification of the whole Empire,<br />

which was expressed, and could be expressed only, in the idea and<br />

observance of Caesar-worship. This reverence paid to the Imperial<br />

idea as symbolised by the worship of Rome and Augustus ‘united’,<br />

as has been said, ‘the peoples of the Empire from the Ocean to the<br />

Syrian desert.’” ’ 20<br />

Thus, lurking behind the persecution, even if not<br />

in the forefront, is the cult of the emperor — a harbinger of things to<br />

come.<br />

Additional questions could be explored with profit: Could it be<br />

that the circus Nero sponsored to initiate the persecution of the<br />

Christians in A.D. 64 was part of the veneration of the emperor, who<br />

118. Except, of course, in the cases of the madcap emperors Caligula (Gaius) and<br />

Domitian, and surely that of the insane Nero.<br />

119. Workman, Persecutwn, p. 16.<br />

120. Henderson, Lij2 and Pnncipate, p. 353.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!