If you get as excited about exile theology as I do you have to check out Brant Pitre's book Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of Exile (Baker, 2005). I would not be surprised if Pitre becomes the next John P. Meier in the Catholic Church. He is one heck of an extraordinary writer and you can check out his blog "Singing in the Reign" here. In his book he has an interesting excursus on N.T. Wright's exile theology. Pitre argues that Wright has falsely built his entire exile theology on the Babylonian exile rather than the more appropriate Assyrian exile. I think this has significant implication for how we understand Jesus' appointment of the Twelve through the lens of restoration eschatology.
The work of N.T. Wright in particular has brought exile theology to the forefront of New Testament hermeneutics. Wright attempts to define where in salvation history Second Temple Jews identify themselves in light of their return from the Babylonian Exile. Based on relevant Second Temple literature, Wright defines post-exilic Jews in the following way:
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 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 (The New Testament and the People of God, 268-269).
In order to achieve this definition, Wright has to redefine the geographical meaning of the word “exile” since the Babylonian exile had ended and Israel had returned to Jerusalem. Within this context of Israel’s return from Babylon, Wright redefines the word “exile” as not referring to geographical expulsion, but to the oppression of foreigners (i.e. Rome) and the need for Israel’s God to return to Zion(NTPG, 157-159). While these were legitimate theological concerns of the post-Babylonian community, a significant question remains unanswered within the configuration of Wright’s exile theology—what about the Assyrian Exile?
Brant Pitre gives the strongest and most thorough critique of Wright's exile theology. Pitre says with boldness, “Wright has the right insight but the wrong exile” (Pitre, 35). Pitre believes that Wright is “absolutely right” that first century Jews believed they were “still in exile,” were still waiting for a “return from exile,” and that the “glorious message of the prophets remained unfulfilled” (Pitre, 38). However, Pitre thinks that,
Wright is fundamentally wrong in his understanding of “the exile” itself. For while no first-century Jew living in the land would have considered themselves to still be in exile, every first-century Jew would have known that the ten tribes of the northern kingdom were still in exile. This was so because the glorious message of the prophets was never merely for Judah’s release from political domination and the return of YHWH to the Temple—important as these may be. The glorious message of the prophets consistently envisioned the restoration of all twelve tribes of Israel in a final Return from Exile, under the headship of a messianic king, shepherd, or prince (Pitre, 38).
This approach to exile theology—with all twelve tribes in mind—has profound consequences for the appointment of the Twelve in the Gospels. I have adopted Pitre's conclusions in my thesis where I am analyzing the appointment of the Twelve in the prolegomenon to Luke's Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:12-20).
To be fair, Wright does briefly allude to the Assyrian exile in Jesus and the Victory of God, 300. As far as I can tell Pitre does not give credit to this passage in JVG:
The very existence of the twelve speaks, of course, of the reconstitution of Israel; Israel had not had twelve visible tribes since the Assyrian invasion in 734BC, and for Jesus to give twelve followers a place of prominence, let alone to make comments about them sitting on thrones judging the twelve tribes, indicates pretty clearly that he was thinking in terms of the eschatological restoration of Israel.
Pitre’s critique, however, still stands because Wright builds his whole exile theology schema based on the period from Babylon to the fall of the Temple (AD70). See The New Testament and the People of God, 157.
...every first-century Jew
Pitre appears to be building his critique of Wright's exile theology (this is the first I've heard of it) on the premise that the "10 lost tribes" of Israel are still lost. While the story of the 10 lost tribes makes for interesting mythology, it's historically and biblically unfounded.
Following the split of the Davidic kingdom into northern and southern "houses" but prior to the Assyrian invasions, the tribal identities of the two houses became co-mingled for both political and religious reasons. Those who wanted to worship the true God moved to the south, those who wanted to worship the golden calf with Jeroboam moved north.
So at the time of the Assyrian invasion, there were very likely people from the tribes of Asher and Naphtali (etc.) living in Judah, and people from the tribes of Judah and Simeon worshiping idols at Dan. See 2 Chronicles 11:14-17, 15:9; cf. 2 Chronicles 30:1-11.
The thing that confuses many people (and apparently Pitre here) is the difference between the tribes as distinct people groups and the tribal regions which bear the names of the various tribes - and given that the southern kingdom was made up of 3 of the 12 tribes, it's mathematically impossible for 10 tribes to have been "lost" to the Assyrians.
I'm frankly suspicious of any theological argument built on foundations of what amounts to a long-refuted urban legend.
Submitted by RavenKing (not verified)
on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 19:04
RavenKing: Thanks for your
RavenKing:
Thanks for your thoughts. Pitre, if I remember correctly, does recognize that the southern kingdom was made up of 3 tribes, although some would say two and half. Regardless, it does seem that the Assyrian exile plays a part in the self-understanding of first-century Jews. See Mic 2:12; Sirach 36:13-17; Tobit 13:3-5 etc. Even Josephus recognized the paradigmatic nature of the Assyrian exile: "Wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates until now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers" (Josephus, Ant. 11.133, [Thackeray, LCL]). It seems necessary that a proper NT exile theology take into account all twelve tribes.
Best,
Drew
Submitted by Drew S. (not verified)
on Thu, 07/30/2009 - 11:03