exile

A very well-known quote by N. T. Wright states this about Israel’s exile:

“The need for this restoration is seen in the common second-temple perception of its own period of history. Most Jews of this period, it seems, would have answered the question ‘where are we?’ in language which, reduced to its simplest form, meant: we are still in exile.” 1

Indeed, it is difficult for us to overstate the nature of the exile to the development of second-temple thought - it becomes the watershed event which defines the context of the nation.

Interestingly, Wright’s perspective has been challenged by two theses which are quite similar in scope: Brant Pitre, Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of Exile (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006) and Michael E. Fuller, The Restoration of Israel: Israel’s Re-gathering and the Fate of the Nations in Early Jewish Literature and Luke-Acts (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006). Although many have challenged Wright’s various proposals before these two, both include an altered approach as fundamental to their own work. At present, I will deal primarily with Fuller’s work.



Fuller states, “Wright is correct in noting the significance of the exilic model of restoration in the period of Second Temple Judaism, but he overstates its prevalence, ignoring or downplaying large bodies of Jewish (and Gentile) literary and archeological data that suggests many Jews understood their context and lives in much more positive terms than exile.” 2 The question remains: If the exile was the pivotal event which defined a nation, then what sort of definition was it? In other words, how did the exile come to shape the people of Israel?

I agree with Fuller (and also Pitre) that while N. T. Wright is correct in bringing the issue of the exile to the forefront of second-temple investigations, he does not seem to present a fully developed notion that Jewish understandings of exile go beyond the simple reality that life was under Roman rule. As both of these theses demonstrate, the re-gathering of Israel seems to be a major component of eschatological expectation for the second-temple period. If this is the case, then it is imperative to see how this exile shaped various levels of theology and nationalistic thought. Only then can we appreciate the level at which Jesus engaged such expectations.

Over the next few weeks, this blog will seek to interact with both Pitre and Fuller to examine their perspectives on this issue. By reviewing their primary works in this area, I will make an evaluation of their positions and (hopefully) offer some critical insights which I believe will be helpful to lead us to a greater understanding of the role of judgment in this context. In short, building upon these works I will seek to demonstrate the important role of judgment within the overarching goal of Israel’s restoration and re-gathering.

baptism of fire and division

“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.” (Luke 12:49--53)

In this passage Jesus speaks of two things: fire and baptism. He says that he is going to bring fire upon the earth - a sign of judgment that the messiah was expected to bring. Why was the messianic figure expected to do this? This is based upon the Hebrew notion that the eschatological renewal of Israel would come after a period of tribulation. Thus it is the role of the messiah, who ushers in the period of restoration and renewal, to inaugurate the period of judgment. Jesus appears to be alluding to this - and reminding us of the terrible day of the Lord which must come before the glorious day of the Lord can be experienced (cf. Amos 5:18) - and claiming that it is his specific job to pour out this fiery judgment upon the earth.

Yet there is a second part of his words - a mentioning of a baptism which he must be baptized with that appears to have similar overtones to it. Luke has already set the stage in that Jesus is moving in a deliberate fashion to Jerusalem where he must suffer and die, and his words reveal his own struggle with the events which lie before him. Interestingly, as one biblical scholar named G. R. Beasley-Murray stated it: ‘the Messiah has come to judge the world and be judged for the world!” This short paragraph certainly contains much theology and should be a key component for understanding the messianic role of Jesus.

I am convinced that the categories of fire and baptism (as well as Jesus’ own understanding of what it means to be a messiah) are defined by the third and final entity in this passage: division. Although many would simply divide the discussion of this passage into two parts - the first dealing with fire and baptism, the second with division - it is quite clear that this is a theological and thematic whole which must not be divorced. In fact, it is his harsh words of division which unveil the meaning of the entire saying. For us to understand how the images of fire and baptism go together as Jesus describes them can only happen when we consider that his primary objective is the restoration and redemption of Israel. And (as N. T. Wright uses as part of his foundation for the historical Jesus) Jesus goes about redefining the concept of Israel from the ground up. No longer is it based upon geographic or ethnic boundaries, but upon individual response to him.

So when Jesus comes in the manner of casting fire upon the earth he does so as part of the eschatological cleansing of Israel. And when he comes to be baptized with a specific baptism it is because he is absorbing the eschatological judgment in himself (to achieve what Israel could not survive). But this is only finds its proper context by seeing how Jesus comes to divide - by redefining ‘Israel’ as the eschatological kingdom community which is centered around the gospel message. Those who respond positively will have their judgment taken in Jesus’ second baptism of tribulation while those who respond negatively to the gospel will have the fire fall upon themselves. This is the restoration of God’s people and the establishment of his kingdom.

Questions remain. One important one: Is the final fulfillment of this left until the ‘not-yet’ period of inaugurated eschatology or do we see fiery judgment being cast at present?