The cause of their condemnation: That firmly rooted Tree of life

As I noted in a previous series of posts, most scholars nowadays presume that the clear eschatological promises and expectations woven throughout the New Testament "Scriptures" have not yet been fulfilled, even though they also clearly read as though they were meant to be interpreted as to-be-fulfilled in that first century generation. In this post I want to continue that sporadic series I started late last year. 

For those who follow this blog, it should already be abundantly clear that I have thought about this academically hot topic in lengthy detail for over a decade (see here and here and here and here and here and here), so this isn't some kind of stream-of-consciousness eisegesis or exegesis on my part. I have researched this topic extensively, and I have reached a point in life when I am willing to share how I feel about it all. I am seriously bothered by both the hubris of many contemporary biblical scholars and the apathetic torpor of brilliant academicians who specialize in the field of Second-Temple Judaism and early Christianity. Even though most of them admit that the New Testament corpus of literature clearly refers to first century cataclysmic events about "the end of the world" in direct relation to first century historical events surrounding the Roman/Jewish wars, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the fall of Herod's Temple in AD 70 (the axis mundi of first century Rabbinic Judaism), they all nevertheless invent farcically esoteric theories and inane paradigms for interpreting first century Judean eschatological language to justify their presumption that such "prophecy" and historical allusions to first century events were not really divinely revelatory prior to the events they describe, and also did not actually become fulfilled in the first century. All "prophecy" supposedly must be recorded to look like they're referring to past events. But it wasn't all true prophecy anyway, because we know that the end of the world has not literally occurred yet, according to Gospel prophecy. At best, the parousia of Christ has been delayed thousands of years, and no one knows the day nor the hour. 

I have hundreds of pages of notes among scholarly publications that I own, highlighting such professional opinions. After all these years of trying to become convinced along with them, I now think that such presumptions are based entirely upon official yet questionable dogmas that developed organically through various politically and ecclesiologically philosophical concerns which arose centuries after the Second-Temple early Christian period. Only those scholars who are not beholden to questionable tribalistic dogmas are brave enough to challenge the status quo, reading the texts with literary, historical, and rhetorical integrity.

Although today's post is only topically related to the subject of New Testament eschatological fulfillment in the first century, I consider this post to be a unique and important shift in perspective. I have never commented publicly at length about Christian "scriptures" that are clearly pseudepigraphic and vaticinium ex eventu. In the past I have insisted that the New Testament Scriptures are historically reliable and rhetorically coherent, or else they are false and unreliable witnesses to first century expectations and events. In this post, I'm not going to stop insisting as much. Instead, I will be upping the ante to such positions. Despite the many and disjointed scholarly conjectures about New Testament eschatological promises being unfulfilled and delayed, even delayed beyond our own future (in the present time), I will be insisting in future posts that a huge amount of writings outside of the New Testament literary corpus actually bear witness to the New Testament eschatological expectations, and thereby testify literarily to first century historical events being their actual fulfillment. I will be upping the ante today by using pseudepigraphic, ex eventu "scriptures" to illustrate that first century fulfillment was the primary reason for composing such "scriptures."

In this post, I want to show how one, small, and highly relevant piece of pseudepigraphic Jewish-Christian literature that has clearly been written after the events of AD 70 (and thereby vaticinium ex eventu by design), can be an extremely valuable and helpful specimen for understanding and appreciating the New Testament eschatological message of first century fulfillment. The specimen of which I am speaking is known as 4 Baruch (the Paraleipomena Jeremiou, also known in the Ethiopic tradition as "The rest of the words of Baruch," the scribe of Israel's prophet, Jeremiah).

Below is an excerpt taken from Dale C. Allison's translation of 4 Baruch 9:7-21.

...After saying these things, and while standing in the area of the altar with Baruch and Abimelech, he became like one of those handing over his soul. And Baruch and Abimelech remained weeping and crying with a great voice, "Woe to us because our father Jeremiah, the priest of God, has left us and gone away." All the people heard their weeping, and they all ran to them, and they saw Jeremiah lying on the ground as though dead. And they tore their garments and put dust on their heads and wept most bitterly. And after these things, they prepared themselves to bury him. And behold! a voice came, saying "Do not bury one who yet lives, because his soul is returning to his body again." And when they heard the voice, they did not bury him, but for three days they remained in a circle around his body, talking (with each other) and being perplexed as to what time he was going to stand up. After three days, his soul re-entered his body, and he raised his voice in the midst of all and said, 

"Glorify God with one voice, all (of you) glorify God and the Son of God who awakens us, Jesus Christ the light of all the ages, the unquenchable light, the life of faith. And it will happen after these times that there will be another 477 years, and he will come to earth.1 And the tree of life, which is planted in the middle of paradise, will make all the unfruitful trees bear fruit, and grow, and send forth shoots. And it will make the trees that had (sprouted) and grown great and said, 'We have sent our top to the sky,' together with their high branches, to shrivel up; and that firmly rooted tree will cause them to be condemned. And it will make that which is scarlet to become white as wool. The snow will be turned black, the sweet waters will become salty, and the salty will become sweet in the great light of the joy of God. And he will bless the islands so that they produce fruit by the word from the mouth of his Christ. For he will come, and he will go out, and he will choose for himself twelve apostles, so that they might preach the good news among the nations. He whom I have seen has been adorned by his Father, and he is coming into the world upon the Mount of Olives; and he will fill the hungry souls." 

While Jeremiah was saying these things concerning the Son of God, that he is coming into the world, the people became furious and said, "These are once again the words spoken by Isaiah the son of Amos when he said, 'I saw God and the Son of God.' Come then, and let us not kill him by the death (with which we killed) that one, but let us stone him with stones."....2

In this story, the prophet Jeremiah is miraculously revived for the purpose of sharing an eschatological vision of Jesus Christ coming hundreds of years later, to the land of Israel. At that special eschatological time, "the tree of life" which is planted in the protological Garden of Eden --the "middle of paradise"-- will bring about miraculous change among the nations surrounding Israel: unfruitful trees will bear fruit and send out shoots for future Garden expansion. The apostate leadership of Israel, described throughout the literature of Second-Temple Judaism and early Christianity, are the trees who would be judged by God severely, for they would sprout and grow greatly, boasting like one who ascends to heaven, up to the plane of ruling stars. The surrounding trees of Israel would become shriveled up and condemned by "that firmly rooted tree" of life in the midst of Paradise. 

At that time, that Tree in paradise will also reverse the fortunes of the surrounding trees of Israel's land in order to expand the Garden's fruitfulness. A tiny portion of this fortune-reversal pericope is structured chiastically, for poetic emphasis: 

A) that which is scarlet will become white as wool  (i.e. the "unclean" will become "clean")
  B) the snow will be turned black  (i.e. the "clean" will become "unclean")
  B') the sweet waters will become salty  (i.e. the "fresh" will become "repugnant")
A') the salty will become sweet  (i.e. the "repugnant" will become "fresh")


Finally and wondrously, all of this would take place "in the great light of the joy of God." That Son of God, "Jesus Christ," whom Jeremiah had seen while lying on the ground in virtual death for three days, would come into the world upon the Mount of Olives, and fill the hungry souls. As Dale C. Allison, Jr. has highlighted:

A reader of the NT may think of stories in which Jesus is on the Mount of Olives... One might also recall the many texts in which the risen Jesus discourses on the Mount of Olives. It is more likely, however, that the second coming is in view. 4 Baruch takes up the language of Zech 14:4-5, an eschatological text which Jewish readers often connected with the resurrection of the dead and which some early Christian texts associated with the parousia. If so, 4 Baruch likely assumes, in line with a host of other ancient sources, that Jerusalem, the axis mundi, will be the center of the end-time events.3

Notice carefully that Allison presumes that Jesus' discourses on the Mount of Olives can be separated conceptually from the "second coming," the "parousia," and "the resurrection of the dead." According to Allison, the author of 4 Baruch imagines along with "a host of other ancient sources" that Jerusalem was the center of the end-time events, but Allison's own personal eschatological convictions about the parousia and the resurrection of the dead preclude the possibility of the "end times" actually being fulfilled in the destruction of first century Jerusalem. But why must we assume this, too? 

Here's an honest question of mine: Why not consider all of those events taking place in that first century generation, as Jesus said it would? 

Allison associates all of those things with a "second coming," a phrase that isn't even mentioned in the New Testament! The closest remark to a "second" coming of the Lord Jesus is found in Hebrews 9:28, which, in its very close context alongside verses 24-27 (compare with Heb. 9:8-9), clearly refers to Christ's appearance at the end of the ages, in that generation. The author of Hebrews is the one who defines the terms for us, and sets the time-frame in which the end of the ages takes place. He says that Christ "appeared" once "at the end of the ages" to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. It is in that immediate context that he also mentions that Jesus would "appear a second time" (which, if you were a recipient of this authentic letter among a first century audience, such an "appearance" would obviously be in that generation because the first "appearance" was at the end of the ages, not the beginning of the ages). That second appearance would not be to put away sin (which, in context, means to suffer repeatedly, to sacrifice himself again, etc.), but instead to save all those who eagerly waited for him. Such an eager expectation happens to comport very well with preterist hermeneutic, because most (!!) eschatological expectations of Second-Temple Judaism hoped for ancestors to be raised from the dead-ones in Hades/Sheol at the coming of Israel's Messiah. 

Let's now rewind a bit, and get our focus back onto 4 Baruch. 

Let's not forget that 4 Baruch is clearly vaticinium ex eventu and pseudepigraphic. Baruch, the servant of Jeremiah, did not prophesy about Jesus Christ by name, or his disciples by number. We should now be asking why anyone after the fulfillment of such extraordinary first century events would write as though they actually were old testament prophets of Israel, foreseeing motifs of eschatological renewal and resurrection hundreds of years in advance.

Let's now ask an obvious question: Why would an author (or redactor) of "scriptural" history such as 4 Baruch compose such a story?

Isn't it obvious that 4 Baruch was designed to persuade readers after the events of AD 70 that they had already been clearly fulfilled in that generation of Jesus and his apostles, within the first century? 

For most Christians this is a large pill to swallow because it appears heterodox. I'm not bothered by such suspicions. I think there are numerous ways in which to fit such paradigms into orthodoxy; but sorting that out is not a concern of mine at the moment. For now, I'm just thinking out loud about what I have studied and how I think it can be interpreted; and I think there are only two ways to interpret 4 Baruch 9:7-21. Either the New Testament promises and expectations of imminent eschatological fulfillment were historically reliable and rhetorically coherent, or else they were false and unreliable witnesses to first century expectations and events. 4 Baruch was composed long after such first century fulfillment, to tell a story about the destruction of Jerusalem in Jeremiah's day. That story concludes with Jeremiah being martyred like Jesus Christ for telling Israel about a vision he had while lying as a dead man for three days. That vision was about the trees of Israel (i.e. the leaders) being condemned by God's chief and chosen tree, the Tree of life. That vision promised the definitive beginning of God's proctological Garden-expansion project finally getting underway; but that necessitated purging all the rotten trees around the Tree of life, in order to spread seeds of life upon the surrounding nations. At that time, the unclean would become clean, and the fresh waters of Israel would become repugnant. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, would come into the world upon the Mount of Olives and fill hungry souls. All of that, notably, referred to the appearing of Christ a second time in that generation, at the end of the ages, to save all those who eagerly waited for him. It alluded to the "end time events" of Zechariah 14, an eschatological text which ancient Jewish literature and iconography connected with the resurrection of the dead-ones from Sheol/Hades who had been awaiting eternal life with their promised Messiah's exaltation to the right hand of his Heavenly Father.

With all of this in mind, I still contend that if Christians continue to presume that the clear eschatological promises and expectations woven throughout the New Testament Scriptures have not yet been fulfilled, even though they also clearly read as though they were meant to be interpreted that way, the integrity of New Testament scriptures as historically reliable and rhetorically credible witnesses to Jesus Christ will never be taken seriously by the surrounding world.

4 Baruch is not an exception to that rule either. 4 Baruch 9:7-21 was meant to be interpreted as to-be-fulfilled in that first century generation in which Jesus, Israel's Messiah, had lived and died, was raised from the dead-ones, and was vindicated in the promised destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, like YHWH's word was vindicated in his prophet Jeremiah's life and message about the destruction of Jerusalem and Israel's first temple (Jer. 52:12-16; cf. 2 Kings 25:8-12; 2 Chron. 36:17-21; Psa. 137). 

1.  The Greek manuscripts actually read εἰς τὴν γῆν, "into the land." The translation of γῆν as "earth" is often misleading because it is easily interpreted anachronistically. Ancient eastern cultures thought in terms of territories, tribes, and land.

2. Dale C. Allison, Jr., 4 Baruch [Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature], (Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 2019), pp. 393-4

3. Ibid. p. 443

Jesus & Jeremiah

Matthew 21:12-22 narrates Jesus cleansing the Jerusalem temple that had become a "den of robbers." Immediately following that event is Jesus' curse upon the fig tree, pronouncing that it would no longer bear fruit. 

Jeremiah 7 & 8 is an oracle about Judah's exile into Babylon & the soon-coming destruction of Judah's precious city & temple. 

The "den of robbers" and the withering of the fig tree are both clearly alluded to in Jeremiah 7 & 8 (particularly 7:8-14 & 8:4-13). 

Isn't it reasonable, therefore, to associate the message of Jesus in Matthew 21:12-22 with the message of Yahweh in Jeremiah 7 & 8? 

If Yahweh cleansed his temple in the days of Jeremiah, that same message of cleansing was being repeated in the days of Jesus. Since the covenant-breaking of Judah's leaders was being repeated, the message of Yahweh's covenant-faithfulness was being repeated. The major difference between these two visitations was that Yahweh would send his own Son to die in the place of Judah, to be faithful to Yahweh's covenant, even unto death, so that the old Israel would finally die and a new Israel raised up to newness of life in union with Him. 

Salvation would come upon Israel through judgment in 70 A.D, but the old Israel and it's "den of robbers" in union with the first Adam would die in the judgment upon Jerusalem. Those who would not give up everything to follow Jesus, the second Adam, would wither and die like the fruitless fig tree of the old Israel. Only those who took up their cross and followed Jesus would be constituted as members of a new Israel, a new and living body--the body of the faithful Son of Yahweh (Ex. 4:22; Hos. 11:1; Matt. 2:15). 

Jesus came to his own and his own received him not. He came as the faithful firstborn "Son" that Judah repeatedly failed to be after receiving his inheritance. The scepter departed from Judah once Jesus came, to whom it belonged (Gen. 49:10 MT); and unto him is the gathering of all nations in him as promised.

Resurrection as Release from Prison

Jeremiah himself had been unjustly beaten and condemned to prison by Jerusalem’s king because he had prophesied that Jerusalem would fall to her enemies (Jer 37:14–18). So the king permitted Jeremiah to be cast into a well so that he might sink into the mire (Jer 38:6). But an Ethiopian eunuch interceded with the king and was given permission to take thirty men to rescue Jeremiah (Jer 38:7–10). So the prophet was lifted up out of the pit of death (Jer 38:11–13). He was then brought to the third entrance to the temple (Jer 38:14). And after Jeremiah was released, God commanded him to bring a word of good news to the Ethiopian eunuch, who was to be assured that God would reward him because he had trusted in the Lord (Jer 39:15–18). 

Likewise, in the fullness of time many would see Jesus as a new Jeremiah (Matt 16:14). For Jesus too would be beaten and condemned by Jerusalem to bonds. And for having prophesied that the city was to fall to her enemies (Matt 24:1–2; 27:40), Jesus would be killed and placed in a grave (Matt 27:62–66). But on the third day Christ was released from the grave and so raised the third temple (John 2:19). Afterwards Jesus sent a message of good news to an Ethiopian eunuch, that God would accept him because he had trusted in the Lord (Acts 8:26–39).1

1.  Gage, W. A. (2010). Theological Poetics: Typology, Symbol and the Christ. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Warren A. Gage.

Living as a Prize of War (Jeremiah 21:1-10)

In Jeremiah 21:1-10 the prophet is confronted by Zedekiah, king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar had installed on the throne in place of Jehoiakin (Zedekiah's nephew). In verses 1-2 king Zedekiah sends ambassadors to Jeremiah, hoping to hear news that Yahweh would be faithful to His covenant with Israel and deliver Judah with the same kind of "wonderful deeds" He used to deliver Israel in times past. These "wondrous deeds" are the same "mighty powers" and "wonders" of Exodus 3:20, Deuteronomy 34:12, and Psa. 106:8 (LXX). Zedekiah thinks Yahweh's faithfulness is a one-way street of blessing, as though Yahweh would do whatever it took to protect the reputation of His own house (i.e. the Temple in Jerusalem). Zedekiah knows that Yahweh delivered His people out of Egypt, through the wilderness, and into the promised land to build His house, and now that His house has been established in Judah, surely He wouldn't allow His enemies to destroy it, would He? 

In verses 3 - 10, Jeremiah responds to Zedekiah. There we find out that Yahweh does not plan on destroying His own house, let alone allowing its destruction from the hand of His enemies. Instead, Yahweh is determined to destroy Israel's temple by the hand of Israel's enemies. In chapter 29, during this same period recorded in chapter 21, Yahweh commissions Jeremiah to write a letter to the Jewish exiles in Babylon, telling them to build Yahweh's house there, in Babylon, and to reject any prophet who claims otherwise. The same message is found briefly in this chapter, too:

He who stays in this city shall die by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence, but he who goes out and surrenders to the Chaldeans who are besieging you shall live and shall have his life as a prize of war. (v. 9) 

In 21:3-10, Yahweh does promise the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, but by that time Yahweh had left Jerusalem and built His house elsewhere; by that time Babylon was also Yahweh's vassal state, and Israel was Yahweh's enemy. 

I Myself will fight against you with outstretched hand and strong arm, in anger and fury and in great wrath. And I will strike down the inhabitants of this city, both man and beast. They shall die of a great pestilence. (21:5-6)

Here Jeremiah mentions Yahweh's "strong arm" and "outstretched hand," which is a description of holy war that Yahweh wages against His enemies (Exod. 6, Deut. 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 26). But this holy war is against Jerusalem and their idolatrous rulers. This holy war is Yahweh vs. Israel, and the great Exodus power is still in Yahweh's hand. In verses 8-10 Yahweh graciously offers Israel a choice of life or death much like that given by Moses before crossing the Jordan (Deut 30:11-12), and later in the book of Jeremiah we learn that Israel responded to that offer by accusing Jeremiah of two sins: first, of conspiring with the rulers of Babylon, and second, of undermining Yahweh's promise to dwell in the midst of Israel in his "house", the temple. For those in Israel who were actually paying attention to Jeremiah's preaching, Jeremiah is clearly not pro-Babylon; he is pro-Yahweh, and he knows that Yahweh is using Babylon to wage holy war against a greater threat to His Kingship: Judah. 

This was good news for the people of Israel, among whom Yahweh was building His house. Just because Yahweh had set His face against Israel (v. 10), that did not mean He had abandoned His people entirely. He simply chose to build His house elsewhere, in Babylon. During that time in Babylon, the land of Israel would have it's promised rest (ch. 29). During that time Yahweh would remain faithful to His covenant. He would bring rest to His people and their land, and he would deliver them from His enemies. After that deliverance and rest their Jubilee would come.

There are many lessons which can be gleaned from this history. Perhaps the most important one is found by recognizing that Yahweh's faithfulness includes His covenant curses, not just blessings. Christians often presume that God's faithfulness to us is equivalent to Him blessing us, and that is not true. God's faithfulness includes discipline and punishment. An important distinction  can be made between those two, also. Discipline is what God does as a Father to His children. Punishment is what God does as a holy Judge against His enemies, even those enemies in covenant with Him. 

Why do Christians presume that God will not punish them? Is it because they're in a covenant-relationship with Him? Why do professing Christians presume that they are always in a position of safety from God's judgment? Is it because Yahweh is thought of only as their Father? Do they really believe God ceased being the just Judge of all at the cross? 

Christians like Zedekiah are certainly able to conjure up a cheap view of God's grace in their minds. The same is true with their understanding of God's covenant loyalty. Like Zedekiah, it is often presumed that Yahweh will not destroy those who take refuge in His house. They think Yahweh still dwells among them, and that they haven't contributed to anything wicked, thus provoking His wrath; and if they have, the sacrifice of Christ becomes their excuse to still live wickedly sometimes. Like Zedekiah, some of us presume that our Christian community, our church, our households, are not in any danger because that's where Yahweh chose to build His house in the first place, just like He did with the temple in Jerusalem. But was the temple under Zedekiah's reign still Yahweh's house? And was Jerusalem still His holy city? Jeremiah's message seems to portray otherwise. 

Yahweh did leave Israel with hope though. But that hope was not in the temple in Jerusalem. That hope was in Him, and He went with His people to Babylon. Surely the voice of Rachel's weeping would be heard in Ramah, where her children would be slain by sword, famine, and pestilence (Jer. 31:15). But Yahweh's good news to those who hoped in Him was different. A virgin Israel   would trust in Him and return from Babylon (Jer. 31:21). Unlike Rachel, she would be told to keep her voice from weeping and her eyes from shedding tears, because there was a promised reward from her faithfulness in Babylon (31:16-17). There was hope for the future of virgin Israel, as long as she trusted in God's covenant faithfulness to bless those who bless Him and curse those who curse Him--as long as she lived as His peculiar treasure gathered from the holy warfare waged against His enemies.

Another Exodus for Jacob (Jeremiah 30:18-22)

Jeremiah 30 (NASB)

18 “Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will restore the fortunes of the tents of Jacob and have compassion on his dwelling places; and the city will be rebuilt on its ruin, and the palace will stand on its rightful place.

19 ‘From them will proceed thanksgiving and the voice of those who celebrate; and I will multiply them and they will not be diminished; I will also honor them and they will not be insignificant.

20 ‘Their children also will be as formerly, and their congregation shall be established before Me; and I will punish all their oppressors.

21 ‘Their leader shall be one of them, and their ruler shall come forth from their midst; and I will bring him near and he shall approach Me; for who would dare to risk his life to approach Me?’ declares the Lord.

22 ‘You shall be My people, and I will be your God.’”

Chapter 30 of Jeremiah begins the first proclamation of good news to Yahweh's people in exile. Chapters 1-29 present a tour of Yahweh's faithfulness to Israel wherein he repeatedly confirms his hatred for Israel's repeated rebellion. Israel wants to live and think idolatrously like all the other nations, so Yahweh is going to pluck them up from their own land and plant them in the midst of the Gentiles. Only in chapter 30 do we begin the first lengthy exposition of good news. Yahweh would indeed punish Israel like all the other rebellious nations, as promised, but yet again he would spare Israel for his name's sake, and establish his covenant with them again. 

The language of chapter 30 is filled with Exodus imagery, but especially in verses 18-22, which begin with Yahweh's calling of Jacob, the son of Abraham who would later be called "Israel," and would lead Israel into Egypt. Egypt, of course, is where Yahweh delivered Israel from captivity in the beginning of their formation as a nation. This call of Yahweh in 30:18 recapitulates Yahweh's call to Jacob, before Israel was formed as a royal priesthood at Sinai, eventually developing into a kingdom-city with a royal palace and Yahweh enthroned in their midst. In verses 18 and 19, Yahweh says he is coming again to restore those fortunes of Jacob, to start a new beginning, just as he did with Jacob's descendants all the way up to David and his descendants. From them will come another great thanksgiving and celebration like the time in which it's city and palace was first established. 

Verses 20-22 are also reminiscent of the Exodus, which describes the blessings and curses pronounced upon Israel in Deuteronomy just prior to parting the Jordan, thereby completing the Exodus which began in Egypt and waited for 40 years in the wilderness. This time the restoration is from Babylonian captivity, and will follow all the curses of Yahweh's Law which sentenced them there in the first place (Deut. 28:15-68). Once that exodus begins, tremendous covenant blessings will accompany Israel as promised in the Law (Deut 28:1-14). Instead of decreasing in number, Israel will be as the sand of the seashore, multiplying greatly in number. The Lord will honor them in the sight of all nations, and that honor will be significantly great. Yahweh will establish them again, and drive out all their oppressors from the land, like he did when they first entered Canaan. Yahweh will even bring all rulers into account who live in their midst, and will cause them to draw near to Him. This Israel will be reformed, like the first formation out of Egypt. Israel would again be Yahweh's people, and again have Yahweh as their God (Ex. 6:7; Lev. 26:12; Jer. 7:23; 11:4; 30:22). 

Time after time Yahweh proved his loyal love toward Israel. Over and over Yahweh proved himself to be merciful and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in tremendously gracious love toward Jacob. But the days were coming, according to Jeremiah's next prophecy (in chapter 31), that Yahweh would establish a new covenant with the house of Israel, a covenant unlike the one he made with Israel during the first Exodus. With this new covenant he would write his Law upon their hearts and not on tablets of stone. No longer would each Israelite teach his neighbor through the old covenant administration of sacrifice, temple, and priesthood. All of Israel and their surrounding neighbors would know Yahweh intimately, in a powerful sweeping way which had never been accomplished before. Yahweh would forgive their iniquity once for all, and remember their sin no more, through the sacrifice of his Son. Then finally, once for all time, under that new covenant in his blood, it could be said of Israel that Yahweh is their God, and they are his people (Jer. 31:33).

St. Jerome's Preterist Interpretation of "the Antichrist" and "lawless one" (2 Thessalonians 2:5-8

Commenting on Jeremiah 25:26, Saint Jerome notices the likeliness of Jeremiah camouflaging a reference to "Babylon" with the Hebrew name "Sheshach." Even the ESV translation notes this by translating the actual Hebrew word, Sheshach, as "Babylon." 

A cursory glance at modern english versions of the Bible will illustrate this translational difference. The ESV translation reads, "…and after them the king of Babylon shall drink", whereas the more literal NASB translation reads, "…and the king of Sheshach shall drink after them."

I point this out not because Jerome's familiarity with ancient Rabbinic literary procedures is particularly noteworthy or unique to commentators of his day, but because from this specimen of Jeremiah's writings he deduces that prophets sometimes wrote cryptically for their own safety and for the safety of those who discern their warnings and take refuge in Christ because of it. According to  Jerome, even the apostles sometimes wrote cryptically to protect themselves and the faithful flock of Christ from soon-coming judgment upon the land. In this regard, Jerome's following comments about the apostle Paul's language in 2 Thessalonians 2:5-8 are particularly noteworthy, especially in light of the myriads of bizarre futurist (especially dispensational) interpretations of it in the 20th and 21st centuries. Instead of interpreting Saint Paul's words about the "lawless one" and its association with "the antichrist" of John's letters as entirely future to his own generation, Jerome follows a contemporary preterist interpretation of both these cryptic descriptions, which he thinks Paul's audience (i.e. Jewish converts of Thessalonica) would have understood. He writes:

I think that it was prudent for the holy prophet to hide the name of Babylon, lest he openly stir up against himself the madness of those who were besieging Jerusalem and who were ready to seize him at any moment. We read that the apostle did this same thing against the Roman Empire, writing about the antichrist:

Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you this? And you know what is restraining him (understand: "the antichrist") now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the appearance of his coming.

By "he who now restrains" he means the Roman Empire. For until the Roman Empire is destroyed and taken "out of the way," the antichrist will not yet come, as it says in the prophecy of Daniel. But if he had chosen to say this openly, he would have foolishly stirred up the frenzy of persecution against Christians and the nascent church.1

1.  Jerome, Ancient Christian Texts: Commentary on Jeremiah; Thomas Oden and Gerald Bray, editors [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic; 2011], pp. 156-7

Playing the flute

Matthew 9:23 displays a contrast between faithless rabbinical customs and the customs that honor Yahweh. According to rabbinical tradition, flute-playing in the first century was a symbol of mourning. But this is significantly different than the examples found in the old testament. Jeremiah 48:36 is the only old testament passage paralleling moaning with flute-playing, but that passage is actually paralleling the sound of a flute similar to the sound of moaning, and not flute-playing per se. Instead, flute-playing throughout the old testament is more commonly symbolic of celebrating one’s gladness for God’s healing presence (Psalm 5; Isaiah 30:29). Isaiah 5:12 even refers to flute-players while celebrating the feasts of Yahweh. But because Israel plays the flute and does not regard Yahweh’s deeds on their behalf, nor do they see the work of His hands in their midst, Isaiah says that Yahweh parches their thirst, starves their honored men, and sends them into exile (v. 13). 

Some people in Israel may put on a good performance with flutes, but Jesus won't dance to their tune because they call evil good and good evil. They put darkness for light and light for darkness, bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter (v. 20). Hypocritical flute-playing in Yahweh’s presence leads to death, whereas the flute-playing of faith is appropriate for celebrating Yahweh’s life-giving presence.