Stuart, it’s a good question. I have a few remarks in addition to Peter’s comments.

1. The problem of irrelevance created by the recovery of Jesus’ historical context is a real one and is not helped by the fact that Wright hasn’t yet properly followed the historical narrative through to the point at which the prophet from Galilee becomes the image of the living God. A narrative theology cannot stop arbitrarily at AD 70.

2. I’m not sure that the sort of irrelevance that Wright had in mind, however, is to be explained in terms of the failure of the kingdom. Wright’s argument is rather to the contrary - that the coming of the kingdom of God was more or less fulfilled in the war against Rome and the return of YHWH as king to a renewed Zion in the Spirit.

3. I would suggest that Isaiah draws on the motif of a new creation (11:6-9; 65:25) in the first place in order to describe the historical restoration of Israel following judgment. The language is therefore figurative (as Peter points out), but within biblical thought as a whole it reflects the hope that in the end there will be a new creation from which wickedness and death are finally banished.

4. But the kingdom language in the New Testament also draws on another Old Testament motif - the transfer of dominion or sovereignty from an aggressive and blasphemous political power to the oppressed saints of the Most. This is Daniel’s vision in the night: the fourth beast that made war on the saints is destroyed and the kingdom is given to ‘one like a son of man’ (Dan.7). I think that Jesus appropriates this vision to himself and to the situation of Israel under Roman occupation: he represents or embodies righteous Israel which will suffer but eventually be vindicated. Through the faithful suffering of those who trust God, who follow the path of Christ, the oppressor (Rome, Caesar, Nero, whoever) is overthrown, the nations that conspired against the Lord and his anointed are defeated, and YHWH is made king over his people. (This, obviously, is a rather different telling of the story to that alluded to by maz.)

5. This ‘salvation’ of Israel is interpreted in Isaianic terms: it is a restoration that anticipates the ultimate renewal of creation, the people of God are a ‘new creation’. In that sense Isaiah’s language can be read metaphorically, but the very existence of the ‘church’ should be a prophetic sign of a very literal renewal of creation that is still to come (cf. Revelation 21-22).