Aaron, inasmuch as Wright is reacting against isolationism and gnostic tendencies, I can also dig it. But I’m still not sure about the rescuing creation argument.

Isaiah 2:2-4 envisages a time in the future when Israel will be raised up by YHWH above the nations with the effect that people will come to Jerusalem in search of justice in accordance with the righteous Law of God. When they come, God will decide between them, pass judgment in their disputes - quite possibly Isaiah has in mind specifically the sort of disputes between nations that lead to warfare. The outcome will be that these warring nations will no longer need their weapons and will convert them to agricultural instruments. This would certainly constitute a blessing of the nations, but does it amount to a rescue? In any case, the nations remain outside the covenant people, who appear to have the mediating role of being God’s people, holding true to the ‘law’, for the sake of justice amongst the nations.

Yes, the stone which becomes a mountain in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream fills the whole earth (Dan. 2:35), but not to the exclusion of other nations. The central theme of Daniel is that God will overthrow the nations, in particular the fourth beast with its arrogant little horn, which act aggressively towards Israel (and indeed towards other peoples), and will vindicate the righteous in Israel who refuse to forsake the covenant. Daniel 7:27 says that all dominions shall serve and obey the saints of the Most High, to whom the kingdom is eventually given. I’m not sure what to make of that. Are we to suppose that all nations will one day serve and obey Israel? The church? It seems more natural to me to take it as symbolic reinforcement of the basic point about the vindication of the saints against these oppressive powers.

On the question of timing, as you probably are aware, I am inclined to think that the New Testament uses these symbolic narratives of vindication to give shape to the immediate historical hope that the early church would likewise be vindicated against its enemies - first rebellious Judaism, secondly pagan, beast-like Rome. I would argue that the sermons in Acts should be understood within the same historical-eschatological framework. Does Acts really speak of a ‘global rescue’?

I think that Ladd’s ‘already/not yet’ is very misleading. But that requires a more considered response, already. Not yet.