Re: NT Wright and the confusion of kingdom and new creation

Andrew,

Thank you for your assistance here.  The reference, in the copy of Josephus which I have, is 11.3.9.

You quoted my question and wrote:

"Will you please give me the name of "the nation" which you think was at "war" with the Romans in AD 66-70?

Come on, Lloyd, what’s with these irritating trick questions again? You know perfectly well that I mean Israel."

I am very sorry that my questions "irritate" you.  However, as I have told you before, there is no "trick" involved in my questions.  They are honest, straightforward questions seeking to get at correct answers which apparently you cannot provide or my questions would not be so "irritating" in your opinion.

I did not "know perfectly well" that you meant "Israel."  I was afraid that that was the case, but I did not "know."  Now I "know."

Because you have not answered my other questions with meaningful answers, let us return to those questions and I will supply my answers to them and then we can go from there. (You and most others on this site really need to read Jesus the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile - Restoration Eschatology and the Origin of the Atonement, by Brant Pitre, PhD, Baker Academics.)

Here are my questions and my answers:

According to your understanding, which "nation" was Josephus referring to as being "reborn" in Ant. 11. 3. 9? Please name that "nation".

The nation to which Josephus makes reference is the nation of Judah, aka, the house of Judah or the "southern kingdom."  It is very clear in the Bible, in Josephus and in other sources that the nation of Israel, aka, the house of Israel or the "northern kingdom" was not restored to the land during the time of the Jewish return from Babylon (Ant. 11.5.2; et al.)

Will you please give me the name of "the nation" which you think was at "war" with the Romans in AD 66-70?

The nation that was at war with the Romans in AD 66-70 was not "Israel" as you erroneously assert; it was Judah, aka the house of Judah or the "southern kingdom."  Contrary to popular Christian mythology, there was no national "Israel" in the first century - only a national Judah, i.e. the Jews and their associates the Galileans, i.e. the tribe of Benjamin.

In the 8th century BC "Israel" was divorced by God (Jer 3:8) and put out of her Mosaic Marriage Covenant relationship with God (Hosea).  Because of this divorce "Israel" was taken captive by the Assyrians and deported (2Kings 15:29, 17:6, 18-23) from the land in accordance with the Law of Divorce (Deut 24:1).  "Israel" was thus exiled from the land and scattered among the "gentiles/nations in fulfillment of prophecy (Deut 4:27; cf. Dan 9:7; Hosea 3:4, 8:8-9; Amos 6:14, 7:8-9 11, 9:9, 10:5-7; James 1:1, 1Peter 1:1ff; et al.) where the people of Israel (not Jews, as the people of the northern kingdom where not Jews) would be "wanders among the nations" (Hosea 9:17).  Israel never returned to the land and did not have a "national restoration" in the 5th century BC nor at any other time previous to the first century AD.

Because you do not apprehend the history of "Israel" correctly you do not understand the New Testament correctly.  I repeat, you need to read Dr. Brant Pitre’s book.

You wrote:

"The very precise focus on Israel (twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes) suggests that this is to be understood within the narrative of an impending historical judgment on the nation (in other words, the war of AD 66-70), which Jesus interprets in the light of Daniel 7. The disciples will be vindicated with Jesus for choosing the narrow path of suffering that leads to life and will (symbolically?) sit with him in judgment over rebellious Israel when it reaches the end of the broad path leading to destruction. "

Contrary to your assertion above, there was no "impending historical judgment on the nation" of "Israel" in the first century and "Israel" was not in any "war of AD 66-70" with the Romans.  At the time of the Jew’s war with the Romans "Israel" was still in exiled Diaspora, i.e. "scattered and wandering among the gentiles."

Ezekiel prophesied that at the end of this "exiled Diaspora" (Eze 36:19) God would "take (the descendents of Israel) from among the gentile/nations and gather (them) out of all the countries and bring (them) into (their) own land (i.e. the heavenly land of Hebrews 11:10, 13-16 12:22-24; Eze 36:24; cf. Amos 9:11-15; Acts 15:14-17), 

Within that context, Ezekiel also prophecied that the restoration of the nation of Israel would be through resurrection (Eze 37:1-15) and that this resurrection would produce the restored nation of "Israel" (Eze 37:16-28).

Thus, we see that it is the restoration of "Israel" that is "impending" in the first century not "a judgment" as you theorize. 

However, while the "restoration of Israel" (Acts 1:6-8, 3:19-26) was in fact "impending" in the first century so was a judgment on apostate Judah, i.e. the Christ rejecting Jews of the first century.

With these things in mind, we should now edit your statement to read as follows:

"The very precise focus on Israel (twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes) suggests that this is to be understood within the narrative of an impending historical(/eschatological) (restoration) of the nation (of Israel, in other words, the (resurrection in the Parousia of Jesus Christ) of ca. AD 70), which Jesus interprets in the light of Daniel 7. The disciples will be vindicated with Jesus for choosing the narrow path of suffering that leads to life and will (in the resurrection/regeneration) sit with him in judgment (not negative, but positive, as in the "judges of Israel") over (restored) Israel when (apostate Judah) reaches the end of the broad path leading to destruction."

We should now understand that the phrase "In the regeneration" in Matt 19:28 is parallel with the phrase "in the resurrection" (Matt 22:28, 30; Mark 12:23; Luke 14:14, 20:33; John 11:24) and does in fact refer to what you erroneously refer to as "the final new creation." 

We should now see that this phrase does in fact refer "to God’s people restored following judgment (cf. Is. 65:17; 66:22; and (that it does parallel)Josephus’ use of the word palingenesia in Ant. 11.2.9 for the ’rebirth’ of the nation following exile)".  However, not the judgment and exile of the apostate Jews in AD 66-70, but the Captivity/Exile/Diaspora of apostate, divorced "Israel" of the 8th century BC.

Lloyd