journal for the study of the historical jesus

13 (2015) 207-229
brill.com/jshj

Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel in the

Writings of N.T. Wright

Michael F. Bird
Ridley College, Melbourne, Australia
m.bird@ridley.edu.au

Abstract

N.T. Wright’s thesis that the historical Jesus conducted his prophetic career in the con-
text of a widespread belief that Israel was in a protracted state of exile has courted
much controversy. This study sketches Wright’s articulation of the return-from-exile
theme in Jewish literature, describes some of the scholarly criticisms to this view, and
defends a chastened view of Wright’s thesis that return-from-exile remains a useful
category for understanding Judaism and Jesus even if it does not necessarily carry the
meta-narratival freight that Wright attributes to it.

Keywords

exile – historical Jesus – Jewish restoration eschatology – Second Temple Judaism –

N.T. Wright

The primary contribution of E.P. Sanders in his book Jesus and Judaism was to
draw attention to restoration eschatology as providing the primary matrix for
the religious and political hopes for the future of Israel in Second Temple
Judaism and, accordingly, its significance for the ministry and aims of the his-
torical Jesus.1 Here one of the primary points of contention has been whether

1 E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: scm Press, 1985) and more recently Scot McKnight,
‘Jesus and the Twelve’, in D.L. Bock and R.L. Webb (eds.), Key Events in the Life of the Historical
Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence (Grand Rapids, mi: Eerdmans,
2009), pp. 181–214; Steven M. Bryan, ‘Jesus and Israel’s Eschatological Constitution’, in T.
Holmén and S.E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (4 vols.; Leiden:

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi 10.1163/17455197-01302001

208 Bird

Jesus intended to restore all of Israel or whether he intended to establish a

remnant within Israel.2
Added to this discussion is N.T. Wright’s more specific articulation of resto-
ration eschatology built around the theme of ‘return from exile’. According to
Wright the predominant meta-narrative of Jewish restoration eschatology is
that the nation of Israel, while physically returned to the land of Judea, was
nonetheless still in a protracted state of theological exile from God. This
becomes programmatic for his conception of Second Temple Judaism, for his
theology of the Apostle Paul, and especially for Jesus. According to Wright,
Jesus believed that Israel’s exile was now ending, the prophetic promises were
reaching their climatic fulfilment, and that God was at last returning to Zion
in and through the work of himself and his followers.3 This proposal is not
altogether novel and it bears a resemblance to earlier works by Odil Steck,
Paul Garnet, Mark Knibb, James J. Scott, and others, in relation to their inves-
tigation of exile in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Jewish literature.4

Brill, 2011), vol. iii, pp. 2835–53; and Richard Horsley, The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of
Israel: Moving Beyond a Diversionary Debate (Grand Rapids, mi: Eerdmans, 2012).
2 See discussion in Michael F. Bird, Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission (lnts, 331;
London: T & T Clark, 2007), pp. 38–39.
3 The primary places where Wright articulates this view is: The New Testament and the People
of God (coqg, 1; London: spck, 1992); Jesus and the Victory of God (coqg, 2; London: spck,
1996); The Resurrection of the Son of God (coqg, 3; London: spck, 2003); Paul and the
Faithfulness of God (coqg, 4; 2 vols.; London: spck, 2014).
4 Peter R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century bc
(London: scm Press, 1968), pp. 237–47; R.S. Foster, The Restoration of Israel: A Study in Exile
and Return (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970); Odil H. Steck, Israel und das gewalt-
same Geschick der Propheten (wmant, 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1967); idem,
‘Das Problem theologischer Strömungen in nachexilischer Zeit’, Evangelische Theologie
28 (1968), pp. 445–58; idem, ‘Weltgeschehen und gottesvolk im Buche Daniel’, in Dieter
Lührmann and Georg Strecker (eds.), Kirche (fs G. Bornkamm; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1980), pp. 53–78; Donald E. Gowan, ‘The Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic’, in Arthur E. Merrill and
Thomas W. Overholt (eds.), Scripture in History and Theology (fs J. Coert Rylaarsdam; ptm,
17; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977), pp. 205–23; Mark A. Knibb, ‘The Exile in the Literature of the
Intertestamental Period’, HeyJ 17 (1976), pp. 253–72; idem, ‘Exile in the Damascus Document’,
jsot 25 (1983), pp. 99–117; idem, ‘Exile’, in L.H. Schiffman and J.C VanderKam (eds.),
Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), vol. I, pp.
276–77; Paul Garnet, Salvation and Atonement in the Qumran Scrolls (wunt, 2.3; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1977); idem, ‘Jesus and the Exilic Soteriology’, in Studia Biblica 1978 (Sheffield:
jsot Press, 1980), pp. 111–14; idem, ‘Qumran Light on Pauline Soteriology’, in Donald A.
Hagner and Murray J. Harris (eds.), Pauline Studies (fs F.F. Bruce; Grand Rapids, mi:
Eerdmans, 1980), pp. 19–32; P.R. Davies, ‘Eschatology at Qumran’, jbl 104 (1985), pp. 39–55;
James M. Scott, ‘“For as Many as are of Works of the Law are under a Curse” (Galatians 3.10)’,

journal for the study of the historical jesus 13 (2015) 207-229

Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel 209

Wright nevertheless makes this ‘continuing exile’ theme the meta-narrative

of Second Temple Judaism and the controlling premise for his description of
Jesus’ mission and aims. Responses to this reconstruction have been mixed,
with a number of scholars embracing Wright’s paradigm or else severely criti-
cizing his application of exilic theology to Judaism, Jesus, and the wider New
Testament.
In light of all this, the aim of this study is to explore the significance of ‘exile’
in relation to Jesus and Judaism. The way in which this will be achieved is by:
(1) providing a sketch of Wright’s view of the return-from-exile theme; (2)
describing some of the scholarly reactions to this project; and (3) setting forth
an alternative proposal that exile remains a useful category for understanding
Judaism and Jesus even if it does not necessarily carry the meta-narratival
freight that Wright attributes to it.

Jesus and the End of Exile According to N.T. Wright

N.T. Wright has argued for a particular construal of Jewish restoration escha-
tology involving the hope for the final return of Israel from an extended exile
that did not end even after the return of a remnant of exiles from Babylon to
Judea. Wright argues with great verve and rigor that there was a prevalent
belief among Jews in the post-exilic period that, despite returning to the land
after the Babylonian captivity, Israel was still in an exilic state. For Wright the
poles of covenant and eschatology created a tension that needed resolution.
If Israel was God’s chosen people, then why was she suffering, what did God
intend to do to fix this, and what should Israel be doing in order to hasten
the hour of God’s intervention? If it was God’s purpose to remake and restore
the whole world through Israel then he would have to restore Israel from the
present circumstances. The obvious question here is, restore Israel from
what?5 Wright then describes the answer as follows:

in James A. Sanders and Craig A. Evans (eds.), Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (Sheffield: jsot
Press, 1992), pp. 187–221; idem, ‘Philo and the Restoration of Israel’, sblsp 34 (1995), pp. 553–
75; idem (ed.), Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (JSJSup, 56; Leiden:
Brill, 1997); idem (ed.), Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (JSJSup,
72; Leiden: Brill, 2001); idem, On Earth as in Heaven: The Restoration of Sacred Spaced and
Sacred Time in the Book of Jubilees (JSJSup, 72; Leiden: Brill, 2004); J. Kiefer, Exil und Diaspora:
Begrifflichkeit und Deutungen im antiken Judentum und in der hebräischen Bibel (abg, 19;
Leipzig: Evangelische, 2005).
5 Wright, New Testament and the People of God, p. 268.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 13 (2015) 207-229

210 Bird

Most Jews of this period, it seems, would have answered the question of
‘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 [sic] had
not returned to Zion.6

As evidence of this, Wright points out that there is no post-exilic celebration of

the return of God’s presence to the temple as per 1 Kgs 8.10–11. It was the return
of God’s presence, the shekinah, that was an integral part of the prophetic
vision for the future (e.g. Isa. 52.8; Ezek. 43.1–2, 4–5, 7). But if God had not yet
returned to Zion then this hope must be future and, therefore, the ‘exile is not
yet really over’.7
Despite the return of a contingent of Babylonian Jews to Judea under Cyrus,
Wright cites several post-exilic texts to substantiate this point that Israel’s exile
was considered to be ongoing (see Neh. 9.36–37; cd 1.3–11; Tob. 14.5–7; Bar.
3.6–8; 2 Macc. 1.27–29).8 He then draws the inference:

Many if not most second-Temple Jews, then, hoped for the new exodus,
seen as the final return from exile. The story would reach its climax; the
great battle would be fought; Israel would truly ‘return’ to her land, saved
and free; yhwh would return to Zion.9

Wright proceeds to locate this ‘exile’ amidst the religious and socio-political
circumstances of Judea in the Persian, Greek and Roman periods.10 The exile
continues so long as Israel languishes under the power of pagan kingdoms and
as long as the prophetic promises for restoration remain incomplete. Yet,
according to biblical and post-biblical texts, God would not allow this state to
continue indefinitely. The cultural power of Greece and the military might of
Rome would not determine the final end of God’s covenant people. Rather
God’s righteousness, understood as his covenant faithfulness, would triumph
in the end. What Israel needed for this restoration to happen was repentance

6 Wright, New Testament and the People of God, pp. 268–69.

7 Wright, New Testament and the People of God, p. 269.
8 In Jesus and the Victory of God, p. xvii, n. 5 he adds Ezra 9.8–9 and m. Sot 9.15 as additional
texts indicating a prolonged and continuous exile.
9 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 209.
10 Wright, New Testament and the People of God, pp. 271–79.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 13 (2015) 207-229

Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel 211

and sacrifice. Repentance for Wright is not individual repentance but a national
act of turning back to God. In regards to sacrifice, Wright’s view is that the
entire sacrificial system looked back to the great events of liberation like the
exodus, but it also pointed ahead to the redemption yet to come. Sacrifice was
a way of telling the story of Israel. Exile can be symbolic for ‘death’ and resur-
rection symbolic for ‘restoration’ and the story of Israel involves moving from
death to life (e.g. Ezekiel 37–38).11 Israel’s exile was a punishment for sin but
also a sacrifice for sin, so that her forlorn punishment in a foreign land becomes
a means through which sin was expiated, a notion that has some affinity with
the fourth Servant Song of Isa. 52.13–53.12. Israel’s suffering and sacrifice were
the mark of exile and the means by which God’s chosen people would main-
tain their status until the appointed time of deliverance. Israel’s salvation
thereby meant:

When Israel finally ‘returned from exile’, and the Temple was (properly)
rebuilt, and reinhabited by its proper occupant—this would be seen as
comparable with the making of the covenant on Sinai. It would be the
rebethrothal of yhwh and Israel, after their apparent divorce. It would
be the real forgiveness of sins; Israel’s god would pour out his holy spirit,
so that she would be able to keep the Torah properly from the heart. It
would be the ‘circumcision of the heart’ of which Deuteronomy and
Jeremiah had spoken.12

In Wright’s telling, then, if Israel’s exile was to ultimately end then God would
have to deal with Israel’s sin which occasioned the exile in the first place. For
that to happen, Israel would have to corporately repent in order to receive
the forgiveness of sins and see the accompanying promises of restoration
come true.
According to Wright this is the controlling story of Second Temple Judaism
in terms of explaining the meta-narratival questions of ‘where are we?’ and
‘what is the problem?’ In Wright’s reading, many Jewish authors described
Israel’s place and plight in terms that, when scrutinized and viewed synopti-
cally, suggest that Israel was in a protracted state of exile. This becomes the
backdrop against which Wright places the teaching, ministry and aims of the

11 I would add Philo’s comment that exile is even worse than death. In his mind exile is ‘not
second to death, if truth gives its verdict, but rather a far heavier punishment, since
death ends our troubles, but banishment is not the end but the beginning of other new
misfortunes’ (Abr. 64).
12 Wright, New Testament and the People of God, p. 301.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 13 (2015) 207-229

212 Bird

historical Jesus. For example, the parable of the prodigal son in Lk. 15.11–32 is
ostensibly a story about the return from exile that is happening in Jesus’ minis-
try and those who grumble against it are cast in the role of Samaritans who
oppose the return of God’s people to Judah.13 The proclamation of the king-
dom of God signifies the entire narrative of Israel’s new exodus and the return
from exile.14 The call for repentance is national and not merely individual;
repentance is what Israel must do if the exile is to at last end. Repentance will
result in the divine promises of restoration being fulfilled and the renewal of
the covenant being put into effect.15 The coming of the Son of Man is a meta-
phor for the defeat of the enemies of the people of God and the vindication of
them as God’s true people, and when this happens it signifies that the exile is
at last over.16 This explains why Jesus called twelve disciples as they were a
symbol of the reconstitution of a nation not seen since the Assyrian conquest
of ca. 724 bce, and his disciples were thus a visible emblem of those who
had already returned from exile.17 Jesus’ ‘mighty deeds’ in healing the blind,
lame and deaf, and his preaching of good news to the poor, are Isaianic signs
that Israel’s exile was at last ending; now Yahweh would return to Zion, there
would be a new temple, the forces of evil would be defeated, and Israel would
be forgiven of her sins.18
For Wright, this theme of return from exile is the primary story which Jesus
followed and enacted in his own ministry (with various sub-stories such as new
exodus, messianic woes, covenant renewal, and so on). Furthermore, this exilic
story was thoroughly connected to various other sub-stories about land, family,
Torah, temple, kingship, Israel’s vindication, and the fate of the gentiles. Wright
also shows how this theme accounts for a large amount of the theology of the
early church about Israel, the temple, and the gentiles as evidenced from the
quotation of Amos 9.11–12 in Acts 15.19 Wright’s view could be best summarized
as claiming that Jesus was proclaiming and performing the signs of national
deliverance, calling Israel to exile-ending-repentance, all of which would result
in a new exodus, the renewal of the covenant, a rebuilt temple, the reconstitu-
tion of the Jewish nation, and the vindication of Israel over the pagan nations.

13 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, pp. 125–31.

14 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 244.
15 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, pp. 126, 246–54.
16 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, pp. 362–65.
17 Wright, Jesus the Victory of God, p. 300.
18 Cf. generally Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, pp. 203–204, 209, 234, 242–43, 428–30,
436, 445–46, 470, 576–77.
19 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 128; idem, New Testament and the People of God,
pp. 371–443.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 13 (2015) 207-229

Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel 213

Jesus and the End of Exile: Critiques

Since Wright’s volumes appeared, a number of other studies have since

been published (some in deliberate dialogue with Wright) over matters
pertaining to exile, exodus, restoration and judgment in Jewish and
Christian literature.20 While a number of recent works have also given
Wright a very sympathetic hearing,21 his views on a continuing exile have

20 Rikki E. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark (wunt, 2.88; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997);
David Ravens, Luke and the Restoration of Israel (JSNTSup, 119; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1995); Max Turner, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration
and Witness (JPTsup, 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); James M. Scott (ed.),
Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (Leiden: Brill, 1997); idem (ed.),
Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Perspectives (JSJSup, 72; Leiden: Brill,
2001); David W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (Grand Rapids, mi: Baker, 2002);
Steven M. Bryan, Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Judgement and Restoration (sntsms, 117;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Brant Pitre, Jesus, the Tribulation, and the
End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the Origin of the Atonement (Grand Rapids,
mi: Baker, 2005); Michael E. Fuller, The Restoration of Israel: Israel’s Re-gathering and the
Fate of the Nations in Early Jewish Literature and Luke-Acts (bznw, 138; Berlin: de Gruyter,
2006); Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of
the God of Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006); John A. Dennis, Jesus’ Death and
the Gathering of True Israel: The Johannine Appropriation of Restoration Theology in Light
of John 11.47–52 (wunt, 217; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); Kevin L. Anderson, But God
Raised Him from the Dead: The Theology of Jesus’ Resurrection in Luke-Acts (pbm; Eugene,
or: Wipf & Stock, 2007); Michael F. Bird, Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission
(lnts, 331; London: T & T Clark, 2007).
21 Craig A. Evans, ‘Aspects of Exile and Restoration in the Proclamation of Jesus and the
Gospels’, in Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (eds.), Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and
Restoration (agaju, 39; Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 263–93; idem, ‘Jesus and the Continuing Exile
of Israel’, in Carey C. Newman (ed.), Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment
of N.T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God (Downers Grove, il: InterVarsity Press, 1999), pp.
77–100; Scot McKnight, A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context
(Grand Rapids, mi: Eerdmans, 1999); Pao, Acts, pp. 143–46; T.R. Hatina, ‘Exile’, in C.A. Evans
and S.E. Porter (eds.), Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove, il:
InterVarsity Press, 2000), pp. 348–51; Bird, Jesus, pp. 39–45; Pitre, Jesus, pp. 31–40; Fuller,
Restoration of Israel, p. 50; Nicholas Perrin, ‘Exile’, in J.B. Green and L.M. McDonald (eds.),
The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts (Grand Rapids, mi:
Baker, 2013), pp. 25–37; James M. Scott, ‘Exile and Restoration’, in J.B. Green, J.K. Brown and
N. Perrin (eds.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, il: InterVarsity Press,
2nd edn, 2013), pp. 251–58. Note the words of Pitre (Jesus, p. 32): ‘Wright’s strong emphasis on
the central importance of the theme of “exile” for understanding Jesus may well prove to be
the most significant advance that has been made in the study of Jesus’ eschatology since the
work of Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer.’

journal for the study of the historical jesus 13 (2015) 207-229

214 Bird

not gone unchallenged.22 In fact, several pointed criticisms have been lev-
elled against his thesis of a pervasive view that Israel was somehow still in
a state of protracted exile:

1. Wright exaggerates the importance of the return from exile in Palestinian

Judaism. While the hope for the scattered Jews of the Diaspora to return
to Israel was a common element in Jewish eschatological visions for the
future, there is no real evidence that the Judeans living in Judah thought
of themselves as still-in-exile.23
2. A ‘return from exile’, ‘new exodus’, and migration of the diaspora back to
Israel was part and parcel of Jewish eschatological hopes grounded in the
prophetic literature and its subsequent interpretation in Jewish litera-
ture.24 However, it did not constitute a grand narrative that interpreted
all other themes and ideas expressed in eschatological hopes. Sanders
acknowledged that a common hope for the restoration of Israel ‘could
embrace a variety of themes’.25 Recurring elements of Jewish eschato-
logical hopes also included: increased agricultural fertility in the land,
the advent of a messianic figure or figures, the establishment of a mil-
lennial kingdom, a renewed covenant, the erection of a new temple, a
purification of Israel’s worship, a return to covenant keeping behaviour,
the subjugation of the gentiles or the gentiles worshipping the God of

22 Maurice Casey, ‘Where Wright is Wrong: A Critical Review of N.T. Wright’s Jesus and the
Victory of God’, jsnt 69 (1998), pp. 95–103; F.G. Downing, ‘Exile in Formative Judaism’, in
F.G. Downing (ed.), Making Sense in (and of ) the First Christian Century (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 148–68; Ivor H. Jones, ‘Disputed Questions in Biblical
Studies 4. Exile and Eschatology’, ExpT 112 (2001), pp. 401–405; Steven M. Bryan, Jesus and
Israel’s Traditions of Judgment and Restoration (snts; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2002), pp. 12–20; James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered—Christianity in the Making:
Volume 1 (Grand Rapids, mi: Eerdmans, 2003), pp. 401–404, 473–77. According to Martin
Goodman (Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations [London: Penguin,
2007], p. 194), ‘The notion that Jews in the late Second Temple period saw themselves as
sinners permanently punished by God and in need of salvation from the sufferings of
exile and Roman domination is a myth expressed particularly by New Testament scholars
in order to provide a theological grounding for the mission of Jesus to Israel. The most
that can be said is that some wicked actions, like the internecine struggles and other sins
of the Hasmonaeans in the 60s bce, could be interpreted … as having brought about
specific national disasters such as the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey in 63 bce.’ See the
response of Wright to his critics in Paul and the Faithfulness of God, pp. 139–63.
23 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, pp. 473–75; Pitre, Jesus, pp. 34–35.
24 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, p. 475.
25 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, p. 124.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 13 (2015) 207-229

Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel 215

Israel, inheriting the whole earth, the return of God to Zion, the defeat
of Satan, blessing associated with the Spirit of the Lord, a final judgment,
and a resurrection.26 While there could conceivably be a single narrative
in operation behind these diverse expectations it can appear to be either
arbitrary or else highly selective to regard one particular theme as the
controlling premise over all the others.
3. Reflections on ‘exile’ by Jewish authors were complex and multivalent.27
The biblical material presents the return from exile not as a singular, tem-
poral and linear set of events, but deals with the theme in different modes,
at different levels, and in different periods. For some Jewish groups their
present state could be a recapitulation of the exile (e.g. Bar. 3.6–8), for
other communities their circumstances could be described as an exten-
sion of the initial exile itself (e.g. cd 1.4–11). Other texts flatten out the
significance of exile and captivity and it becomes merely one punish-
ment of many (e.g. 1 Enoch 89; Jubilees 23). The various ‘sign prophets’ of
Judea arguably conceived of the plight of Israel as more closely identifi-
able with the Exodus/Conquest rather than in terms of an extended ex-
ile. Moreover, the failure of the grandiose promises of restoration in the
prophets to materialize could be attributed to further cycles of sin and
disobedience rather than be attributed to a singular protracted exile (e.g.
T. Naph. 4.1–5; 1 En. 89.75–77; 2 Bar. 53–74). Bryan has argued that Ezra-
Nehemiah views restoration not as a once-for-all act, but as an ongoing
process. The returnees’ plight was not a continuing exile; rather, it was an
incomplete restoration. This underscores the diversity of interpretations
surrounding exile and the manifold ways that Jewish authors adjusted
and re-expressed their beliefs about the exile and its enduring effect.28
4. There are several indications that many if not most Jews thought that the
Herodian temple was indeed the place of God’s dwelling. The daily sacri-
fice (‫ )ע ַֹל֤ת ָּת ִמיד‬was offered morning and evening as a symbol for God’s
presence with the people of Judah and this does not square with Wright’s

26 Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (3 vols.; rev. and ed.
G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Black; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973–86), ii, pp. 514–47; E.P.
Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 bce—66 ce (London: scm Press, 1992), pp. 289–
98; Wright, New Testament and the People of God, pp. 299–338; Dunn, Jesus Remembered,
pp. 393–96.
27 On definitions of ‘exile’ and what constitutes a ‘return’ see Downing, ‘Exile’, p. 150.
28 J.A. Goldstein, ‘How the Authors of 1 and 2 Maccabees treated the “Messianic” Prophecies’,
in Jacob Neusner et al. (eds.), Judaism and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 69–96; Jones, ‘Exile and Eschatology’,
pp. 402–403; Bryan, Jesus and Israel’s Traditions, pp. 14–19.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 13 (2015) 207-229

216 Bird

belief that in the minds of many Jews, God’s presence had not yet re-
turned to Zion.29 The view that God had not yet returned to Zion was
evidently not the view of the Sadducees, Priests and Levites associated
with the operation of the temple.30 The inhabitants remaining in Pales-
tine in the aftermath of the Babylonian deportations may have thought
that God had never left them in the first place (e.g. Ezek. 11.15–16).31 Jose-
phus explicitly records the departure of the divine presence from the
temple prior to its destruction by the Romans which assumes its pres-
ence there leading up to the event (War 6.300).
5. The employment of ‘return from exile’ as the grand narrative behind ­Jesus’
parables and teachings can be problematic at times.32 The idea evidently
illuminates a number of traditions in the Gospels (e.g. Lk. 13.28–29/Mt.
8.11–13 and Mk. 13.26–27), but Wright’s application of the theme to the
parable of the lost son (Lk. 15.11–32) and the parable of the sower (Mk.
4.2–8) is not entirely convincing.33 In the Lucan parable the younger son
initiates his own journey and return (Lk. 15.12–13, 17–20) and in Luke’s set-
ting the elder brother is identified with the Pharisees who are scandalized
by Jesus’ actions in dining with sinners (Lk. 15.1–2). The parables of growth
are about the nature of the kingdom and its reception over and against
competing understandings of what kind of activity ushers in God’s reign
(Mk. 4.1–34). Although many of the parables are stories of Israel in min-
iature (e.g. Mk. 12.1–10),34 they focus not on return from exile, but more
generally with the notion of ‘God, God’s people, and God’s word’.35
6. The plight of the Judeans during the Babylonian exile and the plight of
the Judeans after the Babylonian exile cannot be equated geographically
and, therefore, cannot be equated theologically either. Wright interprets
the geographical state of exile as a non-geographic theological metaphor

29 Casey, ‘Where Wright is Wrong’, p. 99; Downing, ‘Exile’, p. 148; Dunn, Jesus Remembered,
p. 473. Alternatively, in Tg. Hag. 1.8 it is thought that the divine presence had not yet
returned.
30 And perhaps not even the view of Jesus either: ‘And he who swears by the sanctuary
swears by it and by him who lives in it’ (Mt. 23.21).
31 Downing, ‘Exile’, p. 168.
32 Klyne Snodgrass, ‘Reading and Overreading the Parables in Jesus and the Victory of God’,
in Carey C. Newman (ed.), Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of
N.T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God (Downers Grove, il: InterVarsity Press, 1999),
pp. 61–76; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, pp. 475–77.
33 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, pp. 125–31, 230–39.
34 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 179.
35 Markus Bockmuehl, Seeing the Word (Grand Rapids, mi: Baker, 2006), p. 216.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 13 (2015) 207-229

Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel 217

taken up from Israel’s sacred history. In other words, ‘he has chosen a
term which connotes removal from the land to describe the situation of
Jews living in the land’.36 Although repentance and forgiveness of sins
were preconditions for the end of exile according to the prophets, this
does not prove, however, that all offers of forgiveness and all calls for
­repentance are opportunities to return from exile.37

In sum, a number of critics would probably endorse the conclusions of Bryan

against Wright:

The exile, then, should not be thought an invariable aspect of Israel’s

ongoing self-awareness. Wright is certainly correct to perceive a wide-
spread awareness of bondage and belief that the promises of restoration
had not yet been fulfilled, but to extrapolate from this a corresponding
belief that the exile was ongoing serves only to distort the complex his-
tory of Israel and its interpretation within Second Temple Judaism, as
well as key elements of the Jesus tradition.38

Exile and Restoration in Relation to Judaism, the Historical Jesus,

and the Gospels

In what follows I want to develop Wright’s thesis about the return from exile
including its relevance and role in Second Temple Judaism and early
Christianity. I intend to take on board the criticisms mentioned above in order
to show how exile impacted the theological, historical and social perspectives
of Second Temple Judaism, the historical Jesus, and the canonical Gospels.
What this will prove I hope is that Wright has moved the discussion in the right
direction in terms of Jewish eschatological hopes, scriptural backgrounds, and
worldviews, although his articulation of the return from exile is still in need of
clarification and qualification in order to remain tenable.

36 Bryan, Jesus and Israel’s Traditions, p. 12. To which Wright (Paul and the Faithfulness of
God, p. 151 n. 304) responds by pointing out that Ezra spoke of the returnees as still in
slavery (Ezra 9.9), and so the irony ‘is thus not mine, but Ezra’s’.
37 Casey, ‘Where Wright is Wrong’, p. 99; note Wright’s response to this charge: ‘I do not,
incidentally, use the alignment of “forgiveness” with “return from exile” as an argument
for the existence of the latter as a theme in Jesus’ ministry’ (N.T. Wright, ‘Theology, History,
and Jesus: A Response to Maurice Casey and Clive Marsh’, jsnt 69 [1997], p. 111).
38 Bryan, Jesus and Israel’s Traditions, p. 20.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 13 (2015) 207-229

218 Bird

Exile in Post-Exilic Judaism

In the preface to Jesus and the Victory of God, Wright asks a rhetorical question
as a rejoinder to his critics:

I would ask critics to face the question: would any serious-thinking first-
century Jew claim that the promises of Isaiah 40–66, or of Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, or Zechariah, had been fulfilled? That the power and domination
of paganism had been broken? That yhwh had already returned to Zion?
That the covenant had been renewed, and Israel’s sins forgiven? That the
long-awaited ‘new exodus’ had happened? That the second Temple was
the true, final and perfect one? Or—in other words—that the exile was
really over?39

Here I have to say that Wright is genuinely on to something, and a similar

thought was raised over half a century ago by the Jewish scholar Joseph
Klausner:

But what was the actual fact? Slavery to foreign governments, wars,
tumults and torrents of blood. Instead of all nations being subject to
Judah, Judah was subject to the nations. Instead of the ‘riches of the
Gentiles’, godless Rome exacted taxes and tribute … Instead of the

39 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, pp. xvii-xviii, and similarly pp. 576–77. He says else-
where (p. 127 n. 8), and with some degree of overstatement, that: ‘Anyone who supposes
that all these things had happened by the time of Jesus, or that any devout Jews of the
period would have imagined that they had, has simply not learned to think historically’.
Interestingly enough Downing (‘Exile’, p. 168) takes up Wright’s rhetorical challenge when
he writes: ‘Perhaps only an imaginary Jew who agrees with Wright qualifies as serious, etc.
But one would have to answer, prophecy fulfilled to the letter? Of course not completely
fulfilled. Pagan power broken? Undermined but of course not abolished. yhwh had
returned? Not everyone thought he’d left, and of course it’s in the Temple that we’ve gone
on praying to him, maintaining the cult. Covenant renewed? He never reneged on his
covenant (Rom. 9.4), and many of us think we’ve been keeping to its term pretty well,
certainly we’ve meant to. Our sins awaiting forgiveness? Of course he forgives; why else do
you think we all share yom kippur (even if it’s the only day in the year some observe)? The
final ingathering (your “new exodus”!), of course not. The final Temple? (before 70 ce). We
can always hope it will never be desecrated again (after 70 ce). Clearly it wasn’t final, but
it was fully valid till we lost it. And, the exile’s not really over? Oh, you’re one of those
Qumran fanatics, think your lot are the only true Israelites, your founders made the only
valid return from exile? No one else agrees with you … The interpretive device of “pro-
tracted punitive exile” has no place in our interpretation of formative Israel, so neither
has it any place in our understanding of Jesus and his first followers.’

journal for the study of the historical jesus 13 (2015) 207-229

Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel 219

Gentiles ‘bowing down with their faces to the ground’ and ‘licking the
dust of their feet’, comes a petty Roman official with unlimited power of
Judea. Instead of Messiah the son of David, comes Herod the Edomite.40

That seems validated by a remark in Sirach that looks ahead to the day when
God ‘fulfills the promises spoken in your name’ implying a certain lack of clo-
sure concerning the salvific prophetic promises (Sir. 36.20; see Tob. 14.4). The
issue remains, what continuing role and relevance does ‘exile’ have as part of
this process of fulfilment for Jewish authors? In the analysis41 that follows, I
intend to try to locate exactly where ‘exile’ fits into hopes for the future in a
selection of Second Temple texts.
First, the covenant theology of Deuteronomy with its promises and curses
embeds the threat of exile and the promise of return into the covenant arrange-
ment. In Deuteronomy 28–32 (esp. 28.25–37, 63–68; 29.28; 30.1–10; 32.26) exile
appears as the most threatening and horrific consequence of covenantal dis-
obedience. True, it is only one of a number of curses, but it is the one that has
the most detrimental effect upon the religious and political existence of the
nation. The curse of exile represents a reverse exodus; it involves the undoing
of the Abrahamic covenant with its promises of land, blessings and descen-
dents; and exile also creates havoc for how to understand Israel’s continuing
status as the elect nation of yhwh. It is hardly surprising that return from exile
in Deuteronomy 30 is the immediate result of what happens with a return
to covenantal righteousness and covenantal obedience by the nation in exile.
All of the blessings and prosperities for obedience that follow are a subset of
yhwh’s willingness to return the people to the land from their captivity. In
other words, exile and return are the primary ways in which the judgment and
salvation associated with Deuteronomic covenant theology are expressed. The
implication that I draw is that as long as Jewish writers and communities
saw their relationship with God as mediated via the covenantal arrangement,
then exile and return would remain fundamental ways of talking about God’s
judgment and salvation, threats and blessings, obedience and disobedience.

40 Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teachings (trans. Herbert Danby;
London: Allen & Unwin, 1929), pp. 169–70.
41 Dunn (Jesus Remembered, p. 474 n. 422) notes Wright’s lack of analysis of the supporting
texts and Bryan (Jesus and Israel’s Traditions, p. 13) regards Wright’s case as largely an
‘inference’ based upon texts in which exilic language occurs. Also, Wright’s reading of
Tobit, 2 Maccabees, and Baruch is explicitly contested by Jones (‘Exile and Eschatology’, p.
402) and Downing (‘Exile’, pp. 154–60). But in favour of Wright’s viewpoint see the analysis
of the pertinent texts by Evans, ‘Aspects of Exile and Restoration’, pp. 270–81; idem, ‘Jesus
and the Continuing Exile of Israel’, pp. 78–91.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 13 (2015) 207-229

220 Bird

Jubilees has been properly identified as one such text where this Deuteronomic
covenant theology signifies the current experience as one involving exile (e.g.
Jub. 1.15–25).42
Second, the reinterpretation of biblical prophecy continued to be one way
of making ancient promises applicable to the present situation of an author
and his audience. The prophetic promises for seventy years of exile (Jer. 25.11–
14; 29.10–14; Ezek. 4.4–9; 2 Chron. 36.21) are reinterpreted (and thereby
extended) to mean seventy weeks of years in Dan. 9.24–27 and summarily
applied to the history of the Qumran community in cd 1.4–17. Jones regards
the reinterpretation of prophecies like this as belonging to specific groups and
it is uncertain whether such views corresponded to more widely held atti-
tudes.43 This may be true for certain reinterpretations of biblical materials,
they may not have existed beyond their own immediate circle, but reinterpre-
tation itself was a widespread phenomenon across ancient Judaism. The texts
that were most susceptible to reinterpretation were those that looked forward
to national restoration and implied some notion of delay (e.g. Hab. 2.3–4).
Another good example of biblical reinterpretation is how the promise of the
reestablishment of Israel and the Davidic monarchy found in Amos 9.11 were
diversely handled by interpreters.44 Thus, reinterpreting biblical promises of
restoration and applying them to either the history of Israel or to the current
situation of an author and his audience cannot be limited to sectarian polem-
ics and theologizing; all of which were a widespread activity carried out by
both Jewish and Christian authors.
Third, ruminations about the state of Israel vis-à-vis the gentile nations
oscillated violently depending on the fortunes of Judah at any given time. The
Hasmonean liberation of Judea from the Seleucids and their subsequent
­conquest of the surrounding tribes and territories may well have prompted
feelings that the age of fulfilment was at hand. In fact, even afterwards, ‘many
Jews continued to look back on the early Hasmonean success as days of glory
marked by the blessing of God, and in so far as they did, they would not have
considered the centuries since the exile as an uninterrupted period of

42 John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 1987), p. 60; M.A.
Knibb, Jubilees and the Origins of the Qumran Community (London: King’s College, 1989),
pp. 7–11; G.L. Davenport, The Eschatology of the Book of Jubilees (Leiden: Brill, 1971), p. 46.
Against Bryan (Jesus and Israel’s Traditions, pp. 17–18), Jubilees does not downgrade the
significance of exile as much as it orientates exile to its wider Deuteronomic context that
included a litany of various curses as well.
43 Jones, ‘Exile and Eschatology’, p. 401.
44 Amos 9.12 (lxx); Dan. 11.14 (og); cd 7.14–19; 4Q174 3.12; b. Sanh. 96b-97a; Acts 15.12–21.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 13 (2015) 207-229

Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel 221

punishment’.45 Yet the Hasmonean usurpation of the priesthood (they were of

non-Zadokite descent) quickly diminished enthusiasm for this dynasty by
some groups (like the founders of the Qumran community), as did the subse-
quent civil wars, the military intervention of Rome, the Parthian invasion and
the rise of the Herodian dynasty. In which case, the Hasmonean dynasty
became a false start in the hope for the fulfilment of prophetic promises for
restoration.46
Fourth, despite protestations to the contrary, the Damascus Document
seems to fit the schema that Wright expresses. Knibb writes that according to
the Dead Sea Scrolls: ‘Israel remained in a state of exile long after the return in
the last decades of the sixth century’ and several texts ‘present the exilic and
postexilic periods as a unity, a state of exile, which was only brought to an end
long after the return in the sixth century—in Daniel 9 in the events of the
time of Antiochus iv Epiphanes; in the Damascus Document, 1 Enoch, and
Jubilees, which are probably all concerned with the origins of the same group,
by God’s bringing into existence a chosen group, the Essenes or their immedi-
ate predecessors’.47 Martin Abegg’s examination of cd 1.4–11 has provided a
robust defence of the exilic view that has yet to be refuted.48 Even Downing
concedes that the notion of a prolonged, punitive and educative exile fits the
data here.49 This could be the exception that proves the rule, but then again
the linguistic and conceptual similarities between the Qumran sect and the
historical Jesus/Jesus movement (ranging from superficial to almost identical)
should give us cause for thought as to whether or not this view could be found
elsewhere.
Fifth, references to Israel’s regathering from their dispersion are ubiquitous
in prophetic and Second Temple literature.50 Although the dispersion is not
strictly identical with the Babylonian captivity they remain umbilically linked
as both refer to the geographical dislocation of the Jewish people from their

45 Bryan, Jesus and Israel’s Traditions, p. 15.

46 Wright, New Testament and the People of God, p. 159; idem, Jesus and the Victory of God,
p. xviii.
47 Mark Knibb, The Qumran Community (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987),
p. 20; idem, ‘Exile’, vol. I, p. 276.
48 Martin J. Abegg, ‘Exile and the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in James M. Scott (ed.), Exile: Old
Testament, Jewish and Christian Conceptions (Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 111–25; see also Fuller,
Restoration of Israel, pp. 52–60.
49 Downing, ‘Exile’, pp. 159, 168.
50 See n. 61 below. On its significance see Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, p. 217; idem, Judaism,
p. 294.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 13 (2015) 207-229

222 Bird

divinely given land. The scattering of Israel carried immense implications for
the conceptualization of identity and eschatology by Jews living in Eretz
Israel.51 Forced migrations of the Israelites by the Assyrians, Babylonians and
the Seleucids all affected expectations about a reconstituted Israel in a future
age. If we take into account the fact that ten tribes were still in exile some-
where beyond the Euphrates (see, e.g., Josephus, Ant. 11.133 and m. Sanh. 10.3)
then we could say, in the words of Pitre, that Wright has the right insight but
the wrong exile in mind. Jews of the first century were indeed waiting for the
end of exile—not the Babylonian exile—but the Assyrian exile.52 Alternatively,
the dispersion was sometimes said to be positive and occasioned the dissemi-
nation of the Torah to the nations, colonizing the Greek world with Judaism,
and for the purpose of receiving proselytes.53 But, overall, dispersion was not
how it was supposed to be and as long as most of Israel was living away from
Palestine the exile was, in some sense, still ongoing.54
Where does this leave us concerning a continued state of exile suffered by
Israel of which many or most Jews were consciously aware? It seems certain
that everyone recognized that things were not as they should be for Israel. The
nation was in some kind of bondage and had been since the Assyrian exile. Of
course bondage does not necessarily equate to exile55 and Israel’s predicament
could be explained entirely without recourse to a prolonged or renewed period
of exile (e.g. Josephus).56 Wright, by his own admission, abandons the normal
literal reference of ‘exile’ and in its place identifies exile as ‘a period of history

51 W.C. van Unnik, Das Selbtverständnis der jüdischen Diaspora in der hellenistidch-
römanischen Zeit (agju; Leiden: Brill, 1993); I.M. Gafni, Land, Centre and Diaspora: Jewish
Constructs in Late Antiquity (jspsup, 21; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997); James
M. Scott, ‘Exile and the Self-Understanding of Diaspora Jews in the Greco-Roman Period’,
in James M. Scott (ed.), Exile: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Conceptions (Leiden:
Brill, 1997), pp. 173–208.
52 Pitre, Jesus, pp. 35–38.
53 Tob. 13.3–6; b. Pesah. 87b; 2 Bar. 1.4; 41.4; Origen, Cont. Cels. 1.55; Philo, Vit. Mos. 1.149; Flacc.
45–46; Legat. 281, 284; Josephus, Ant. 14.114; War 6.442; 7.43; Apion 2.284; cf. Reidar Hvalvik,
The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant: The Purpose of the Epistle of Barnabas and Jewish-
Christian Competition in the Second Century (wunt, 2.82; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996),
pp. 273–76.
54 See similarly Fuller, Restoration of Israel, p. 100.
55 Bryan, Jesus and Israel’s Traditions, pp. 14, 20.
56 Wright (Paul and the Faithfulness of God, p. 158) states: ‘Be it noted, my case is not that all
Jews throughout the period understood themselves to be living in a state of “continuing
exile”, only that such an understanding was widespread, and was particularly likely to be
true of zealous Pharisees’ (Italics original).

journal for the study of the historical jesus 13 (2015) 207-229

Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel 223

with certain characteristics, not to a geographical situation’.57 But Wright’s

choice of metaphor is predicated on the well-grounded fact that many first-
century Jews awaited the fulfilment of the prophetic promises of restoration
and many of those promises related to the end of exile. Unsurprisingly many of
these themes can intersect, as indicated by Philo:58

For even though they dwell in the uttermost parts of the earth, in slavery
to those who led them away captive, one signal, as it were, one day will
bring liberty to all … When they have gained this unexpected liberty,
those who but now were scattered in Greece and the outside world over
islands and continents will arise and post from every side with one
impulse to the one appointed place, guided in their pilgrimage by a
vision and superhuman unseen by others but manifest to them as they
come from exile to their home … Everything will suddenly be reversed,
God will turn the curses against the enemies of these penitents, the
enemies who rejoiced in the misfortunes of the nation and mocked and
railed at them …59

What is remarkable about this passage is that it weaves together a variety of

ideas from Jewish writings, including hope for the regathering of the diaspora,60
the quest for liberty,61 a belief that Israel was still in slavery,62 signs relating to

57 N.T. Wright, ‘In Grateful Dialogue’, in Carey C. Newman (ed.), Jesus and the Restoration of
Israel: A Critical Assessment of N.T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God (Downers Grove,
il: InterVarsity Press, 1999), pp. 259–60; cf. idem, Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 126.
58 Evans, ‘Aspects of Exile and Restoration’, p. 280; idem, ‘Jesus and the Continuing Exile of
Israel’, p. 90.
59 Praem. Poen. 164–69.
60 Deut. 30.4; Ps. 107.2–3; Isa. 11.11–12; 35.10; 43.5; 49.5–6, 22–26; 56.8; 60.4, 9; 66.20; Jer. 3.18;
31.10; Ezek. 11.17; 20.34, 41; 28.25; 34.12–16; 36.19, 24–28; 37.21–23; 39.27–28; Mic. 2.12; Zeph.
3.20; Zech. 8.7–8; 10.9–12; 2 Macc. 1.27–29; 2.18; Sir. 36.11–22; 48.10; Bar. 4.37; 5.5; 4 Ezra
13.39–50; Tob. 13.4–5; 14.5–7; Josephus, Ant. 11.131–33; Philo, Praem. Poen. 117, 164–70; Pss.
Sol. 8.28; 11.1–5; 17.31, 44; T. Jos. 19.2–12 (Arm); T. Levi 16.5; T. Asher 7.7; T. Benj. 9.2; 10.11; 1 En.
57.1; 90.33; Jub. 1.15–18; 23.27–32; 2 Bar. 77.5–6; 78.7; 1qm 2.1–3, 7; 3.13; 5.1; 11Q19 18.14–15;
57.5–6; 59.9–13; 4Q508 frag. 2.2; m. Sanh. 10.3; t. Sanh. 13.10; Tg. Isa. 43.5; 53.8; Tg. Hos. 14.8;
Tg. Mic. 5.1–3.
61 Isa. 45.13; 61.1; Jer. 34.8, 15; 1 Macc. 10.33; 2 Macc. 1.27; 4 Ezra 12.34; Lk. 4.18; Josephus, War
2.259; 5.396; T. Jud. 23.5; T. Zeb. 9.8.
62 Ezra 9.8–10; Neh. 9.36; Jdt. 8.22–23; Add. Esth. 14.8; 2 Macc. 1.27; Josephus, War 5.395–96;
Ant. 18.4.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 13 (2015) 207-229

224 Bird

Israel’s deliverance from bondage,63 and exile as punishment.64 Would ‘return

from exile’ be a sufficient way of summarizing what this compilation of Jewish
themes is about? It is worth consideration.
One should also carefully observe what Wright is actually claiming. Wright
maintains that exile functioned in this period as an

example, an illustration from the past of the way in which yhwh might
perhaps work … I must stress, in particular, that when I say “end of exile”
and similar things I am not attempting to reduce everything to a single
theme. Rather, I use the phrase as a short hand, wishing thereby to draw
attention to the richly textured and many-layered second-Temple Jewish
expectation that Israel’s god would once again act within her history.65

For Wright, the return from exile is not a single idea but is an entrée into a
constellation of Jewish hopes. Hopes such as Israel throwing off the yoke of
pagan oppression, that yhwh would finally return to Zion, that the dispersed
tribes would throng to Zion, to a new temple. This return from exile is not a
monolithic theme to which Jewish eschatology is reduced; rather, it is more
like a synecdoche designed to invoke a number of ideas and motifs from
Israel’s sacred traditions and their interpretation in Second Temple litera-
ture. Altogether this collectively expresses the hope that Israel’s God would
inaugurate a dramatic act of deliverance from the pagan nations regardless
of whether Israel was suffering in gentile lands (diaspora) or at gentile hands
(Judea).66
Does Wright render exile too general and embed too much in it theologi-
cally? Perhaps—but we must remember that exile is a complex and multiva-
lent concept that can be adapted and employed in a number of ways. For a
start ‘exile’ can function as a metaphor that demonstrates the similarity
between the Babylonian captivity and the present circumstances of Israel (e.g.
Bar. 3.6–8), as well as expressing the thought that most Israelites remained dis-
persed away from the Jewish homeland (Bar. 5.5).67 In the Damascus Document

63 Isa. 11.10; 55.13; 66.19; War 1.377; 2.259; 6.285, 288–91, 296–97, 315; 7.438; Josephus, Ant.
20.97–98, 168; cf. Mk 8.11–12; 13.4; Lk. 11.29–30/Mt. 12.39; 16.4; Isa. 35.5/Lk. 7.22/Mt. 11.5; Jn
2.18; 7.31.
64 Deut. 28.64–68; Jer. 30.11; Lam. 4.16; Ezek. 36.19; Tob. 3.4; 13.3; Sir. 48.15; Bar. 2.4–5, 14–15; 3.8;
4 Ezra 5.28; T. Mos. 4.9; 2 Bar. 77.1–10; T. Jud. 23.3; Pss. Sol. 9.1–2; 17.17–18.
65 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, p. xviii (italics original).
66 Bird, Jesus, p. 44.
67 Bird, Jesus, p. 44.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 13 (2015) 207-229

Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel 225

exile is debatably employed in typological fashion.68 Tobit appears to imply

both a physical return from exile by the Judeans from their Babylonian exile
and a subsequent eschatological end of exile associated with the pilgrimage of
the gentiles to Zion and the return of all Israelites to Jerusalem which is yet to
transpire (Tob. 14.4–7). Michael Fuller argues that in some texts the declara-
tion of exile often reflects a disturbance or conflict that Jews within the land
had with gentiles or with other Jews (e.g. cd-A, 1 Enoch 85–90; 4 Ezra).69 He
critiques Wright’s view of a ‘comprehensive and monolithic view of exile and
restoration’ but notes that claims about exile may not necessarily reflect a
geographical or physical reality.70 Fuller adds:

Rather, such claims may be heard ideologically within Israel’s dominant

meta-narrative of ‘exile and return’. The pattern is used primarily to con-
vey the ideas of distress and hope through geographical segregation and
repatriation. That is, a community may utilize the paradigm of exile and
return to describe an unsatisfactory predicament and the hope for resto-
ration, even while already dwelling within the borders of the land of Israel.
The assertion of exile functions as a symbol or literary trope to express the
woeful dissatisfaction with the status quo or specific set of circumstances
that may or may not be fully disclosed. Ironically, the return may no lon-
ger signify the separation of Jews from Gentiles within foreign territories,
but Jews from Jews within the territory of Israel. Thus, Israel’s re-gathering,
in some cases, becomes predominantly an inter- or intra- Jewish event.71

In short, ‘return from exile’ is a cogent way of constructing an overall unity to

the diverse array of hopes for the future of Israel. It is admittedly a synthetic
grid superimposed by interpreters of Second Temple literature, but all the
same it is rooted in the ancient texts and in the hermeneutical strategies that
they were subjected to. Efforts to metaphorize exile are not unprecedented but
have a long history in the Jewish interpretive tradition.72 I submit that ‘return
from exile’ is a good way of articulating the incompleteness of Israel’s restora-
tion by using the scriptural language and hermeneutical framework of some of

68 M.A. Elliott, The Survivors of Israel: A Reconsideration of Pre-Christian Judaism (Grand

Rapids, mi: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 627.
69 Fuller, Restoration of Israel, pp. 48–49 (on cd, 1 Enoch, and 4 Ezra, pp. 52–84).
70 Fuller, Restoration of Israel, pp. 49–50.
71 Fuller, Restoration of Israel, pp. 50–51 (italics original).
72 Martien Halvorson-Taylor, Enduring Exile: The Metaphorization of Exile in the Hebrew Bible
(vtsup, 141; Leiden: Brill, 2011).

journal for the study of the historical jesus 13 (2015) 207-229

226 Bird

the ancient texts themselves.73 What is more, an exploration of an exilic theol-

ogy is something that remains crucial for understanding certain traditions
related to the historical Jesus and the Gospels as well.

Exile and the Historical Jesus

According to Craig Evans there are at least six episodes from the Gospels that
indicate a period of extended exile: (1) Jesus’ appointment of the twelve (e.g.
Mk 3.13–16; Lk. 22.30/Mt. 19.28); (2) the request for a sign (Mk 8.11–13; Lk. 11.29–
32/Mt. 12.38–39); (3) Jesus’ appeal to Isa. 56.7 during his demonstration in the
temple precincts (Mk 11.15–17); (4) Jesus’ allusion to Zech. 2.6 in the Olivet
Discourse (Mk 13.27); (5) Jesus’ prophetic threats against Israel’s leaders (Lk.
10.13–15/Mt. 11.21–23; Lk. 13.34–35/Mt. 23.37–38); and (6) traces of exilic theol-
ogy elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g. Mt. 1.11–12, 17).74
One text that Evans does not include, although it is important in relating the
theme of return from exile to the historical Jesus, is Lk. 13.28–30/Mt. 8.11–12.75
Who are the ‘many’ that come from the ‘east and the west (and north and
south)’? It has been common to say ‘gentiles’ and see here a reference to the
eschatological pilgrimage of the gentiles given that the Matthean version
locates the story in the context of Jesus’ encounter with the centurion at
Capernaum. However, Luke locates the logion in an entirely different context
(Lk. 13.22–30) and his story about Jesus’ encounter with the centurion at
Capernaum occurs elsewhere (Lk. 7.1–10), which means that we cannot assume
that this logion originally referred to the gentiles. Who is it, then, that comes
from east and west to the patriarchal banquet? The language seems far more
indicative of the return of the exiles to Zion (Ps. 107.2–3; Isa 43.5–6; Zech. 8.7–
8; Bar. 4.36–37; 5.5; 1 En. 57.1; Pss. Sol. 11.1–3 and Philo, Spec. Leg. 1.69). While I do
not think that a diaspora and gentile referent are mutually exclusive, we have
here an utterance of Jesus that uses explicit end-of-exile language that looks

73 See Garnet, ‘Jesus and the Exilic Soteriology’, p. 111; Evans, ‘Aspects of Exile and Restoration’,
p. 273; idem, ‘Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel’, p. 85; Bryan, Jesus and Israel’s
Traditions, pp. 16–17; Snodgrass, ‘Parables’, p. 62.
74 Evans, ‘Aspects of Exile and Restoration’, pp. 281–92; idem, ‘Jesus and the Continuing Exile
of Israel’, pp. 91–100.
75 My own study of the source, authenticity and significance of this text for the historical
Jesus can be found in Bird, Jesus, pp. 83–93; idem, ‘Who Comes from the East and the
West? The Historical Jesus and Matt 8.11–12/Luke 13.28–29’, nts 52.4 (2006), pp. 441–57;
which largely builds upon Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, pp. 308–10. See also Dale C.
Allison, Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids, mi: Baker,
2010), pp. 42–43.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 13 (2015) 207-229

Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel 227

towards the return of exiles to Zion in order to participate in the patriarchal

banquet of the kingdom of God.
Thus, the theme of return from exile is definitely present in the sayings of
the historical Jesus. The question as to whether it was programmatic for Jesus’
kingdom message is another matter.

Exile in the Gospels

The canonical Gospels provide clear indications that ‘return from exile’ or
something very much like it (e.g. ‘new exodus’) was part of their narrative
structure, historical location and thematic portrayal of Jesus. The Gospel of
Mark includes in its opening sequence a reference to the new exodus prom-
ised in Deutero-Isaiah (Mk 1.3 = Isa. 40.3) which, according to Rikki Watts,
provides the coordinates that the rest of the Marcan story is set in.76 Scott
goes so far as to state that: ‘Taken as a whole, then, the introduction to Mark’s
Gospel provides a mutually reinforcing, prophetic picture of the focus and
intent of Jesus’ appearance on the scene: he will be the divinely appointed
messenger of a gospel that, through his words and deeds, inaugurates the
long expected end of exile and restoration of Israel.’77 Luke–Acts espouses
the perspective that the promises for Israel’s Isaianic consolation (Lk. 2.25),
liberation (Lk. 4.18–21; 7.22–23), redemption (Lk. 24.21) and restoration (Acts
1.6; 3.21; 15.13–16) are made true in the life and exaltation of Jesus and in the
mission of his followers.78 The Gospel of John, in a two-level theological irony,
refers to Jesus’ death as being for the purpose of gathering together the
scattered children of God (Jn 11.51–52).79
In my mind, it is Matthew’s Gospel that provides the most lucid appropria-
tion of this exilic theme. The Matthean genealogy is arguably designed as a com-
pressed narrative of Israel’s history particularly evident in the annotations.80
In context, ‘exile’ (μετΟικεσι/α) is the primary marker denoting the various peri-
ods relating to the origins of Jesus (Mt. 1.11, 12, 17). In other words, Jesus comes to
Israel in and through its exilic history. The citation of Hos. 11.1 in Mt. 2.15 is
strange not because of the typology it uses, but because of its literary location.

76 Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus. On Isa. 40.3 in the Dead Sea Scroll see 1qs 8.14, 9.19–20.
77 Scott, ‘Exile and Restoration’, p. 251.
78 See J. Manek, ‘The New Exodus in the Books of Luke’, NovT 2 (1955), pp. 8–23; Pao, Acts and
the Isaianic New Exodus; Fuller, Restoration of Israel, pp. 197–269.
79 A theme explored more fully in Dennis, Jesus’ Death and the Gathering of True Israel and
in Richard Horsley and Tom Thatcher, John, Jesus and the Renewal of Israel (Grand Rapids,
mi: Eerdmans, 2013).
80 I owe this observation to Dr Jason Hood of Gordon-Conwell.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 13 (2015) 207-229

228 Bird

Whereas one would expect the Hosea passage to be cited after Josephus’s dream
to return to Israel in vv. 20–21, whereby Jesus then recapitulates the story of
Israel in his person by also coming out of Egypt, the Hosea passage in fact occurs
earlier while the child Jesus is still in Israel and under the jurisdiction of Herod.
This unexpected intertextual device indicates that it is Israel and not Egypt that
is regarded as the land of exile and bondage.81 The reference to Rachel weeping
for her children from Jer. 31.15 cited in Mt. 2.18 relates the theme of exilic suffer-
ing to the travails being experienced in Judea at the time of Jesus’ birth. D.A.
Carson comments:

The tears of exile are now being ‘fulfilled’—i.e., the tears begun in
Jeremiah’s day are climaxed and ended by the tears of the mothers of
Bethlehem. The heir to David’s throne has come, the Exile is over, the true
Son of God has arrived, and he will introduce the new covenant (26:28)
promised by Jeremiah.82

The Matthean merger of a narrative about Jesus’ encounter with a centurion

with a logion about many coming to the patriarchal banquet as found in Mt.
8.5–12 is, I suspect, designed to show that the Christian communities of the
inhabited world (or at least those in Palestine or Syria) are the sphere in which
the prophetic promises of Israel’s return from exile and the eschatological pil-
grimage of the gentiles are fulfilled. Lastly, in the Matthean eschatological dis-
course there is a strong allusion to Deut. 30.4 in Mt. 24.31 concerning the elect
being gathered from the four winds under heaven.
Since the Gospels draw so heavily on the prophetic writings it is hardly
surprising then that they include so many references and allusions to the
return from exile, hopes for a new exodus, and restoration of the Jewish
nation. In which case, a theology of exile was certainly carried over into early
Christianity by the Evangelists and given a unique interpretation in light of
a particular eschatological conception and in view of a Christ-centred
hermeneutic.

81 Joel Kennedy, The Recapitulation of Israel: Use of Israel’s History in Matthew 1:1–4:11 (wunt,
2.257; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), pp. 128–47.
82 D.A. Carson, ‘Matthew’, in Frank E. Gaeblein (ed.), ebc<please define> (12 vols.; Grand
Rapids, mi: Eerdmans, 1984), vol. viii, p. 95. Also Kennedy (Recapitulation of Israel, p. 148):
‘Jesus is depicted as being born into this exilic situation in 1:17. Matthew continues to
depict this “exilic” situation in which Jesus was born by characterizing the period within
an overall exodus motif in chapter two.’

journal for the study of the historical jesus 13 (2015) 207-229

Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel 229

Conclusion

A good hypothesis is one that has the most explanatory power in being able to
account for all of the data available. Is Wright’s ‘still-in-exile’ perspective a
good hypothesis? Clearly not all Jews thought of themselves as being in a state
of protracted and punitive exile extended from the Babylonian captivity. ‘Exile’
as a motif in Jewish writings was used diversely and not always in the sense
that Wright supposes. Wright is honest in his admission that his thesis may
require ‘fine-tuning some of the details of what kind of “exile” people thought
they were living in’.83 I worry that ‘exile’ is perhaps far too plastic of a concept
to be regarded as the conceptual framework for an entire Jewish meta-narra-
tive (assuming for now that we can coherently even speak of one!). What is
more, by tying his view of Christian origins to his particular articulation of
Israel as ‘still-in-exile’, Wright has run the grave risk of seeing his entire schol-
arly edifice collapse if his view of exile is found to be problematic. In many
respects, ‘exile’ is for Wright what the ‘Cynic Jesus’ is for J.D. Crossan, a control-
ling premise that is either illuminating or undermines his entire presentation.
On the other hand, I think Wright successfully demonstrates how ‘exile’
effectively operates as a conceptual umbrella for referring to the incomplete-
ness of restoration hopes. Viewed that way, an emphasis on ‘exile’ provides a
cogent and cohesive account of Israel’s first-century circumstance that is
shared by a number of Jewish authors albeit in different ways. It is a viewpoint
that brings us into close contact with many themes and motifs from Second
Temple literature, the idea is present at numerous places in the Jesus tradition,
and the return-from-exile/new exodus theme is clearly amplified by the
Evangelists. Wright’s depiction of Israel as still-in-exile is then a good working
hypothesis in so far as it forces us to wrestle with the big picture of Israel’s story
and the varied ways in which that story was told by both Jews and Christians.

83 Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, p. 140.

journal for the study of the historical jesus 13 (2015) 207-229