56 Faith & Mission 22/2 (Spring 2005) 56^84

Eschatology and Restoration: The

Relationship between Theology
and Eschatology in the Writings of
N. T. Wright

Alan S. Bandy
Ph.D. Student in Theological Studies (New Testament)
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587

Introduction1

Look this word [eschatology] up in the dictionary, and you will probably find something like
'the doctrine of death, judgment, heaven and hell/ When scholars use this word in relation to
first-century Judaism and Christianity, though, they mean something rather different. They use
it to denote the Jewish and Christian belief that Israel's history, and thereby world history, was
moving towards a great climatic moment in which everything would be sorted out once and
for all___ 'Eschatology' thus refers to the belief that history was going to reach, or perhaps that
it had just reached, its great climax, its great turning-point.2

hristian theology is eschatological. According to N. T. Wright's theological system, es­

C chatology is not simply a topic or subset of systematic theology. Instead it pervades,
shapes, and forms all aspects of Christianity. He affirms,

Yes, Christian theology properly understood is indeed eschatological, that is, it is rooted
(among other things) in the belief that the one true and living God is the creator of the world
who intends to renew and redeem his creation at the last, bringing justice, joy and healing to the
whole created order, and that this eventual goal has been decisively anticipated in the person,
work and achievement of Jesus Christ. This does indeed color the way we see a great many of
the 'topics' of theology.3

Therefore, the present author will seek to examine critically Wright's proposals concerning
his interpretation of Jesus and the theology of Paul. The goal is to validate whether or not
Christian theology is eschatological. Part 1 will primarily provide a descriptive account of
Wright's contributions. The second will evaluate a few of the implications of Wright's work
on Christian theology.
 Eschatology and Restoration: The Relationship between Theology 57
and Eschatology in the Writings of N. T. Wright

Part 1: A Survey of Wright's Proposals Concerning

the Eschatological Nature of Jesus and Paul

1.1 Locating Jesus and Paul within Wright's Second-Temple

Worldview

Central to Wright's critical, realist methodology is interpreting the Scriptures and its
theology through a reconstruction of the worldview maintained by most Second Temple
Jews. As a critical realist, Wright argues for a theory of knowledge that "acknowledges the
reality of the thing known, as something other than the knower (hence 'realism'), while also fully
acknowledging that the only access we have to this reality lies along the spiraling path of
appropriate dialogue or conversation between the knower and the thing known (hence 'critical')."4
He consequently argues that "worldviews" are the lenses through which people view real­
ity. In other words, he posits an essentially storied nature of reality.5 Stories contain and
convey the worldview held by individuals and communities. Wright's task as an interpreter
is to read the Scripture through the lenses of the dominant worldview of Second Temple
Jews. He approaches this task as a historian who mines the data of written texts (including
texts from Qumran, apocalypses, and numismatics) in order to reconstruct the worldview
behind the writings of the New Testament.6
Wright seeks to locate Jesus and Paul within their Jewish context. This move corrects
the skewed conclusions of the religionsgeschichtliche Schule and those who read Jesus and
Paul as primarily Hellenistic. Thus, Jesus and Paul have more in common with the Qum­
ran sect than with the Greco-Roman mystery religions. Most importantly, Jesus and Paul
were concerned with the story of Israel. Wright argues that "Israel's theology had nearly
always been characteristically expressed in terms of explicit story: the story of the Exodus,
of the Judges, of David and his family, of Elijah and Elisha, of exile and restoration—and,
within the eventual Hebrew canon, the story of creation and the patriarchs overarching all
the others and giving expression to their perceived larger significance."7 That is the larger
significance of the expectation that YHWH would act within Israel's history to establish His
kingdom on earth and bring to fruition all of His promises to Israel.
Wright posits that during the Second Temple period, the Jewish people as a whole
(allowing for variations within sects and subgroups) believed that they were still in exile.
Although they dwelt in their ancestral promised land, they were still under pagan domi­
nation:

They [the first-century Jews] 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 proph­
ets remained unfulfilled. Israel still remained in thrall to foreigners; worse, Israel's [G]od had
not returned to Zion.8
58 Faith & Mission

To support this thesis, Wright marshals a host of biblical and extrabiblical evidence
that convincingly demonstrates that this was indeed the case among some. Incidentally, it
is at this point that Wright has received the most criticism. Craig Evans counters some of
this criticism in his essay, "Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel" by demonstrating that
Second-Temple Jewish writings unarguably do reflect a belief that they were in a continu­
ing state of exile.10 In an earlier essay, Evans concludes, "We should agree with N. T. Wright
who has recently argued forcefully that for many Jews the exile of Israel had not ended
and would not end until God redeemed his people."11 However, one must agree with the
consensus of Wright's critics that he does overstate his emphasis on the exile.
Coupled with the state of exile is the hope and expectation that YHWH would bring
about Israel's restoration. Israel's belief in monotheism, election, and YHWH's faithfulness
to His covenant gave rise to "restoration eschatology."13 The expectation of most first-
century Jews was that YHWH would restore Israel from exile, return to Zion, and defeat
Israel's enemies.14 Wright draws on passages about the end of exile and Israel's restoration
from the Major and Minor Prophets as well as their interpretation during the Second-
Temple period.15 This eschatological restoration was also another way of speaking about
Israel's God becoming king, "The whole world, the world of space and time, would at last
be put to right."16 Hence, Israel's messianic and eschatological hope for restoration from
exile corresponded to the expectation of the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth.
Israel was waiting for the moment in time when YHWH would act in history to restore
Israel from exile through a new Exodus that would also usher in His rule and reign from
Zion and would destroy the yoke of foreign domination.
The restoration of Israel from exile would constitute the great eschatological hope
of a new covenant and a new age. Based on the promises found in the pre- and post-exilic
prophets as well as the post-biblical writings, the Jews developed the view that "the age to
come, the end of Israel's exile, was therefore seen as the inauguration of a new covenant
between Israel and her [G]od."17 All of this was expected to occur within the space-time
continuum in the sense that YHWH's kingdom would be established on earth.18 After citing
various Old Testament passages19 and extrabiblical writings20 about the kingdom of God,
Wright remarks:

These instances show clearly enough the use of 'kingdom' language in our period. It was a
regular means of expressing the national hope, invoking in its support the belief that Israel's
[G]od was the only [G]od—in other words, using Jewish monotheism and covenant theology
in the service of eschatology. Israel's [G]od would bring to pass the restoration from exile, the
renewal of the covenant. Because he was also the creator [G]od, this event could not adequately
be described without the use of cosmic imagery. Israel's victory over the nations, the rebuilding
of the Temple, the cleansing of the Land: all these together amounted to nothing short of a new
creation, a new Genesis.21

Thus, according to Wright's reconstruction of the eschatological hope contained within the
Second Temple Jewish worldview, both the establishment of the new covenant and God's
kingdom were equally pivotal. This, of course, plays heavily into the ministry and message
of Jesus and, subsequently, Paul.
 Eschatology and Restoration: The Relationship between Theology 59
and Eschatology in the Writings of N. T. Wright

1.2 Wright and Apocalyptic Language

In order properly to assess how Wright interprets Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel's es­
chatological expectations or Paul's theology, one must first understand Wright's conception
of eschatology and apocalypticism.22 Wright clearly identifies himself as dwelling along the
Schweitzerstrasse with regard to his view of Jesus within the context of apocalyptic Judaism.
"Schweitzer was right," he says, "when he at the beginning of the twentieth century drew
attention to apocalyptic as the matrix of early Christianity."23 However, Wright believes that
the vast majority of scholars, including Schweitzer, have fundamentally misunderstood
the nature of apocalypticism. He avers that "it is now high time, as the century draws to­
wards its close, to state, against Schweitzer, what the apocalyptic matrix actually was and
meant."25 He rejects the notion that apocalypticism anticipated the end of the space-time
world. The Jews were not awaiting the complete destruction of the earth and their removal
to some otherworldly state of bliss.26 Rather, he contends, apocalyptic language was a vivid
and colorful way to use metaphors when describing major sociopolitical change occurring
within human history (past, present, and future).27
Jewish eschatology is expressed through apocalyptic language, which is essentially
metaphorical in nature. Wright sets the metaphorical in juxtaposition with the literal in­
terpretation of apocalyptic language.28 A literal reading of apocalyptic writings results in
a flattened-out belief that the earth will come to a cataclysmic end.29 Following Caird,30
Wright asserts that the "metaphorical language of apocalyptic invests history with theo­
logical meaning; sometimes, this metaphor may be intended by the authors to pierce the
veil between heaven and earth and speak directly on the further side itself."31 As such,
using metaphors in describing cosmic scenarios is intended to invest theological meaning
into anticipated earthly events. In drawing distinctions between the metaphorical and the
literal, Wright is speaking of the way words refer to things, carefully differentiating between
abstract and concrete, which is the sort of things to which words refer.32 Therefore, apocalyptic
language may use metaphors for the purpose of referring to concrete objects or events as
well as abstract ideas.
In particular, Wright emphasizes the representational nature of apocalyptic language
as the key to understanding the genre of apocalyptic literature. It is representational in that
it uses symbolic images as literary conventions to stand in place of the actual referents.
He divides these images into three distinct representational senses. The first is the literary
or rhetorical sense when "a writer or speaker uses a figure, within a complex metaphor or
allegory, to represent a person, a nation, or indeed anything else."33 Second, one finds socio­
logical representation, whereby "a person or group is deemed to represent, or stand in for,
to carry the fate or fortunes of, another person or group."34 Third, and most crucial, is what
Wright identifies as metaphysical representation. He defines it as a product of the mainline
Jewish worldview, "According to which the heavenly and earthly realms are distinct but
closely intertwined ... the belief emerges that heavenly beings, often angels, are the coun­
terparts or 'representatives' of earthly beings, often nations or individuals."35 The purpose
of metaphysical representation is to ensure that earthly events are intimately connected
with the heavenly dimension in order to invest both with theological significance.36 Thus,
when interpreting apocalyptic literature, one must consider all the possibilities available
and/or intertwined together in the various symbolic images.
60 Faith <Sl Mission

Wright then applies these insights to his interpretation of the "Son of Man" figure
in Dan. 7:13-14. He rejects the image as sociological (the Son of Man representing a group
of people) or metaphysical (the Son of Man is some transcendent heavenly being existing
in another realm) in favor of a literary representation.38 The human figure surrounded by
monsters in the story "functions as a symbol for Israel, just as the monsters function as liter­
ary representations of pagan nations."39 He sets chapter 7 within the context of the entire
book, which ultimately encourages Jews in exile not to compromise their ancestral religion
while under pagan domination because God's kingdom will come on earth and His people
will be vindicated.40 Therefore, he argues that Jews in the Second-Temple period would
have commonly read the "Son of Man" as a reference to Israel who suffers at the hand of
pagans, but YHWH will one day vindicate them when He establishes his kingdom on earth.
Wright concludes by stating that "many have read apocalyptic metaphor (the 'coming of
the Son of Man with a cloud') as literal prediction (a human being floating on a real cloud),
despite the fact that the rest of Daniel 7 has never been read this way."41 All of this, of course,
has direct bearing on Wright's presentation of Jesus.

1.3 Jesus as the Eschatological Victory of God

Without a doubt, Wright's monumental Jesus and the Victory of God will impact and
influence the next generation of Jesus scholars.42 Essentially, Wright presents Jesus as an
eschatological prophet who viewed Himself as the climax of Israel's story by bringing an
end to the exile. Jesus reconstituted Israel around Himself43 by retelling Israel's story as His
own and instituting a "new way of being Israel" for His followers.45 Through the stories He
told and the acts He performed, Jesus was both the encapsulation of Israel's story and its
climax.46 Thus, all of Jesus' aims, intentions, and beliefs could be summed up as the return
from exile, the defeat of evil (Satan rather than Rome), and the return of YHWH to Zion.47
In short, Jesus ushered in the eschatological kingdom of God.48
Wright locates Jesus' announcements of the kingdom within the entire metanarra­
tive of Israel's story.49 He intends to demonstrate that 1) "when Jesus spoke of the 'reign' or
'kingdom' of Israel's [G]od, he was deliberately evoking an entire story-line that he and his
hearers knew quite well"; and 2) "he was retelling this familiar story in such a way as to
subvert and redirect its normal plot."50 Wright aptly states Jesus' kingdom announcement
as uniquely distinct from the common Jewish expectation:

Jesus was announcing that the long-awaited kingdom of Israel's [G]od was indeed coming to
birth, but that it did not look like what had been imagined. The return from exile, the defeat
of evil, and the return of YHWH to Zion were all coming about, but not in the way Israel had
supposed. The time of restoration was at hand, and people of all sorts were summoned to share
and enjoy it; but Israel was warned that her present ways of going about advancing the king­
dom were thoroughly counter-productive, and would result in a great national disaster. Jesus
was therefore summoning his hearers to be Israel in a new way, to take up their proper roles in
the unfolding drama; and he assured them that, if they followed him in this way, they would be
vindicated when the great day came.51
 Eschatology and Restoration: The Relationship between Theology 61
and Eschatology in the Writings of N. T. Wright

One way in particular that Jesus modified Israel's story in order to redraw the eschatologi­
cal expectation of the kingdom around Himself was through telling parables.
Jesus incorporated the use of parables in continuity with His prophetic praxis,52 and
according to Wright, parables are apocalyptic in nature.53 They were taken from familiar
aspects of Jewish life and became a means for breaking open their worldview.54 Wright ar­
gues that parables and apocalypticism share a similar employment of allegory or extended
metaphors that include different features, "(a) [It] represents different elements in the 'real'
world and (b) evokes a larger world of story, myth and symbol."55 Wright therefore rejects
the bulk of approaches advocated by a number of scholars56 and posits eight characteristics
about parables and their interpretation.57 Consequently, his approach yields some rather
interesting interpretations.58
Wright's unique reading of the parable of the sower59 (Matt. 13-23; Mark 4:1-20; Luke
8:4-15) argues that the parable "tells the story of Israel particularly the return from exile, with a
paradoxical conclusion, and it tells the story of Jesus' ministry, as the fulfilment [sic] of that larger
story, with a paradoxical outcome. //6° To validate his claim that it is a retelling of the story of
Israel, he offers three arguments. First, all three Synoptic versions cast the story into the
apocalyptic style of subversive storytelling.61 Second is the fairly close parallel that Wright
detects with the parable of the wicked tenants (Mark 12:1-12), which he also interprets as a
retelling of Israel's story.62 Third and most important is the idea of the seed itself.63
He maintains that within Second-Temple Judaism, "The idea of 'seed' is capable of
functioning as a shorthand for the 'remnant' who will return when the exile is finally over."64
The seed is a metaphor65 for the true Israel who will be vindicated when God brings an end
to the exile.66 Specifically, "the remnant is now returning" because the Exile is over.67 The
relationship between the "seed" and the "word" with the return from exile is explicitly tied
to Isa. 55:10-13. In this light the different soils are understood as those remaining in exile as
opposed to experiencing restoration.68 Therefore the parable acts in such a way as to say,

Israel as she stands may look as though she has returned from exile; she may want to consider
herself automatically and inalienably the true people of YHWH; but only those who hear the
word as it is now proclaimed, and hold it fast, will form the remnant that Israel's [G]od is
creating.69

Jesus, in telling this parable, is declaring that YHWH, the sower, is now acting through His
prophet the Messiah, who encapsulates the story of Israel and will bring it to its climax by
establishing the kingdom. Those who reject His message will face judgment, but those who
accept it will find salvation.70
In addition to his revised reading of the parables, Wright also offers a challenging
interpretation of Mark 13.71 Before surveying his interpretation of the so-called "little apoca­
lypse," Wright lays some essential groundwork that will shape his interpretation. To begin
with, he denies that Jesus ever conceived of the end of the space-time universe; rather He
used apocalyptic language (metaphors with teeth) to describe sociopolitical change, or the
inauguration of the new age within this world. Correspondingly, Jesus, in typical prophetic
fashion was warning Israel of impending judgment because of her sins and failure to repent
of her nationalistic agenda.72 Finally, Jesus' message was also one of vindication for the true
people of God. "This, after all," asserts Wright, "was the basic hope of Israel: that the en­
62 Faith Mission

emies of the chosen people would be destroyed, and the chosen themselves vindicated."73
In a typical Wrightian manner, Jesus has subverted and redrawn this hope of vindication
around the "true Israel," i.e., His followers. Most importantly, Jesus' prediction of the tem­
ple's destruction in Mark 13 has vindicated His entire message.74
Wright maintains that Mark 13 is authentic material, attributed to Jesus rather than
the early church.75 Positing a "seriously historical reading," he bemoans the misunder­
standing of the traditional interpretation of Mark 13 as "concerning the 'second coming' of
Jesus."76 The association of the word parousia (Matt. 24:3,27,37,39) with the Second Coming
is flawed because it does not mean "second coming," or "downward travel on a cloud" but
"presence" as opposed to "absence" (apousia); "hence it denotes the 'arrival' of someone
not at the moment present."77 Jesus' disciples after seeing Him symbolically overthrow the
temple were now asking about "his 'coming' to Jerusalem as the vindicated, rightful king."78
Wright argues that according to the first-century worldview, the subject of His coming (par­
ousia) was about "his actual enthronement as king, consequent upon the dethronement of
the present powers that were occupying the holy city."79 Jesus answered with an apocalyp­
tic prediction of the temple's destruction that was invested with theological significance and
would ultimately legitimate Jesus as a true prophet and Messiah.
Remaining consistent with his reading the Scriptures through the lenses of world­
view, Wright explains this passage with particular interest given to the OT.80 In particular,
Wright offers three sets of OT allusions that help to elucidate the Olivet discourse. He be­
gins with the woes and trials of the disciples (esp. Mk. 13:12) as an echo of Mic. 7:6, which
is designed to evoke the entire content of Mic. 7:2-10. The allusion is made because Micah
"describes the patient endurance of the true people of YHWH, despite betrayal by those
close to them, and their eventual vindication in the judgment which will fall upon their
enemies."82
Wright then highlights three passages in Daniel that, when read in light of the Mac-
cabean crisis, would have had significant meaning for Mark 13.83 They are Dan. 9:26-27,
11:31-5, and 12:10-11. He describes how they were retold during the write-up of the Mac-
cabean era in order to present the events of 167 B.C. as their fulfillment. In addition, first-
century Jews would have viewed the Romans in a similar vein and would have lauded the
actions of the Maccabean insurgents and martyrs. In short,

The context and content of Daniel 9 [et. al.] thus point to a complex grid of meaning for Mark 13
and its parallels: YHWH's final faithfulness to the covenant, and his rescue of his faithful ones,
is to come about paradoxically through the destruction of the rebuilt city, and also through the
cutting off of an abandoned 'anointed one'. These, I suggest, are precisely the themes which
Jesus intended to weave into his strange prediction of Jerusalem's destruction.84

One significant distinction with Jesus' prediction is the call to flee into the hills instead of
joining the revolt. This is because the Jews were under God's judgment for their misguided
nationalism, but not so for the restored "true Israel."
The third set of allusions consists of prophecies concerning the destruction of Baby­
lon but in Mark 13 are subverted to equate it with Jerusalem.85 Wright strings together Isa.
13: 6-19; 14:4-12; 34:3-4; 48:20; 52:11-12; Ezek. 32:5-8; Joel 2:10-11, 30-32; 3:14-15; Jer. 50:6,
 Eschatology and Restoration: The Relationship between Theology 63
and Eschatology in the Writings of N. T. Wright

8, 28; 51:6-10, 45-46, 50-51, 57; and Zech. 2:6-8; 14:2-9 in order to demonstrate the verbal
echoes all throughout the Olivet discourse.86 For example, the references to the moon and
stars being darkened in describing the fall of Babylon appear in Mark 13 to describe the fall
of Jerusalem. This language "denotes socio-political and military catastrophe," instead of
the end of the space-time world.87 "This is simply the way regular Jewish imagery," Wright
contends, "is able to refer to major socio-political events and bring out their full signifi­
cance."88 Using these passages as the intended background, Jesus was retelling the familiar
story of the Jewish hope of restoration, but Jesus identifies Jerusalem with its hierarchy, not
Rome (a.k.a. Babylon) as the force opposing the true people of God.
The coming of the Son of Man, for Wright, is a metaphorical way of indicating the
defeat of the enemies of the people of God and their subsequent vindication because the
kingdom of God has come on earth.89 Basing his interpretation on the Danielic story,90 he
explains that "coming" (epx6|iei'ov) in Mark 13:26 does not imply a "downward cloudbome
movement" but rather Jesus (the Son of Man) "comes from earth to heaven, vindicated after
suffering."91 In particular, Jesus would be vindicated as a true prophet and the true repre­
sentation of Israel,

As a prophet, Jesus staked his reputation on his prediction of the Temple's fall within a genera­
tion; if and when it fell, he would thereby be vindicated. As the kingdom-bearer, he had con­
stantly been acting... in a way which invited the conclusion that he thought he had the right
to do and be what the Temple was and did, thereby implicitly making the Temple redundant.
... If, then, the Temple remained for ever, and his movement fizzled out,... he would be shown
to have been a charlatan, a false prophet, maybe even a blasphemer. But if the Temple was to
be destroyed and the sacrifices stopped; if the pagan hordes were to tear it down stone by
stone; and if his followers escape from the conflagration unharmed, in a re-enactment of Israel's
escape from their exile in doomed Babylon - why, then he would be vindicated, not only as a
prophet, but as Israel's representative, as (in some sense) the 'Son of Man.'92

The "earth-shattering, cosmic" events of A.D. 70, therefore, brought the story of Israel to
its appointed climax that the exile has ended and God's kingdom now spreads throughout
the earth.93 Thus the kingdom of God will arrive "when Jerusalem is destroyed, and Jesus'
people escape from the ruin just in time, that will be YHWH becoming king, bringing about
the liberation of his true covenant people, the true return from exile, the beginning of the
new world order."94
64 Faith & Mission

1. 4 Some Perspectives of Paul in Light of the Inaugurated

New Age

Although Wright has distinguished himself among the premier Jesus scholars, he
has contributed an equally significant amount of writings on Paul.95 The eschatological di­
mension of Paul's theology96 and its overall impact on Christian theology primarily relate to
two main doctrines—the resurrection and justification.
Paul's belief in the resurrection of Jesus is foundational to all Pauline theology, be­
cause it marked the inauguration of the new age.97 Wright argues that Rom. 1:3-5 indicates
that central component in Paul's gospel is not justification by faith but Jesus the resurrected
Messiah.98 Arguing for a belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus signifies that "Israel's
God, the creator, had reversed the verdict of the court, in reversing the death sentence it
carried out."99 The fact of Christ's resurrection as the "first-fruits" from the dead thereby
ensures the future resurrection of those who belong to Him.100 Commenting on Gal. 1:4-5
and the inaugurated new age, Wright observes, "The Jewish metaphorical meaning (resur­
rection as the rescue and restoration of Israel after exile and oppression) is retained but
transformed: The divine rescue operation through Jesus is for all people and delivers Jew
and Gentile alike from the present evil age." Christians eagerly anticipate the final renewal
of creation when they will be vindicated as they receive their inheritance of "life in the age
to come."102
This final vindication is precisely what Paul intends with his theology of justifica­
tion. To begin with, the phrase "the righteousness of God" (Rom. 3:21) is interpreted in
conjunction with Isaiah 40-55 (LXX) as relating to God's covenantal faithfulness.104 "At the
heart of 'God's righteousness'," Wright avers, "is his covenant with Israel, the covenant
through which he will address and solve the problem of evil in and for the whole world."105
In addition, both "righteousness" and "justification" are forensic terms intended to evoke a
law-court setting.106 Eschewing any notion of imputed righteousness, Wright maintains that
the language of justification is what happens when the judge (who is righteous) rules in ei­
ther the plaintiff's or defendant's favor.107 When one is justified, he or she is given "the fresh
status of 'covenant member', and/or 'justified sinner', which is credited to those who are
in Christ, who have heard the gospel and responded with 'the obedience of faith'."108 God's
own righteousness, then, is his covenantal faithfulness when he bestows upon a believer
the status of "righteous" as the vindicated or acquitted defendant and will remain so in the
future Day of Judgment.109 Until then, Christians are marked out as having been justified by
their faith in Christ.110
 Eschatology and Restoration: The Relationship between Theology 65
and Eschatology in the Writings of N. T. Wright

Part 2: Evaluation and Implications of Wright's

Theology

To summarize all of Wright's exegetical and theological work on Jesus and Paul is
like trying to squeeze an elephant into a cola bottle. Any critique of him is liable to be the
result of either misunderstanding him or missing something he said elsewhere.111 Never­
theless, this section will offer four critiques of Wright's proposals followed by three implica­
tions on the broader category of Christian theology.

2.1 A Critical Evaluation

1) Everything hinges on Wright's reconstructed worldview.

Wright's brilliant articulation of his epistemology and methodology for doing theol­
ogy, and specifically, his reconstruction of the first-century Jewish worldview provides a
comprehensive and comprehensible, watertight system through which to view the Scrip­
tures. Nevertheless his entire interpretative grid could collapse in upon itself if any of his
hypotheses could be proven to contain significant flaws. In other words, as with all "sys­
tems," they must maintain internal cohesion in order to stand, but cohesiveness does not
necessarily equate with correctness. If, for whatever reason, Wright has misconstrued his
hypothesis concerning the worldview of Second-Temple Judaism, then his exegesis and
theology would be subject to serious revision.
One example of this potential weakness is the criticism advanced against the over­
arching "exile" premise of his worldview reconstruction. Although critiques abound,112 Ste­
ven M. Bryan offers the most persuasive critique.113 He agrees that the exile metaphor is a
well-substantiated fact, and that the first-century Jews believed themselves to be in bond­
age.114 Despite this agreement, Bryan disagrees with Wright on a number of points. First,
ample precedents exist for speaking of Israel's captivity to foreign nations while in their own
land without any reference to exile.115 Second, he suggests that Wright's equation of bond­
age to exile is a result of over-reading this emphasis into the storyline of Israel.116 "Third,"
Bryan advances the idea that "the failure of the promises of restoration to materialize after
the return of the exiles from Babylon produced a monumental theological difficulty, which
could not be explained as simply a continuation of the exile."117 Finally, because exile and
restoration are inseparable for Wright, he draws most of the evidence for his case from texts
indicating a widespread hope for restoration. Each of these points may or may not falsify
Wright's worldview hypothesis, but they do lodge a plausible case for reasonable doubt.
Wright's overall hypothesis seems broad enough to incorporate most of the avail­
able data. A final caveat, however, is that one may detect a modicum of hubris in Wright's
propositions. It is as if he is implying that for the last two thousand years, Christian scholars
have completely misunderstood a significant block of the biblical material because they had
66 Faith & Mission

failed to read it in light of exile and restoration. Of course Wright would probably bristle at
this critique, but one wonders if a course in "Second-Temple Jewish worldview" should be
a mandatory prerequisite in order for anyone to study the New Testament.

2) The (W)right perspective on apocalyptic language, but possibly some wrong conclusions.

Wright offers sound principles for interpreting apocalyptic language as essentially

metaphorical. The correct approach to interpreting metaphorical language does not insu­
late one from misinterpreting the figures and images. For example, Wright's interpretation
of the "Son of Man" in Dan. 7.T3-14118 seems to be problematic for several reasons. First,
in another exilic and apocalyptic OT book, Ezekiel, the phrase "Son of Man" has a single
individual as its referent. Most notably, in the LXX version of Ezekiel and once in Dan. 8:17,
the phrase uses the case of direct address,119 thus clearly referring to a single person, not
as a representation of Israel. Although some flexibility of use could be acknowledged, one
would be extremely hard pressed to maintain that the references to Ezekiel as a "Son of
Man" is in some way identifying him as representative of all Israel.120
Second, the references to the "Son of Man" in 1 Enoch seem to refer to an individual
being who is given ultimate authority as a judge who acts in behalf of God. In 46:1-8, Enoch
sees the Ancient of Days with hair white like wool and another standing next to him that
looks like a human. Enoch asks, "Who is this, and from whence is he who is going as the
prototype of the Before-Time?" The answer is that "this is the Son of Man, to whom belongs
righteousness, and with him righteousness dwells. And he will open all the hidden store­
rooms; for the Lord of the Spirits has chosen him." This Son of Man will "remove the kings
and the mighty ones from their comfortable seats and the strong ones from their thrones."
He will also "depose the kings from their thrones and kingdoms. For they do not extol and
glorify him, and neither do they obey him, the source of their kingship." In addition, the
Son of Man in 48:1-8 is given a name, and he is from before all time. He will be a staff of
righteousness, and "He is the light of the gentiles and will become the hope of those who
are sick in their hearts. All those who dwell upon the earth shall fall and worship before
him." While a case may be made that Israel will dispose of the pagan kings of the earth,121
no precedent exists elsewhere for the notion that Israel will be worshipped.
Finally, Wright's representational view of the Son of Man as Israel seems somewhat
incongruous with Jesus' self-referential use of it in John 5:15-47. After healing a man on the
Sabbath, Jesus offers a testimony about His authority to heal and judge in a trial-like set­
ting.122 Accused of breaking the Sabbath and blasphemy (because He claimed equality with
God), Jesus turns the tables on those judging Him. Jesus claims that the Father, because He
loves Him, has "given Him authority to judge because He is the Son of Man" (John 5:27).
Within this context, Jesus refers to Himself simply as "the son" in relationship to the Father
(John 5:19-23), and also as the "Son of God" (John 5:25) which is used interchangeably with
the "Son of Man" (John 5:27).124 The twin themes of the "Son of God"125 and the "Son of
Man"126 run parallel throughout the Fourth Gospel for theological reasons.127 Virtually all
commentators agree that the reference to the "Son of Man" is a clear allusion to Dan. 7:13ff.
The point is that Jesus intentionally identified himself along the lines of the Danielic "Son
 Eschatology and Restoration: The Relationship between Theology 67
and Eschatology in the Writings of N. T. Wright

of Man." This seems to indicate that Jesus interpreted the "Son of Man" as a metaphysical
representation of an actual heavenly being instead of a literary representation of Israel.129

3) Wright's Rejection of a Literal Second Coming of Jesus on the Clouds Fails to Account for All of
the New Testament Data about the Return of Christ.

Wright's preteristic interpretation of Mark 13 (as well as the parallel passages in the
synoptics) offers a very insightful reading based on the OT and historical backgrounds. His
ability to weave all the passages together with his penetrating historical reconstructions
enables an exegete seriously to consider his proposals. Darrel L. Bock remarks that it "is
not a denial of eschatology or apocalyptic," but rather it is "a reconfiguration of it in a way
he claims is more faithful to the way these categories have worked."130 Certainly, reading
the events prophesied in Mark 13 as apocalyptic imagery to describe sociopolitical as well
as spiritual events occurring on earth that was fulfilled in A.D. 70 is completely justifiable.
In short, he argues that the early Christians "believed that the world was now a different
place, that the God of Israel had acted decisively and uniquely within history; that actual,
concrete, non-abstract events had taken place which did mean that God's kingdom had ar­
rived in Israel, in creation, in a new way."131 The contention rises with Wright's claim that
Jesus did not teach about His own physical return to earth when He speaks of the Son of
Man on the clouds.132 To exclude any additional future expectation133 that Jesus may have
intended with that reference seems slightly overstated and may be difficult to maintain.134
One problem with Wright's proposal that the eschatological expectations that Israel
had longed for and "the consummation for which they still waited was simply the final
outworking of the now-past event" is that it does not accord with early Christian eschato­
logical expectations.135 According to Wright, the early church believed that the "end" had
now begun and that they were waiting for a final climatic renewal of creation.136 The NT
does indeed reflect a belief that Jesus will literally and physically descend back to earth. In
Acts 1:11 after watching Jesus ascend by a cloud into heaven, an angel appears and reminds
them that Jesus will come back in the same manner. If Mark 13:26 is only a metaphorical
reference to Jesus' vindication, then the notion of Jesus' second coming to earth with the
clouds could theoretically be established by Acts 1:11. Paul also anticipates a future event
in 1 Thess. 4:15-16, where Christ will descend from heaven. The Greek word KaTaprjcreTai
typically means to "come down" or "descend."137 It occurs throughout the NT describing
a literal downward or descending motion and is sometimes used figuratively for humili­
ation.138 Given this evidence, one wonders how Wright can so confidently assert, "1 Thes-
salonians it is not Jesus' downward travel but the saints' upward travel that is accompanied
by clouds." 139Finally, Rev. 1:7 describes a future coming of Jesus in the clouds and every
eye will see him. This conflicts with Wright's thesis about the coming of the Son of Man in
the clouds (Mark 13) as fulfilled by the events of A.D. 70 because most scholars, including
Wright, date Revelation ca. A.D. 95.140 Precisely, how does he reconcile the "already" of the
Son of Man in Mark 13 with the "not yet" of Rev. 1:7?
Incidentally, if Jesus brought an end to the exile, then why does the NT use exile imag­
ery to describe the present state of affairs for believers living under pagan domination? For
68 Faith & Mission

example, the Book of Revelation exhibits enough exile language to imply that John inten­
tionally was describing Christians as still in exile.141 He receives this vision from Jesus while
in exile on the island of Patmos because of the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus (Rev.
1:9). John describes himself as a brother and fellow participant (auyKoivtovos) with all the
churches in suffering (ev ttj QXi^ei), the kingdom (paaiXetg), and patient endurance (utto-
liovfj) in Jesus. In contrast to the Jewish exiles who were in exile for their sin, the Christians
are in exile because of their righteousness in Christ.
Connotations of exile also surface with reference to God's people who suffer under
the cruelties of Babylon (Rev. 17:5-6). Babylon represents the Roman Empire with its allure,
military power, and corruption (Rev. 17:3-9). Most significantly, before the harlot is judged
a voice cries out, "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that
you will not receive any of her plagues" (Rev. 18:4). This appeal to flee is a direct allusion to
the fall of Babylon and the end of exile (Isa. 48:20; 52:11; Jer. 50:8; 51:6, 45, 50) and is a pos­
sible echo of Matt. 24:15-16. In Revelation, John subverts and redefines the terms and con­
dition of the exile but nevertheless draws upon this familiar imagery as indicative for the
church. If the appeal to "come out" is an echo of the command to "flee" into the mountains
in Matthew 24, then a plausible case can be made for an anticipated still-future fulfillment
for the Olivet discourse and a literal return of Christ.

4) According to Wright, justification is not merely a past event but also a future one.

Contrary to the standard view of justification,144 Wright describes it as the "anticipa­

tion in the present of the verdict which will be reaffirmed in the future."145 Justification derives
from SiKatow146 for the verb forms, and SiKaiocrwr]147 constitutes the noun forms. Wright
correctly views these terms as both forensic and covenantal.148 However, he also posits an
eschatological dimension of justification as a forensic declaration of the vindicating ver­
dict that will ultimately take place at the end of history.149 As persuasive and appealing as
Wright's arguments are, the question remains as to how this fits with the biblical data.
In Romans alone, verbs in the Sikouog) word group occur fifteen times (Rom. 2:13;
3:4, 20, 24, 26, 28, 30; 4:2, 5; 5:1, 9; 6:7; 8:30, 33). Paul only uses the future tense three times
(2:13; 3:20, 30), and in each case it refers to sinners who are not yet justified rather than
saints awaiting final justification. The most common verb tense Paul uses is the present
(3:24,26,28; 4:5; 8:33) to indicate the current, ongoing status of the believer who is declared
righteous by God.151 The aorist tense is simply used to denote a past act of justification (4:2;
5:1, 9; 8:30) except when it is applied to God in 3:4. Paul uses the perfect once, SeSiKcuorrat
(6:7), describing how the believer's identification with Christ's death has resulted in his or
her acquittal from sin. Although this cursory analysis fails to prove anything conclusively,
it does indicate that, in Romans, justification is a past and present reality rather than a fu­
ture hope. Because believers have already been declared right with God they now possess
the promise of glory (Rom. 8:30).153 In other words, the future aspect that Wright reads into
Paul's concept of justification may come from his own presuppositions instead of a straight
exegesis of the text.
 Eschatology and Restoration: The Relationship between Theology 69
and Eschatology in the Writings of N. T. Wright

2.2 Implications

The first implication is that eschatology is not merely limited to future events. A
glance at most systematic theologies may reveal that eschatology is listed as a subsection of
Christian theology proper. As such, it typically relates to future events such as: death, judg­
ment, the Second Coming, the Millennium, and the final state.154 This, however, is based
on only one of the many possible ways in which the slippery term "eschatology" is used.155
Caird identifies at least seven different senses applied in definitions for eschatology as inti­
mated by various scholars.156 Following Caird, Wright postulates seven of his own options
for the various senses:

1. Eschatology as the end of the world, i.e., the end of the space-time universe;
2. Eschatology as the climax of Israel's history, involving the end of the space-time universe;
3. Eschatology as the climax of Israel's history, involving events for which end-of-the-world
language is the only set of metaphors adequate to express the significance of what will happen,
but resulting in a new and quite different phase within a space-time history;
4. Eschatology as major events, not specifically climatic within a particular story, for which
end-of-the-world language functions as metaphor;
5. Eschatology as 'horizontal' language (i.e., apparently denoting movement forward in time)
whose actual referent is the possibility of moving 'upwards' spiritually into a new level of exis­
tence;
6. Eschatology as critique of the present world order, perhaps with proposals for a new order;
7. Eschatology as a critique of the present sociopolitical scene, perhaps with proposals for ad­
justments.157

Given these variegated senses all applicable to eschatology, systematicians who glibly rel­
egate eschatology to a subsection of theology and assume a flattened-out definition err on
the side of naivete.
Properly understood, eschatology is an all-encompassing term for cosmic, spiritual,
and metaphorical realities anticipated by the Person and work of Jesus the Messiah. Some
of the senses of eschatology that Wright identifies are questionable because he seems to
equate eschatology with apocalypticism. In other words, some of his definitions of eschatol­
ogy more accurately describe apocalyptic literature (e.g., numbers 3, 4, 5 above), which is
distinct from eschatology. The apocalyptic genre embodies and gives expression to eschato­
logical expectations and beliefs. It is the channel through which the people of God commu­
nicate aspects of their faith that defy normal conventions of communication. What Wright
correctly stresses is that apocalyptic language and eschatological hopes are decidedly "this
worldly" rather than some esoteric disembodied state of being. Aspects like salvation, grace
and peace (shalom), and the reign of God all represent eschatological fulfillments. Christians
believe that the transcendent Creator God has accomplished a radical change in this world
with the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. His Spirit now resides in those who
have been justified by faith into the New Covenant community. All of these beliefs are es­
chatological because of the fulfillment of prophecy and the cosmic and spiritual significance
they entail.
70 Faith &l Mission

Second, the Christ event accomplished a climatic movement in salvation history

and inaugurated the "age to come." Jesus' inauguration of the new covenant instituted a
monumental eschatological development in salvation history (Jer. 31:31-33; Ezek. 36:24-28;
37:26; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:3-12; and Heb. 9:15).158 Therefore, Christians are now
experiencing the benefits of living in the eschatological days (Acts 2:17, ev Tats eaxaTais
f)|iepais).159 An eschatological dualism between "this age" and "the age to come" is evident
in the Jewish apocalypses, Rabbinic writings, and even the OT prophets.160 However, with
the coming of Messiah, the Kingdom, and the Holy Spirit, the new age is inaugurated dur­
ing this present age.161 Jesus expressed the present reality of the kingdom as having come
during His ministry (Luke 17:20-21; Luke 11:20; Matt. 12:28). In Matt. 12:28, the phrase apa
!<|>0aaev €<$>' i>|xas f| PacnXeia toO Geoi) ("Then the kingdom of God has come upon you"),
denotes an emphatic presence, not just a future hope.163 The resurrection, however, inau­
gurated the new age.164 Wright argues that Eph. 5:4-8 offers an inaugurated eschatology
when Paul "draws on the (Genesis-based) imagery of night and day to say that Christians
are already, as it were, 'resurrection people'."165 However, a future expectation remains for
the fullness of the Kingdom's arrival on earth as well as the final resurrection.166 Therefore,
those who are "in Christ" presently live with the tension of the "already and not yet," while
awaiting their final vindication and the complete renewal of creation.167
Finally, the relationship between eschatology and theology may be likened to a sym­
biotic union. A schism has existed far too long in the minds of many Christians between
their present relationship with God and eschatology. David Clark recently demonstrated
this schism when he wrote, "Some theories about biblical themes are relatively unimport­
ant either pastorally or theoretically. (I think, for example, of differing views of the Great
Tribulation.) Other theories are essential to the deep structure of the faith. (Here I think of
something like a critical realism regarding metaphysics that I consider essential to evan­
gelical thought and faith)."168 By falling prey to the shallow notion that eschatology is sim­
ply a category of systematic theology that only pertains to the future,169 Clark by necessity
must assign eschatological issues to a tertiary level of importance in regard to theology.
However, as Wright has so convincingly argued, Jesus was an eschatological prophet170
whose coming induced a grand eschatological fulfillment in heilsgeschichte. This fulfillment
accomplished by the resurrection of Christ has brought salvation and justification to all
who believe in Jesus. Therefore, theologians must view all topics of theology through the
lenses of eschatology.
 Eschatology and Restoration: The Relationship between Theology 71
and Eschatology in the Writings of N. T. Wright

Appendix A: 4QMMT and Paul

Covenant Eschatology in Qumran (4QMMT)

Teacher of Righteousness

i
Community
Established,

Looks back to Dt. 30 as Looks forward to

covenantal promise final vindication

Through "exile" Marked out in present by

"works of the Torah"

Covenant Eschatology According to Paul

Jesus the Crucified Messiah

Community
Established,
✓

Looks back to Abraham/ Looks forward to

Dt. 30 as covenantal promise final vindication

Through "exile" Marked out in present by

"faith"
72 Faith &. Mission

Appendix B: Aikcuoo) word-group in Romans

Location Form Verb Tense Mood Voice

2:13 8iKai(i)0Ti(7ovTai Future Indicative Passive
3:4 8iKaiG)0fjs Aorist Subjunctive Passive
3:20 8lKdlG)0Tl(J€Tai Future Indicative Passive
3:24 8iicaioi>p.€voi Present Participle Passive
3:26 8ucaiowTa Present Participle Active
3:28 8iKaio0a0ai Present Infinitive Passive
3:30 8iKaui)aei Future Indicative Active
4:2 e8LKai(i)0ri Aorist Indicative Passive
4:5 8iKaio0vTa Present Participle Active
5:1 8iKaLO)0evT€S Aorist Participle Passive
5:9 8iKaia)06VTes Aorist Participle Passive
6:7 8€8iKaL0)TaL Perfect Indicative Passive
8:30 (2x) e8iKaLcoCTev Aorist Indicative Active
8:33 8iKaicdv Present Participle Active
 Eschatology and Restoration: The Relationship between Theology 73
and Eschatology in the Writings of N. T. Wright

Notes

1This article was originally submitted to Dr. David Nelson in his Ph.D. seminar in Theologi­
cal Foundations, Wake Forest, NC: Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fall 2004.

2N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 34.

3This is a direct quote from a personal e-mail correspondence with N. T. Wright regarding
this particular thesis (October 5,2004).

4N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God,
vol. 1 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992), 35. Hereafter cited as NTPG.

5Ibid., 38-40.

6Ibid., 96-112.

7NTPG, 77.

8Ibid., 268-69.

Maurice Casey, "Where Wright Is Wrong: A Critical Review of N. T. Wright's Jesus and the
Victory of God," JSNT 69 (1998): 99; D. A. Carson, "Summaries and Conclusions," in Justification and
Variegated Nomism, vol. 1, The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, eds. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O'Brien,
and Mark A. Seifrid (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 546-47, n. 158; James D. G. Dunn, Jesus
Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 472-77; I. H. Jones,
"Disputed Questions in Biblical Studies: 4. Exile and Eschatology," Expository Times 112 (2000-2001):
401-5.

10Evans suggests that Wright's failure is that he does not present enough evidence to support
his thesis. Therefore, this essay is an attempt to provide further evidence that not only did they believe
they were in exile but this idea is also reflected in the New Testament writings themselves. Craig A. Ev­
ans, "Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel," in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment
ofN. T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. Carey C. Newman (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
1999), 82-91.

“Craig A. Evans, "Aspects of Exile and Restoration in the Proclamation of Jesus and the Gos­
pels," in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions, ed. James M. Scott (Leiden: Brill, 1997),
311.

12Esp. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 473-74.

13NTPG, 272. Wright borrows this term from E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress, 1985), 77-90.

14N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 2 (Min­
neapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996), 206. Hereafter cited as JVG.

15NTPG, 273. Cf. Isa. 40:1-2; Jer. 31:31,34,38,40; Ezek. 36:24-25,28.

74 Faith & Mission

l6JVG, 203.

l7NTPG, 301.

18He notes the most of the Jewish revolts occurred with the belief that there should be "no
King but God." This was what, according to Josephus (.Ant. 18. 23; War 7. 323), fueled the war in A.D.
66-70. Cf. NTPG, 302-7.

19Ps. 145:10-13; 93; 96; 97; Isa. 33:22; 52:7. Commenting on Isa. 52:7 he notes, "The whole pas­
sage is instructive, seeing the end of exile, the return of YHWH to Zion, as the answer to the oppression
of Israel and the inauguration of the universal reign of Israel's [G]od. The setting of this passage im­
mediately before the fourth servant song (52.13-53.12) provides further food for thought" (NTPG, 303,
n. 68).

20T. Mos. 10.1-10; 1QM 6.4-6; 12. 7; Wisd. 3. 7.

21NTPG, 306-7.

“JVG, 21.

23NTPG, 334.

24"The term eschatology ought only to be applied when reference is made to the end of the
world as expected in the near future." Albert Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters, trans. William Mont­
gomery (New York: Macmillan, 1951), 228; see also A. Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A
Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarius to Wrede, trans. W. Montgomery (New York: Macmillan,
1968).

25Ibid.

26NTPG, 286.

27Ibid., 282.

28N. T. Wright, "In Grateful Dialogue: A Response," in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A
Critical Assessment ofN. T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. Carey C. Newman (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 261.

29NTPG, 285.

^George B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997),
256. In chapter 14, Caird discusses the language of eschatology. He helpfully summarizes his posi­
tion in three concise propositions: (1) The biblical writers believed literally that the world had had a
beginning in the past and would have an end in the future; (2) They regularly used end-of-the-world
language metaphorically to refer to that which they well knew was not the end of the world; (3) As
with all other uses of metaphor, one has to allow for the likelihood of some literalist misinterpretations
on the part of some hearers, and for the possibility of some blurring of the edges between vehicle and
tenor on part of the speaker.

31NTPG, 284.

32Wright, "In Grateful Dialogue: A Response," 261.

™NTPG, 289.
 Eschatology and Restoration: The Relationship between Theology 75
and Eschatology in the Writings of N. T. Wright

34Ibid., 290. An example is David fighting Goliath on behalf of all Israel (1 Samuel 17).

35Ibid. For example, Dan. 10:12-21 describes the angel Michael as the "prince" of Israel who
fights against the angelic "princes" of Persia and Greece.

36Ibid.

37During the Second-Temple period, fascination with the "Son of Man" figure in Daniel 7 is
evident in 1 Enoch 37-71; 4 Ezra 11-13; 2 Baruch 39, not to mention the prominent use in the Gospels
(Matt. 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8,32,40; 13:37,41; 16:13,27-28; 17:9,12,22; 19:28; 20:18,28; 24:27,30,37,
39, 44; 25:31; 26:2, 24, 45, 64; Mark 2:10, 28; 8:31, 38; 9:9,12, 31; 10:33, 45; 13:26; 14:21,41, 62; Luke 5:24;
6:5, 22; 7:34; 9:22, 26, 44, 58; 11:30; 12:8,10, 40; 17:22, 24, 26, 30; 18:8, 31; 19:10; 21:27, 36; 22:22, 48, 69;
24:7; John 1:51; 3:13-14; 5:27; 6:27,53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23,34; 13:31) may indicate that Jesus' use of "Son
of Man" would have been commonly understood as the figure from Daniel 7, et. al.

38Ibid., 292.

39Ibid. He suggests further that this "symbol is obviously pregnant with the meaning of Gen­
esis 2, evoking the idea of the people of God as the true humanity and the pagan nations as the ani­
mals."

“Ibid., 294.

41Ibid., 296.

42For some helpful and penetrating reviews, see Craig Blomberg, "The Wright Stuff: A Criti­
cal Overview of Jesus and the Victory of God," in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment
ofN. T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. Carey C. Newman (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
1999), 19-39; James D. G. Dunn, review of Jesus and the Victory of God, Journal of Theological Studies 49,
no. 2 (October 1998): 727-34; Clive Marsh, "Theological History? N. T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of
God," JSNT 69 (1998): 77-94; Ben Witherington III, "The Wright Quest for the Historical Jesus," review
of Jesus and the Victory of God, Christian Century 114, no. 33 (November 1997): 1075; Paul J. Achtemeier,
review of Jesus and the Victory of God, Interpretation 52, no. 3 (July 1998): 299-301.

“JVG, 131,242,401,537-38.

“Ibid., 466.

“Ibid., 299, 301, 314,437, 605.

“Ibid. 235.

47Ibid., 651. Cf. 249, 268, 461, 463, 481. See Wright's own summary for his argument through
chapters 5-10 on p. 200.

“Ibid., 199. Interestingly, he uses Josephus's retelling of Israel's history leading up to the
destruction of Jerusalem and the announcement that Vespasian enthroned by YHWH in Rome as an
example of this technique used elsewhere. Cf. War 6. 312-15; Ant. 20.169-71.

49JVG, 199.

50Ibid., 201.
76 Faith &. Mission

51Ibid., 175. Among other things, he contends that several parables are taken from OT models
(vine, vineyard, sheep, shepherd). Others come from a more contemporary Jewish source (steward,
master, father, and son). Others are quite close to apocalyptic discourse: A strange story is interpreted
so that its secret symbols may be understood by those with ears to hear.

52Ibid., 177. Simply put, "The closest parallel to the parables thus turns out to be the world of
Jewish apocalyptic and subversive literature—when properly understood." Ibid.

“Ibid., 175.

^Ibid., 177.

55Namely, this includes: Jiilicher's one religious moral point, Dodd's allegorized announce­
ment of realized eschatology, Drury's multivalent allegories, and Perrin's tensive symbols with mul­
tiple layers of meaning.

56/VG, 181-82. They are: (1) the most immediate literary background to the parables is that of
apocalyptic; (2) Jesus used parables a good deal; (3) the parables only made sense within the context
of the entire career of Jesus; (4) the parables functioned the way all (good) stories function, by inviting
the hearers into the world of the story; (5) the parables were like the apocalyptic genre to which they
were subversive stories told to articulate and bring to birth a new way of being the people of God; (6)
parables were essentially secretive; (7) the secretive function of parables worked by analogy with other
Jewish hermeneutical models, not least those of Qumran and the apocalyptic literature; and (8) the nar­
rative analysis of parables is still in an infancy stage and deserves more attention.

57Wright, however, seems to neglect, ignore, or bypass the significant contributions of Craig
L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990); and Craig L. Blomberg,
"The Parables of Jesus: Current Trends and Needs in Research," in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evalu­
ations of the State of Current Research, eds. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 231-
54.

“For a fuller analysis of Wright's interpretation of parables, see Klyne R. Snodgrass, "Read­
ing and Overreading the Parables in Jesus and the Victory of God," in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel:
A Critical Assessment ofN. T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. Carey C. Newman (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 61-76.

59JVG, 230.

“Ibid., 231. Wright compares it to the vision of the statue in Daniel 2 as an example of the
cryptic images interpreted within the text allegorically.

61Ibid., 232.

62Ibid.

“Ibid.

^Wright notes the influence of Garnet, who seems to be the first one to offer this interpre­
tation. Paul Garnet, "The Parable of the Sower: How the Multitudes Understood It," in Spirit Within
Structure: Essays in Honor of George Johnston on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. E. J. Furcha
(Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1983), 40-42.
 Eschatology and Restoration: The Relationship between Theology 77
and Eschatology in the Writings of N. T. Wright

65Ibid., 232-33, n. 128. Wright provides a list of scriptural passages that refer to Israel's rem­
nant as seeds (Isa. 6:13; Gen. 12:7; 13:15; Ezra 9:2; Ps. 126:6; Isa. 1:9; 31:9; 37:31; 43:5; 44:3; 45:26; 53:10;
54:3; 60:21; 61:9; 65:23; 66:22; Jer. 24:6; 31:27; 32:41; 46:27; Ezek. 17:22; 36:8-12; Hos. 2:23; Amos 9:15;
Zech. 10:8; Mai. 2:15. Cf. Tob. 4:12; I Esdr. 8:70, 88; Jub. 1:15-18; 21:24; Ps. Sol. 14:2; 1 En. 62: 8; 4 Ezra
8:41; 1QM 13:7; 1QH 8:4-26; 17:14.

67Ibid., 233.

^Ibid., 234. He explains, "Israel's [G]od is acting, sowing his prophetic word with a view to
restoring his people, but much of the seed will go to waste, will remain in the 'exilic' condition, being
eaten by birds (Satanic forces, or perhaps predator Gentiles), or lost among the rocks and thorns of the
exilic wilderness."

69Ibid.

70Ibid., 269. However, it is important to note that Wright defines the concept of "repentance"
as the "forgiveness of sins." Drawing on Jeremiah 31-34, Ezekiel 36, and Isaiah 40-55, he argues that
"the return from exile will mean forgiveness of sins. . . . Since covenant renewal means the reversal
of exile, and since exile was the punishment for sin, covenant renewal/retum from exile means that
Israel's sins have been forgiven." Ibid.

71At an ETS conference Wright commented, "May I just say this in parenthesis. I found it very
strange in the reaction and response to my book Jesus and the Victory of God that my long chapter argu­
ing that Jesus made Isaiah 53 thematic for his own understanding of his own death This really went
by the board in a great deal of North American Evangelical reviewing because people were so worried
about what I was doing with Mark 13 that they failed to see the thing that I thought they would have
enjoyed." N. T. Wright, "Resurrection in History and Theology," a speech delivered to the Evangelical
Philosophical Society, November 20, 2003, Atlanta, GA.

^Ibid., 322-36.

^Ibid., 336.

74Ibid., 338.

75Ibid., 340.

76Ibid., 341. He is reacting against (1) the Pietist tradition that supposed that Jesus was pre­
dicting his own coming at the end of time; and (2) Weiss, Schweitzer, and their successors who believed
that Jesus was predicting an imminent end of the world but was subsequently proved wrong. Ibid.
Wright further advocates that it is especially used in relation to the visit of royal dignitaries and con­
veys the sense of "enthronement," Ibid., 341, n. 95.

"Tbid., 342.

78Ibid., 346.

79Ibid., 349. Wright explains that "the scriptural background is in fact threefold, and very in­
structive for what we must hypothesize as the mindset of Jesus, reusing Israel's prophetic heritage, and
retelling its story, consistently with his entire set of aims. There are, first and briefly, plenty of allusions
78 Faith <Sl Mission

to previous destructions of the Babylonians in the sixth century BC. This theme has already been echoed
in Mark 13, and now becomes even clearer. The woes on those who will flee with young children look
back to Hosea; the shortening of the days, for the sake of the elect, to Isaiah. The coming of false proph­
ets is a regular biblical theme. In particular, the image of everyone running to the mountains before the
invading army is reminiscent of Ezekiel's picture of the devastating judgment of Jerusalem at the hands
of Babylon. Thus far, Jesus is standing within a regular prophetic tradition, drawing on various parts
of it to deepen and intensify his warnings."

81Ibid., 348. cf. Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1989).

82Ibid.

83Ibid., 349-54.

“Ibid., 352.

^Ibid., 354.

86Ibid., 354-58.

87Ibid., 361.

88Ibid.

89Ibid., 364.

90According to Wright, "The Danielic story always was one of vindication and exaltation, and
was retold as such in the first century." Ibid., 361.

91Ibid.

92Ibid., 362.

93Ibid. Cf. Deut. 30:2-5; Ps. 106:47; Isa. 27:13; 2 Macc. 2:7; Zech. 2:6-12.

^Ibid., 364.

95N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapo­
lis, MN: Fortress, 1991); Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said; N. T. Wright, Romans, vol. 10, The New
Interpreter's Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 393-770; N. T. Wright, "New Exodus, New Inheritance:
The Narrative Structure of Romans 3-8," in Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D.
Fee on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright (Grand Rapids, MI: Ee-
rdmans, 1999); N. T. Wright, "Romans and the Theology of Paul," in Pauline Theology, vol. 3, Romans, ed.
David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995); N. T. Wright, "Romans and
the Theology of Paul," in Pauline Theology, vol. 3: Romans, eds. David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson
(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995); N. T. Wright, "Justification: The Biblical Basis and Its Relevance
for Contemporary Evangelicalism," in The Great Acquittal: Justification by Faith and Current Christian
Thought, ed. Gavin Reid (London: Collins, 1980); N. T. Wright, "The Messiah and the People of God:
A Study of Pauline Theology with Particular Reference to the Argument of the Epistle to the Romans"
(Ph.D. diss., Oxford University, 1980).
 Eschatology and Restoration: The Relationship between Theology 79
and Eschatology in the Writings of N. T. Wright

96For an excellent study of Paul and the exile theme see: Scott J. Hafemann, "Paul and the
exile of Israel in Galatians 3-4," in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions, ed. James M.
Scott (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 329-71.

97Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, 50.

98N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol.
3 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003), 242. Hereafter cited as RSG.

"Ibid., 244.

100Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 27.

mRSG, 220. Cf. What Saint Paul Really Said, 51: "This meant that the Age to Come, the Escha-
ton of Jewish expectation, had already arrived, even though it didn't look like Paul had expected. It
meant that Israel had in principle been redeemed, in the person of her anointed representative. It meant
that the Gentiles were now to be summoned to join Israel in celebrating the new day, the day of deliver­
ance."

102Ibid., 223-24. For some helpful critiques see Mark A. Seifrid, "Blind Alleys in the Con­
troversy over the Paul of History," Tyndale Bulletin 45 (1994): 89-91. Mark A. Seifrid, "Righteousness
Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism" in Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 1, The
Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, eds. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O'Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 415-42.

103Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, 96. Contextually speaking, "Romans 3:21-4:25 as a
whole expounds and celebrates God's own righteousness, God's covenant faithfulness, revealed, un­
veiled, in the great apocalyptic events of the death and resurrection Jesus Christ," 107.

104Ibid., 97.

105Ibid. cf. J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological In­
quiry, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph 20 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1972).

106Ibid., 98.

107N. T. Wright, "New Perspectives on Paul," a speech delivered to Rutherford House Confer­
ence, August 28,2003, Rutherford House, Edinburgh. As of November 15,2004, this lecture is available
to download at http://www.ntwrightpage.comAVright_New_Perspectives.htm.

108Ibid., 99.

109N. T. Wright, "4QMMT and Paul: New Light on Old Questions," videocassette lecture (57
min.; Washington: Biblical Archeology Society, 1999). Discussing the phrase "works of the law" as it
appears in 4QMMT and in Paul, Wright suggests that they both held a similar covenantal view of es­
chatology based on Deut. 30:1-8. See his chart in appendix A.

n°Wright, "In Grateful Dialogue: A Response," 244. As typical with most responses he gives
to his reviews, "Having for years valued the motto qui s'excuse, s'accuse, I am eager not to add fuel to
the fire with lame explanations of "what I really meant." Nor do I like the style of writing whose main
theme is "if only professor so-and-so had read what I said on page 594 note 203, he could never had
accused me of such-and-such"—though I confess that there were several times, as I read these essays,
80 Faith <Sl Mission

when that sort of sentence sprang unbidden to mind, and there will inevitably be some near equivalents
in what follows."

112Guy Prentiss Waters, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul: A Review and Re­
sponse (Philipsburg, NJ: P. & R. Publishing, 2004), 153-54. He remarks, "Wright's portrait of Second
Temple Judaism is at best idiosyncratic." He further summarizes the three major weaknesses of Wright's
exile thesis.

113Steven M. Bryan, Jesus and Israel's Traditions of Judgment and Restoration, Society for New
Testament Studies Monograph Series, vol. 117, ed. Richard Bauckham (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 2002), 12-20.

114Ibid., 13. See also James M. Scott, ed., Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions,
Supplements to the Journal for the Study ofJudaism, vol. 56, ed. John J. Collins (Leiden: Brill, 1997).

115Ibid., 14.

116Ibid.

117Ibid., 16.

118Wright, "In Grateful Dialogue," 266. Wright unequivocally asserts, "But my basic point is
that there is no evidence for anyone supposing that the denouement of Daniel 7—the Son of Man's com­
ing to the Ancient of Days—was intended literally; and, even if they had supposed it to be so, it would
have referred to an upward movement, not a downward one." My contention is with the statement that
"no evidence" for taking the Son of Man figure literally exists in Second-Temple literature. This could
be another example of Wright's kernel of truth being popped open by means of overstatement.

119Ezek. 2:1,3, 6, 8; 3:1, 3-4,10,17, 25; 4:1,16; 5:1; 6:2; 7:2; 8:5-6, 8,12,15,17; 11:2,4,15; 12:2-3,
9,18,22,27; 13:2,17; 14:3,13; 15:2; 16:2; 17:2,12; 18:2; 20:3-4, 27; 21:2, 7,11,14,17,19,24, 33; 22:2,18, 24;
23:2, 36; 24:2,16, 25; 25:2; 26:2; 27:2; 28:2,12, 21; 29:2,18; 30:2, 21; 31:2; 32:2,18; 33:2, 7,10, 24, 30; 34:2;
35:2; 36:1,17; 37:3, 9,11,16; 38:2,14; 39:1,17; 40:4; 43:7,10,18; 44:5; 47:6.

120For an example of the "Son of Man" as representative of Israel see Midrash on Ps. 2.9.
However, 4 Ezra 13:1-39,1 En. 37-71, and 2 Bar. 36-40 all seemingly interpret the "Son of Man" as an
individual messianic figure. So also G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text,
The New International Greek Testament Commentary, eds. I. Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 201.

121lQpHab 5.3.

122Andrew T. Lincoln, Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2000), 30.

123Andreas J. Kostenberger, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), 189. He observes that this is "the only instance of this [Cjhristological
title without articles before both 'Son' and 'Man' in the entire NT." Ibid. This is partly due to Colwell's
rule, but more so because it is a direct allusion to Dan. 7:13, following the LXX.

124Notice the integral relationship between the Father and the Son: (1) the Father is at work
the Son doing likewise (John 5:17,19); (2) the Father reveals to the Son all that He does (John 5:20); (3)
 Eschatology and Restoration: The Relationship between Theology 81
and Eschatology in the Writings of N. T. Wright

the Father gives the Son the ability to give life (John 5:21); (4) the Father has entrusted all judgment to
the Son (John 5:22); (5) those who honor the Father must also honor the Son (John 5:23); (6) the Father
has granted to the Son to have life in Himself (John 5:26); (7) the Father has given the Son authority to
judge (John 5:27). See also John 1:34, 49, 51; 5:25; 6:27; 11:27; 13:31; 19:7; 20:31. John 1:51; 3:13-14; 5:27;
6:27,53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23,34; 13:31.

125Herman N. Ridderbos, The Gospel according to John: A Theological Commentary, trans. John
Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 92-93.

126D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary, ed. D. A.
Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 257-59; Ridderbos, The Gospel according to John, 200; Ray­
mond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary,
The Anchor Bible, eds. William F. Albright and David N. Freedman, vol. 29 (New York: Doubleday,
1966), 215; Kostenberger, John, 189.

127Albeit that Wright could argue that Jesus was assigning to himself the role of Israel and
therefore Jesus, the "Son of Man," was Israel the "Son of God" (Exod. 4:22). I would still maintain that
a corporate reading of the singular Son of Man in Daniel does not seem to fit with other references.

128Darrel L. Bock, "The Trial and Death of Jesus," in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Criti­
cal Assessment ofN. T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. Carey C. Newman (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 1999), 119.

129Wright, "In Grateful Dialogue: A Response," 268.

130Ibid., 271. Cf. Bock, "Trial and Death of Jesus," 121.

131Ibid., 270. This is not to say that Wright has no conception of a future expectation because
he explicitly describes it in terms of the early Christians who "looked outward to events on a far
larger scale: the renewal of heaven and earth, the 'exodus' of the whole creation, God's defeat of death
itself."

132Dale C. Allison, "Jesus and the Victory of Apocalyptic," in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel,
ed. Carey C. Newman (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 140.

133JVG, 322. Of course, this excludes Wright's views on the anticipated final resurrection.
Wright, "In Grateful Dialogue," 271. Cf. Romans 8; 1 Corinthians 15; Revelation 21-22.

134Cf. the Louw-Nida Lexicon, 15.107, BDAG, Liddell-Scott, and Thayer.

135Cf. Matt. 3:16; 7:25,27; 8:1; 11:23; 14:29; 17:9; 24:17; 27:40,42; 28:2; Mark 1:10; 3:22; 9:9; 13:15;
15:30, 32; Luke 2:51; 3:22; 6:17; 8:23; 9:54; 10:15, 30-31; 17:31; 18:14; 19:5-6; 22:44; John 1:32-33, 51; 2:12;
3:13; 4:47, 49, 51; 5:7; 6:16, 33, 38, 41-42, 50-51, 58; Acts 7:15, 34; 8:15, 26, 38; 10:11, 20-21; 11:5; 14:11, 25;
16:8; 18:22; 20:10; 23:10; 24:1, 22; 25:6-7; Rom. 10:7; Eph. 4:9-10; 1 Thess. 4:16; Jas. 1:17; Rev. 3:12; 10:1;
12:12; 13:13; 16:21; 18:1; 20:1, 9; 21:2,10.

136Wright, "In Grateful Dialogue," 267.

137RSG, 472 n. 56; Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament, ed. Moises Silva (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 9; Beale, The Book of Revela­
tion, 9; David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5, Word Biblical Commentary 52a, ed. Ralph P. Martin (Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 1997), lxix.
82 Faith & Mission

1381 Pet. 1:1,11-14 evokes an exile theme.

139Beale, The Book of Revelation, 202. Beale comments, "John himself has remained faithful de­
spite the affliction of exile that he has suffered because of his faithful testimony to the gospel of Christ.
His exile is probably one of the ways he is already experiencing the 'tribulation' mentioned in v 9a."

140Ibid., 201-2. Beale aptly notes that this "reveals that their reign, like Jesus' initial kingship,
consists in 'conquering' by not compromising their faithful witness in the face of trials (e.g., 2:9-11,13;
3:8; 12:11), in ruling over the powers of evil (e.g., 6:8 in relation to 6:9-11), in defeating sin in their lives
(see chs. 2-3), and in beginning to rule over death and Satan by identification with Jesus (cf. 1:5-6,18)"
Ibid.

141For a review and critique of the New Perspective, see Waters, Justification and the New Per­
spectives on Paul, 151-90.

142Wright, "New Perspectives on Paul," 15.

143For occurrences of this root see Matt. 11:19; 12:37; Luke 7:29, 35; 10:29; 16:15; 18:14; Acts
13:38-39; Rom. 2:13; 3:4, 20, 24, 26, 28, 30; 4:2, 5; 5:1, 9; 6:7; 8:30, 33; 1 Cor. 4:4; 6:11; Gal. 2:16-17; 3:8,11,
24; 5:4; 1 Tim. 3:16; Titus 3:7; Jas. 2:21, 24-25.

144For occurrences see this root see Matt. 3:15; 5:6,10, 20; 6:1, 33; 21:32; Luke 1:75; John 16:8,
10; Acts 10:35; 13:10; 17:31; 24:25; Rom. 1:17; 3:5,21-22,25-26; 4:3,5-6,9,11,13,22; 5:17,21; 6:13,16,18ff.;
8:10; 9:30-31; 10:3ff., 10; 14:17; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 3:9; 5:21; 6:7,14; 9:9-10; 11:15; Gal. 2:21; 3:6,21; 5:5; Eph.
4:24; 5:9; 6:14; Phil. 1:11; 3:6, 9; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22; 3:16; 4:8; Titus 3:5; Heb. 1:9; 5:13; 7:2; 11:7, 33;
12:11; James 1:20; 2:23; 3:18; 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:14; 2 Pet. 1:1; 2:5,21; 3:13; 1 John 2:29; 3:7,10; Rev. 19:11; 22:11.
Contra Waters, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul, 188.

145Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, 131. See appendix B for chart of occurrences and tenses.
Waters, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul, 158-66, provides a cursory refutation to some of
Sanders's, Dunn's, and Wright's interpretations of some of the Romans passages.

146The New Living Translation translates 3:24 as, "Yet now God in his gracious kindness
declares us not guilty. He has done this through Christ Jesus, who has freed us by taking away our
sins."

147Notice the temporal deictic indicator vvv used in conjunction with 8iKaiG)0€VTes in order
to express the state of the believer in current time. Cf. Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the
New Testament with Reference to Tense and Mood, Studies in Biblical Greek, ed. D. A. Carson, vol. 1 (New
York: Peter Lang, 1989), 101.

148Rom. 8:10-11 does indicate the expectation of a future resurrection, but the basis of this
hope is because the believer has already been justified.

149Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 1155-1232.
I. Howard Marshall, "Slippery Words, 1: Eschatology," Expository Times 89 (January 1978): 264-69. Cf.
I. Howard Marshall, "A New Understanding of the Present and the Future: Paul and Eschatology," in
Road from Damascus: The Impact of Paul's Conversion on His Life, Thought, and Ministry, ed. Richard N.
Longenecker (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 43-61; I. Howard Marshall, "Is Apocalyptic the
Mother of Christian Theology?" in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor ofE.
 Eschatology and Restoration: The Relationship between Theology 83
and Eschatology in the Writings of N. T. Wright

Earle Ellis for his 60th birthday, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Otto Betz (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1987), 33-42.

150George B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible, 243-56, see also G. B. Caird and
Lincoln D. Hurst, New Testament Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 243-67. (1) Escha­
tology1 (Individual) referring to the personal expectation of heaven; (2) EschatologyH (Historical) that
deals with the goal of history in a comprehensive manner from beginning to end; (3) EschatologyK or
Konsequente Eschatologie limiting all eschatological references to the end of the world as expected in
the near future; (4) EschatologyR (Realized) viewing that in Christ the eschaton was so complete that
it leaves no room for a future fulfillment; (5) EschatologyE (Existential) as defined by Bultmann who
argues that on the one hand eschatology only refers to the transcendent significance of the present, and
on the other hand it was the Jewish self-understanding of their corporate involvement through history;
(6) EschatologyN denies that the Greek word for "last" is appropriate for the concept of eschatology;
(7) Eschatologyp takes into consideration the OT prophets who believed that God was working out His
purpose in history (particularly the history of Israel) and thus it refers to the teleological aspects of
historical events.

151JVG, 208.

152JVG, 559. Wright compares the Exodus and the Lord's Supper.

153Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, vol. 1, trans. Kendrick Grobel (London:
SCM Press, 1952), 37. He asserts, "That the earliest Church regarded itself as the Congregation of the
end days, is attested both by Paul and the synoptic tradition." In addition, E. P. Sanders ("Jesus: His
Religious Type," Reflections 87 [1992]: 6) affirms, "The most certain fact of all is that early Christianity
was an eschatological movement." Cf. Acts 3:19-20; Rom. 13:11; Heb. 10:37; Jas. 5:8; 1 Pet. 4:17; Rev.
22:20. NTPG, 297. The Qumran sect maintained an inaugurated eschatology to some extent. Also Sirach
50:1-21, seems to indicate the same belief. Cf. David E. Aune, The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in
Early Christianity, Novum Testamentum Supplements, vol. 28 (Leiden: Brill, 1972).

154The term "inaugurated eschatology" was suggested by J. Jeremias to soften the criticism
leveled at C. H. Dodd's "realized eschatology" (or better still, "over-realized eschatology"). Cf. Caird,
Language and Imagery, 252-53. For an excellent critique of the concept of realized eschatology see Dale
C. Allison, The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 83-100.

155JVG, 469-68.

156Dale C. Allison and W. D. Davies, Matthew 8-18, International Critical Commentary, vol. 2
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991), 339-41; Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, Word Biblical Commentary,
vol. 33a (Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 343; JVG, 469, n. 86.

157RSG, 272-73; See also Dale C. Allison, "A Plea for Thoroughgoing Eschatology," Journal of
Biblical Literature 114 (1994): 653.

158Ibid., 217. Cf. Col. 1:12-13. Matt. 13:39-40,49; 24:3; 28:20.

159JVG, 468-72. For an outstanding discussion of Paul's inaugurated eschatology, see James D.
G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids. MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 179-81,461-71.
84 Faith & Mission

160David K. Clark, To Know and Love God: A Method for Theology, Foundations of Evangelical
Theology, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003), 231.

161Wolfhart Pannenberg, "The Task of Christian Eschatology," in The Last Things: Biblical and
Theological Perspective on Eschatology, eds. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2002), 1.

162So Dale C. Allison, Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress,
1998).
 License and Permissible Use Notice

These materials are provided to you by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) in
accordance with the terms of ATLA's agreements with the copyright holder or authorized distributor of
the materials, as applicable. In some cases, ATLA may be the copyright holder of these materials.

You may download, print, and share these materials for your individual use as may be permitted by the
applicable agreements among the copyright holder, distributors, licensors, licensees, and users of these
materials (including, for example, any agreements entered into by the institution or other organization
from which you obtained these materials) and in accordance with the fair use principles of United States
and international copyright and other applicable laws. You may not, for example, copy or email these
materials to multiple web sites or publicly post, distribute for commercial purposes, modify, or create
derivative works of these materials without the copyright holder's express prior written permission.

Please contact the copyright holder if you would like to request permission to use these materials, or
any part of these materials, in any manner or for any use not permitted by the agreements described
above or the fair use provisions of United States and international copyright and other applicable laws.
For information regarding the identity of the copyright holder, refer to the copyright information in
these materials, if available, or contact ATLA at [email protected].

Except as otherwise specified, Copyright © 2016 American Theological Library Association.