THE FLIGHT TO PELLA

There is a cryptic saying of Jesus recorded in both Mark 13:14 and Luke 21:20-21. Both end up with the advice for “those in Judea” to “flee to the mountains.” But the actual event that is to trigger that move for believers is expressed in somewhat different terms in each of these parallel passages:

    Mark: “When you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not be (let the reader understand)...”

    Luke: “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies...”

As with any biblical prophecy, whether in the Old or New Testament, there will be a wealth of opinions as to the proper interpretation. However, there are two extreme views that I would like to dispose of before proceeding with more reasonable possibilities.

Unacceptable Interpretations

One point of view comes from those critical of biblical accounts and those on the more liberal end of the spectrum. It states that the gospel writers lived through the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and then manufactured these “prophecies” after the fact. For example, Craddock states without reservation, “In verses 20-24 Luke describes the destruction of Jerusalem, an event that had occurred ten to twenty years prior to Luke's writing.” In a similar vein, H. Anderson says, “Luke has plainly the siege of Jerusalem in mind and has presumably adapted the oracle to suit this fulfillment, after the event.” And Fitzmyer chimes in: “Luke has obviously been influenced by the historical events associated with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.”

Not only is this general view based on the presumption that there is no such thing as predictive prophecy, but if Luke has “adapted” Mark's words to suit the facts of the siege of Jerusalem, then why would he have said that the people needed to leave Jerusalem after they saw the armies surrounding the city since it would have been way too late by that time? In addition, Porter notes that the mere mention of surrounding armies does not necessarily betray detailed knowledge of events after the fact since it is a rather general reference.

In those with a Dispensationalist view of the future, we encounter those commentators of an entirely different mindset. For them, prophecies such as this one found in the NT are almost always ascribed to a time which has not yet occurred. There are two ways in which they do this.

One is to completely ignore the near fulfillment entirely. Thus, J.A. Martin has only this to say regarding Luke's account: “The times of the Gentiles' domination over Jerusalem actually began when the Babylonians took the city and the nation into captivity in 586 B.C. Jerusalem will again fall under Gentile domination in the Tribulation (Zech. 14:1-2) just before the Messiah returns to restore Jerusalem.”

And even if a prophecy appears to have been adequately fulfilled in the past, they will discount that fact and state that it is a foreshadowing of the “real” fulfillment. So we have Grassmick commenting on Mark's version that the A.D. 70 destruction of the Temple is a mere precursor to the “final fulfillment” just prior to Jesus' Second Advent.

Thus, this unacceptable (in my mind) type of biblical interpretation is driven wholly by a prior commitment to a certain eschatological scheme and ignores the immediate context of the prophecy.

So what do the majority of evangelical scholars have to say regarding the fulfillment of Jesus' words?

Context of the Jewish Wars Against Rome

Starting with Mark's account, it is noteworthy that Van Iersel explains the overall arrangement of the prophecies in 13:5-23 to be a topical and literary one, not a strictly chronological presentation:

        pseudo-teachers (vv. 5-6)

                wars and disasters (vv. 7-8)

                        persecution (vv. 9-13)

                desecration and flight (vv. 14-20)

        pseudo-messiahs (vv. 21-23)

“The entire section is to be interpreted in the light of the events which occurred in the turbulent and chaotic period A.D. 66-70. The language of [Mark 13:]14a is cryptic and difficult. Yet its interpretation is crucial to the understanding of the discourse as a whole. With terminology borrowed from the book of Daniel (Chs. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11) Jesus warned that the appearance of the 'appalling sacrilege' [or ' abomination of desolation'] signaled that the destruction of the sanctuary was near and that flight from Jerusalem and Judea was imperative...In fact, those who remained in the city during the siege of Jerusalem found themselves helplessly trapped between starvation and destruction.” (Lane)

Several commentators have pointed out that the participle “standing” which modifies the “sacrilege” is masculine in gender rather than the expected neuter. Marcus says that “this suggests that in Mark's eyes the desolating abomination is a person rather than an event such as the Temple's demise.” If so, one prime candidate mentioned frequently is General Titus who entered the Holy of Holies restricted to the high priest only.

Another precipitating factor has been proposed, one taking place well before A.D. 70. During the years 39-41, Caligula wanted to set up a statue of himself inside the Temple, which certainly would have desecrated it. The problems with this possibility are (a) the timing does not fit at all and (b) Caligula never did get the chance to to carry out his plans before he was assassinated.

Marcus expresses grave doubts concerning the Titus interpretation since it certainly couldn't have been a sign to flee the city because by the time Titus entered, the conquest of Jerusalem was almost complete and the Temple in flames. Therefore he proposes an alternative event preceding the destruction of Jerusalem instead, namely the occupation of the Temple by the Jewish revolutionaries in A.D. 67-68 followed by their displacement of the current high priest and replacing him with one favorable to their cause.

Josephus states that these Zealots moved freely in the Holy of Holies itself and committed murder within the Temple. Not long after this time period, the Zealots prevented any of the residents from leaving Jerusalem, and it would have been impossible to flee to safety.

In reviewing the two most likely possibilities for the precipitating factor alluded to by Jesus, H. Anderson says, “Whether the situation envisioned is the outrage caused to the Jews by Caligula's nearly successful attempt to set up his statue in the Temple...or the early days of the Jewish War culminating in the Roman siege of Jerusalem is not easy to say.”

Fulfillment of the Warning

Despite the above uncertainties, the question remains as to whether any Christians heeded Jesus' warning in time. But here again we run into various opinions from the experts concerning the only available historical record of such an event.

Ellis explains, “According to Eusebius, the fourth-century Christian historian, Christians were warned to flee shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem by the oracle of a Christian prophet. This passage is probably not that oracle. But it may be another oracle of the same type.”

Marshall also has his doubts that Jesus' original warning was the reason for their leaving: “The saying has been identified with the oracle mentioned in Eusebius..., as a result of which the Christian church fled from the Jewish war to Pella; but this is improbable, as Eusebius himself would surely have pointed out the Gospel passage.”

Also in the fourth century a bishop from Cyprus named Epiphanus wrote about the time “after the exodus from Jerusalem when all the disciples went to live in Pella because Christ had told them to leave Jerusalem and to go away since it would undergo a siege. Because of this advice they lived in Perea after having moved to that place, as I said." So unlike Eusebius, Epiphanus does firmly connect the flight to Pella with Christ's words. One could, however, harmonize the words of both authors by proposing that the oracle which caused them to leave was a reminder given to a Christian prophet, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, of Jesus' earlier words.

If you recall, Jesus advised His followers to flee to the mountains. Since Pella is not on a mountain, some commentators feel that the flight to Pella could not have been in response to Jesus' words. Lane, however, explains, “Since Jerusalem itself is located in the mountains the Christians understood the prophecy to refer to some other range of mountains beyond Judea. The nearest such range was the Transjordanian mountains where Pella is located in the foothills. It can be assumed that by the year 66 there were Gentile Christians in the Decapolis, including Pella, who may have acted as sponsors for the Jerusalem fugitives in that traumatic period.”

In conclusion, this is another one of those tantalizing passages of Scripture which brings out our curiosity and gives rise to several opposing theories.