Interesting idea you have there.

While It doesn’t seem that the Bible ever pictures the whole earth as assumed within the Abrahamic Covenent, it is ubiquitous that Yhwh is indeed king over the Earth, and that in time, all nations will eventually acknowledge that dominion, and he will bring peace an justice to all (dare one call that ‘rescue’?). Isaiah 2:1-5 imagines this especially in terms of the nations streaming up to the temple. They themselves have not become the temple, but they receive the blessing, that I think can approriatly be called ‘rescue,’ via the Yhwh cult (or Jerusalem Temple, or Church, or whatever).

Furthermore, Wright’s idea of Daniel has some basis, particularly in connection with Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, and the stone that becomes a whole mountian filling the earth (which particular sounds like an idea your post condems concerning the expansion of a red ballon). Though the latter part of Daniel does seem to place a greater emphasis on the vindication of the righteous, part of that vindication is dominion over the nations (7:28?).

Of course, you are not denying that God will eventually rule over the whole earth, as far as I can tell (which, you know better than I, would go against the implication of a good many scriptures).

The issue seems to me to be a matter of timing. When are the nations to be ‘rescued’ (or perhape compelled to submit) by God? You place this in the future, at the second coming I pressume. The Old Testament sometimes supports this view, showing the judgment of the nations, vindication of Israel, and the global rescue all in one fell swoop. This is particularly the message we see in the evangelistic sermons in Acts and is therefore an essential part of the picture. However, I would also argue that the Gospel and the church are seen not only as a prophetic symbol of God’s saving work (which they are), but that they are also effectual in that saving work (Rom. 1:16-17). It’s part of this ‘already/not yet’ stuff that G. E. Ladd was always blathering on about.

The Church functions both as a prophetic symbol, but also as an effectual and expanding reality. The message that Jesus is Lord doesn’t only point to the future, but is also the power of God in itself (1 Cor 1).

Luckly, we have guys like you, and guys like Wright who are sure to point out both halves of this to us, and make so much noise in the process of debate that one can hardly aviod running across your ‘mutually edifying’ veiwpoints ;-|

Wright is simply reacting against a strong isolationist/gnostic ideology that permiates large portions of the evangellical movement. I can dig that.

Aaron Christianson