Eschatological Duality
November 3rd, 2008 by JohnO
The distinction between the present age and the age to come, usually reckoning the present age as evil and the age to come as good.New Testament and the People of God, NT Wright, pg 253
This falls squarely in line with the previous duality mentioned (Moral duality). If, in the first century, the Jewish people believe; that one can act good or evil, and they are still in exile, because they have acted evily (sin), and they have not experienced the promises of the prophets (the age to come), it is a logical outcome to conclude that there is a massive division between the world as it stands, and the world as it should be:
Virtually all second-temple Jews, with the possible exception only of the aristocrisy, believed that they were living in a ‘present age’ which was a time of sorrow and exile, and which would be succeeded by an ‘age to come’ in which wrongs would be righted and Israel’s god would set up his kingdom.ibid. pg 255
The aristocrisy did not believe in this duality because they believed that they were in exile no longer – they were back in Israel ruling over the common people. The Pharisees actions of extreme separation from “unclean” and pagan elements (seen most evident in their legalistic practices) are a direct refutation of this claim. The ruling class is still “dirty” through their compromise with the powers that be.
Maybe I missed this but when did you demonstrate that the Jewish people believed that they were in exile? Obviously they had returned to the land under Joshua and Zerubabel and had even been a sovereign nation for a century preceding the Roman occupation.
Well that is exactly the train of thought to be taken:
The Saducees/aristocrisy felt that the exile was over. They were “autonomous” ruling their people – God have fulfilled Israel’s return from Babylon.
That can be challenged historically on numerous counts (here only one); that a good number of Jews stayed in Babylon (later forming the group that made the Babylonian Talmud).
It can be challenged on another count: the Pharisees, Essenes, and common people, led by popular prophets (like John the Baptist and Jesus) did not believe the exile to be over. The “autonomy” that the Saducees claimed to have did not favor the common people at all, and was often thought to be corrupt and compromised (hence the Pharisaic doctrine of extreme separation, as a statement of both holiness and protest to the non-separation of the ruling class).
Neither with the Hasmonean rule, nor the Herodian rule, did God’s promises actually come to pass – not in any way that the majority of people accepted anyhow. Hence the popular uprisings against both the ruling Jewish and Roman class that can be found in the two hundred years surrounding AD 1.
Both Jesus and John the Baptists direct actions of both baptism and crossing the Jordan (along with other popular prophets both before and after them) are symbolic of this specific new exodus/return from exile/re-enter the land/re-enter the covenant motif. Re-living the history of Israel (the understanding of “fulfilling”).
NT Wright actually makes a very compelling case (Intro to Jesus and the Victory) that the Prodigal Son/Father should be read in this very light of Israel’s history in the last centuries prior to Jesus.
So, maybe I’m still missing something. Is there any actual evidence from Jewish documents inside or outside of the Bible where they talk about still being in exile after they had already come back to the land?
Also, if we are saying that Jesus was announcing the return from exile I need you to demonstrate two more things: (1) a place in Scripture where he actually announced the return from exile and (2) that people actually returned to the land from the diaspora as a result of Jesus’ announcement.
Not to offend, but I think there are a great many who see Wright’s return from exile motif as wishful thinking. I’m totally open on this one but I need to see the evidence.
Answers forthcoming… I’ll have to break the series of duality posts and answer this one.