Israel and Exile, Part 1
(avg. read time: 5–11 mins.)
One of the keys to understanding Second Temple Judaism—a crucial context for the NT—is to understand the impact of exile, especially on the various expectations of eschatology. Today, we have become accustomed to refer to works of the OT as pre-exilic, exilic, and post-exilic, which itself conveys the impact of exile on Jewish theology, but there is much more to it than that. The state of exile and its concomitant realities were considered to be ongoing in the Second Temple era. Broadly speaking, this state of exile could be defined as one in which “exile” is a synecdoche for exile proper (in terms of being removed from the promised land) and dispersion (a.k.a. the disintegration of Israel). That is, much of Israel was now no longer in the promised land, so that the majority were in literal exile. And even after some had returned to Eretz Israel after their time in Babylon, most did not return, not only from Babylon, but also from around the world, especially those northern tribes that had gone into the Assyrian exile. That is, not only was the majority of Israel outside of the promised land; they were not even together in one place outside of the promised land. These realities and others—such as the attendant reality of subjugation under idolatrous powers—defined Israel as being in that state associated with death and awaiting resurrection, as articulated in various ways in texts across the OT, such as Deut 28–30 and Ezek 37. As I have noted previously in my series on Resurrection in the OT:
The death and disconnection brought by the events of the exile made exile a particularly strong metonym for death (Gen 3; Lev 26:33–39; Deut 28:63–68; 29:22–28; 30:19–20; Ezek 37:1–14). If covenantal faithfulness and its consequences were life for the Israelites, covenantal unfaithfulness and its consequences—including exile—were death. By the same token, restoration of the covenant and return from exile would mean return to life (Lev 26:40–45; Deut 30:1–10; 32:15–42; Ezek 37:1–14; Zeph 3:9–20). With such associations between resurrection and return (not only return to the land, but revitalization of Israel according to God’s covenantal will), the imagery of resurrection sometimes functioned as a synecdoche for all eschatological hope.
And here:
Adam and Eve’s exile from the garden and the special relationship with God thereby entailed is tied to the condition of death. Given what has been noted previously about the significance of occupying the promised land, exile was not an arbitrary punishment for unfaithfulness; it was an organic and effective punishment proclaiming the brokenness of the covenant and thus the end of the covenantal way of and to life (Lev 26:33–39; Deut 28:63–68; 29:22–28; 30:19–20). By the same token, restoration of the covenant and return from exile would mean return to life (Lev 26:40–45; Deut 30:1–10; 32:15–42), or resurrection, as Ezekiel describes it.
To understand these different conceptual connections and how they affected Second Temple Judaism, we must understand how the exile continued to influence Jewish ways of thinking. Pursuant to this task, I will be dividing this series into three parts. Here in Part 1, I will look at a crucial text for this framework in Deut 28–30 and at Second Temple texts that indicate this belief in a continuing exile. In Part 2, I will look at the many statements, both biblical and post-biblical, that influenced Second Temple Judaism and exemplify Second Temple Jewish approaches by articulating a hope for what can broadly be called “return from exile” as a synecdoche of hopes for return, reign, and reunion. In Part 3, I will look at a theme of hope that remains consistent from the OT to Second Temple texts, as well as articulations of hope in the NT: hope for a new exodus.
Continuing Exile
Before looking at the texts, it is important from the outset to clarify what has undermined the insightful work of N. T. Wright, who is the chief scholar linked with the emphasis on the hope for the end of the exile/return from exile as crucial to Second Temple Jewish hopes. One does not need to look far in the various volumes of Wright’s Christian Origins and the Question of God series to find the influence of this idea and he makes many statements summarizing the idea. One of the most extensive comes from Jesus and the Victory of God:
But the geographical return from exile, when it came about under Cyrus and his successors, was not accompanied by any manifestations such as those in Exodus 40, Leviticus 9, 1 Kings 8, or even (a revelation to an individual) Isaiah 6. Never do we hear that the pillar of cloud and fire which accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness has led the people back from their exile. At no point do we hear that YHWH has now gloriously returned to Zion. At no point is the house again filled with the cloud which veils his glory. At no point is the rebuilt Temple universally hailed as the true restored shrine spoken of by Ezekiel. Significantly, at no point, either, is there a final decisive victory over Israel’s enemies, or the establishment of a universally welcomed royal dynasty. The closest we come to any of this theologically is the vision of Sirach 24, in which the divine Wisdom, subsequently identified with Torah, comes to dwell in the Temple; the exaltation of the High Priest and the Temple liturgy in Sirach 50 suggests that the author sees the dwelling of Israel’s god with his people as a reality in his own day. The closest we come socio-politically is the cleansing of the Temple by Judas Maccabaeus, the defeat of the Syrians, and the establishment of the Hasmonean dynasty; but this, as we saw, remained riddled with ambiguity. So, of course, did the subsequent career of Herod the Great, whose attempt to establish his house as the true royal family was, in retrospect, doomed from the start. Temple, victory and kingship remained intertwined, but the hope they represented remained unfulfilled.1
It is also clearly influential to the foundation of his project in The New Testament and the People of God, as one can see in how he articulates the worldview that serves as a backdrop of his analysis. One case that has been used against him is his summary of the answer to the basic worldview question “Where are we?”:
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. They believed that, in all the senses which mattered, Israel’s exile was still in progress. Although she had come back from Babylon, the glorious message of the prophets remained unfulfilled. Israel still remained in thrall to foreigners; worse, Israel’s god had not returned to Zion.2
The issue made of this statement and others is that Wright has committed to speaking of the Babylonian exile as ongoing, which means reconceptualizing what “exile” means beyond removal from the land. I am rather inclined to agree with Brant Pitre that Wright has overlooked the significance of the Assyrian exile as still ongoing.3 As such, my argument over the course of this series will show how Wright’s basic insight remains, but his insistence on connecting this insight specifically with the Babylonian exile is unnecessary.
One of the key biblical texts shaping this notion of continuing exile is Deut 28–30 (though also see Lev 26). Deuteronomy 28 contains blessings for faithfulness to the covenant followed by a list of curses for being unfaithful to the covenant. The climactic curse is described in terms of a reverse exodus, particularly in terms of exile and dispersion (vv. 58–68). The subsequent historical writings will portray the exile and dispersion precisely as consequences of covenantal unfaithfulness, especially of worshiping other gods. Deuteronomy 29 then recaps the history of the people coming out of Egypt into the wilderness and reiterates the obligations and consequences of the covenant for them. The most extreme outcome for the most extreme degree of faithlessness is exile, as articulated in v. 28. As noted previously, for the Israelites, relationship with God in obedience to his word was the definition of “life.” Ideally, this life was supposed to be lived in the promised land, since staying in the promised land was dependent upon Israel’s obedience. Therefore, exile meant death. So as most of Deut 28 is God’s word of judgment and death, Deut 30 is God’s word of reconciliation and life. Verses 1–5 summarize well God’s forgivingness, Israel’s repentance, and the resulting reconciliation. Verses 6–10 then describe what God will do to establish the reconciliation by circumcising the hearts of the people, enabling them to love the Lord with all that they are and to obey what he has told them, which in turn will lead to the blessings outlined in the first part of Deut 28. Chapter 30 then closes with the note that the two ways of life and death have been set before Israel, and they are exhorted to choose life and all that is thereby entailed. For Second Temple Judaism, the way of death laid out in Deut 28 defined the current state of existence and Deut 30 defined the state they were still hoping for.
Perhaps the most remarkable biblical expression of the belief in the continuation of the exile as defined by Deut 28 is Dan 9. Daniel’s prayer is inspired by the seventy years of devastation for Jerusalem prophesied by Jeremiah (25:11–12; 29:10). Daniel confesses that the Lord God has done what the people of Israel deserved for the faithlessness, thereby fulfilling the words he spoke through Moses concerning the consequences for Israel (9:4–14, esp. 13). Daniel concludes his prayer with a declaration of repentance and his hope in the restoration and return from exile promised through both Deut 30 and Jer 29 after the time of Jerusalem’s devastation (9:15–19). However, Gabriel comes to inform Daniel that he should not look for the end of the seventy years, but of the seventy sevens, for at the end of this the purposes that Gabriel lists in v. 24 will be accomplished: to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness/justice, to seal/confirm vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place. All of these things are linked to the restoration of Israel in various other texts, and to dealing with the root cause of exile. And Daniel is here told that there will be yet more waiting for it beyond the end of the seventy years. That is, he is told that the exile will yet continue. This chapter simply brings into focus the sense of ongoing exile that characterizes the rest of Daniel (particularly in the visions that look to the distant future from Daniel’s perspective for the resolution of Israel’s narrative).
The returns of the Babylonian exiles are clearly quite partial, but no indication is given of just how small a portion of Israel returns in these different journeys (Ezra 2; 8:1–14; Neh 7:5–73). Ezra also describes the situation as one of being in slavery (9:8–9; Neh 9:32–37; cf. Neh 9:17). Many other statements from outside the OT indicate a sense of ongoing exile. Like some of the biblical texts, some texts emphasize the incompleteness of the return, and thus how there is more hoped for (2 Bar. 68:5–6). Josephus simply remarks in his comments on Ezra’s return from Babylon that the “ten tribes” are beyond the Euphrates even in his own day and he cannot even account for how numerous they are, although the language would indicate that they are the majority of Israel (Ant. 11.133). The state of the present in 1 Baruch is described as one of being in exile (esp. 3:1–10). There are also several references to Israel still being scattered (Tob 13:3; 14:4; 1 En. 89:70–75; 93:8; T. Jud. 23; T. Mos. 3; 4QapocrJosephb/4Q372 1, 13–20). Some references of Second Temple writings are more generic in saying that there are still times of trouble coming before the true restoration (1 En. 91:5–7; 2 Bar. 68:7; T. Mos. 4:8–9; 9).
But, of course, as with Daniel, the most extensive evidence of this belief that the exile was still ongoing, because Israel had not been restored and reunited under the reign of God and his king, is the fact that these things are still held as hopes for the future. We will look at these articulations of hope next time.
N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 621–22.
N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 268–69.
Brant Pitre, Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the Origin of the Atonement (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 31–40. This problem remains even in Wright’s volume in the series that came out after Pitre’s work. See N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, vol. 4 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 139–63.