1

Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament by Christopher Wright: A Book Review

Joshua Wilson

BITH 610: Old Testament Theology

Dr. Allan Brown

May 7, 2023
 2

CHAPTER 1 - JESUS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT STORY

Jesus: A Man With a Story
Wright begins by discussing the genealogies in Matthew 1. As Wright says: “What Matthew is
saying to us by beginning in this way is that we will only understand Jesus properly if we see
him in the light of this story, which he completes and brings to its climax” (p. 16). From here,
Wright goes on to expound on concepts within the genealogy.

Jesus was a real Jew

Genealogies are important within Jewish culture - they always have been. It establishes your
right as a Jew to be a part of God’s people (p. 17). Thus, Jesus was not just “a man,” but a person
whose story is shaped by his ancestry and roots. As Wright says: “The Gospels bind us to the
particularity of Jesus, and Matthew anchors him in the history of the Jewish nation” (p. 17).

Jesus was a real man

Jesus is described as “the son of Abraham.” Abraham and those in the early chapters of Genesis
(e.g. Gen. 10 and 12) are distinctly and historically human. Not some mythological world (p. 17).
However, Jesus was not just a particular man, but he had universal significance, just as the
promise to Abraham (Gen. 12) had universal significance (pp. 17-18).

Jesus was the Son of David

From the beginning of Matthew’s Gospel, he establishes that Jesus was the expected Messiah
from the line of King David. He does this from the outset by tracing the lineage of Jesus from
David to Jesus (pp. 18-19).

Jesus is the end of the time preparation

At the end of the genealogy, Matthew notes that there were fourteen generations from Abraham
to David, fourteen generations from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen generations from
the exile to Jesus (pp. 19-20). The goal of Matthew doesn’t appear to be accuracy, but rather a
theological intention. He’s pointing out that the OT history has approximately three equal spans
of time separating important events: 1) from Abraham’s covenant to the monarchy under David;
2) from David to the loss of the monarchy and the exile to Babylon; and 3) from the exile in
Babylon to the coming of the Messiah. Jesus is the end of this history, and its climax has come.
This message that the Kingdom had come is echoed through the Gospels (p. 20).

Jesus is also a new beginning

Matthew uses a Greek term for “genealogy” that is often used in the Hebrew of Genesis to
“introduce genealogies and narratives, or to conclude them and mark off important divisions in
the book” (p. 21). Since Matthew is a careful author, this choice of words seems deliberate.
“With the echo of the book of Genesis we are meant to realize that the arrival of Jesus the
Messiah marks a new beginning, indeed a new creation” (p. 21).
 3

The Story So Far

From Abraham to David
1) The problem. Abraham comes into the picture as the one through whom restoration and
blessing would come to redeem humanity's rebellion in Gen. 1-11. The problem was
whether or not there was hope for the human race (p. 22).
2) Election. God’s answer to the problem was Abraham. Through him, all nations would be
blessed (pp. 22-23). This choice of Abraham defined Israel as the chosen people.
Notably, however, Israel was chosen “not because of their numerical greatness or moral
superiority, but only because God had loved and chosen Abraham for his own redemptive
purpose (Deut. 7:7-8; 9:4-6)” (p. 23).
3) Redemption. After the migration to Egypt, Israel is then delivered from Egypt by God,
and “God acquires a new name alongside this fresh dimension of his character: ‘Yahweh,’
the God who acts out of faithfulness to his promise in liberating justice for the oppressed”
(p. 23). The Exodus becomes the key example of redemption in the Bible.
4) Covenant. Shortly after the Exodus comes the covenant at Mount Sinai. Yahweh would
be their God and they would be His people. Importantly, as Wright notes: “This covenant
was based on what God had already done for them… God’s grace and redemptive action
came first” (p. 23).
5) Inheritance. The generation of the Exodus died in the wilderness because of their
unbelief and rebellion. However, Joshua and the new generation inhabited the promised
land, but with difficulties. There was a lack of cooperation, competition, and disunity.
Eventually, this led to the monarchy of Saul, and then David. David established the
monarchy, was successful, and became the ideal model (p. 24). As Wright states: “So
then, with this new royal dimension, the story of God’s people moves forward to its next
phase” (p. 25).

From David to the exile

1) Division of the kingdoms. After David, Solomon did well with the empire David had
built. The temple became the focal point, and foreign trade was started. However, the cost
of the empire increased, leading to social and economic problems (p. 25), which led to
discontent, which resulted in rebellion. This rebellious group formed the northern
kingdom of Israel, leaving the original kingdom as Judah.
2) The ninth century B.C. The new kingdom of Israel went through periods of instability.
However, through Omri, the kingdom was built up. However, after Ahab his son took
over, drift from Yahweh began to take place. During this time Elijah and Elisha
prophesied with some success. Meanwhile, Judah was fairly peaceful during this time
with a relatively continued focus on Yahweh. In the later part of the century, an attempt to
capture the throne of Israel was made but was relatively unsuccessful in the long term. It
was after this point that Joash enters the scene. (pp. 26-27)
 4

3) The eighth century B.C. At this time, the dynasty of Omri of Israel was overthrown by
Jehu. Jehu purged the kingdom of Baal worshipers but ultimately weakened the kingdom.
His great-grandson, Jeroboam II, built the kingdom back up. This prosperity was
short-lived, however, as social evils continued. It was at this time that Amos and Hosea
prophesied. Not long after, Assyria took over. (p. 28) In contrast, Judah experienced
prosperity during the first part of this century. However, social evils began to impact
Judah as well, thus Isaiah and Micah entered the scene. Assyria then “helped” Judah by
defeating Syria, Israel, and Philistia for them, but they charged a heavy tribute in return
and Israel took on some of their religious practices (pp. 28-29). Hezekiah began a reform
in the nation. Though Assyria attacked Judah as a result, Jerusalem was saved as Isaiah
predicted. However, this deliverance only led people to complacency (p. 29).
4) The seventh century B.C. The seventh century in Judah saw the reversal of Hezekiah’s
reforms by Manasseh. Manasseh’s reign was characterized by tremendous amounts of
corruption and religious decay (p. 29). However, Manassehs grandson Josiah reversed
state policy again, resisting Assyria and reforming Judah religiously. It was around this
time that Jeremiah began his ministry (p. 30). Later in the century, Assyria was
overthrown by Babylon. Soon after, Babylon captured Jerusalem in 587 B.C. as a result
of the rebellions in Judah, and thus the exile began (p. 30).
5) Some lessons of history- The period from Abraham to David displayed Yahweh as
faithful to covenant promises and acting in justice for the oppressed. It also displayed the
purpose of God’s people - to redeem the nations (p. 30-31). From David to the exile, we
see that Yahweh is the sovereign God of history (not just Israel), the moral character and
demand of Yahweh, and that Yahweh did not want external religious ritual without
practical social justice (pp. 31-32). “All three of these prominent features of the message
of the Old Testament in the period of the monarchy are to be found in the teaching of
Jesus” (p. 32).

From the exile to the Messiah

1) The exile. The exile lasted 50 years. The destruction of the temple to the time of its
rebuilding was 70 years. During this time, perhaps the main reason their faith survived
was due to the messages of the prophets (p. 32).
2) The restoration. Cyrus defeated Babylon in 539 B.C., leading to the restoration of Israel.
The first return of Jews to the land of Israel began. This small group found Jerusalem and
Judah desolate and they faced much opposition as they worked to restore it. During this
time depression set in which led to religious laxity, and brought the last of the OT
prophets, Micah, to call them back to religious zeal in all areas of life (p. 34). Ezra and
Nehemiah addressed similar scenarios later (p. 34).
3) The intertestamental period. “The canonical history of the Old Testament comes to an
end in the mid-fifth century with Malachi, Ezra, and Nehemiah” (p. 35). Obviously,
however, Jewish history carried on. The Persians fell, and the Greeks, led by Alexander
 5

the Great, took control. Once Alexander died, his generals took over the kingdom.
Ptolemy took control in Egypt, and for most of the third century, the Jews were under the
control of the Ptolemies. From about 200 B.C. onward, the Seleucid kings of Syria took
control. Their reign led to the persecution of the Jews. It was during this time when
Antiochus Epiphanes IV placed a statue of Zeus in the temple (p. 35). This action sparked
the revolt of the Maccabees, which was successful. “For the next century, the Jews more
or less governed themselves under the leadership of the Hasmonean priestly dynasty” (p.
36). This ended when Rome took over (p. 36).

Wright helpfully points out a couple of key features of this period: 1) An increasing
devotion to the Law (p. 36). 2) the upsurge of apocalyptic and messianic hope (p. 37).

Light on the Story

Matthew condenses all of the content above into his first chapter. This is the story from which
Jesus drew his identity and mission and gave significance and authority. It connected the OT
with Jesus in a historical context (p. 38). When we approach the OT this way, it produces value
in the OT itself (p. 38) and produces some following effects.
1) It causes us to “affirm whatever significance a particular event had in terms of Israel’s
own experience of God and faith in him” (p. 39).
2) “We can see additional levels of significance in the light of the end of the story--that is, in
the light of Christ” (p. 39). Wright helpfully discusses this with the example of the
exodus (pp. 39-40).

On the flip side, it is important to look at the achievement of Christ, for example, “in the light of
all that the exodus was as an act of God’s redemption” (p. 40). While in the NT we see the
solution for evil, in the OT we see displays of the evil that God is redeeming us from (p. 40). In
the NT, we see God’s final answer, but in the OT we see God displaying parts of the answer
through various acts of redemption in history (p. 41). The exodus was not just an analogy of
Jesus, it was “real redemption. It was a real act of the living God, for real people who were in
real slavery, and it really liberated them” (p. 41). It had cultural, and historical significance in its
own time and place, and should not immediately be wrapped up in our personal salvation
narrative (p. 42). Ultimately, when we properly take the OT history seriously in relation to its
completion in Jesus, we are able to see the OT story in light of where it leads (the achievement of
Christ), and we are able to “appreciate the full dimensions of what God did through Christ in the
light of his historical declarations and demonstrations of intent in the Old Testament” (p. 43).
Perhaps one of the greatest things Matthews's genealogy points us to do in understanding the
relationship of Jesus and the OT is “story” (p. 44).

A Unique Story
 6

This “salvation history” is unique to the OT history of Israel. Not all histories of various nations
and cultures are a part of this work on the earth (p. 44). Again, Matthew 1:1-17 supports this.
This is not to say, however, that other nations and cultures are excluded from Christ’s ultimate
mission.

A universal goal
As Wright says, “the Old Testament itself quite clearly intends us to see Israel’s history not as an
end in itself or for the sake of Israel alone, but rather for the sake of the rest of the nations of
humanity” (p. 46). This can be easily seen in passages such as Genesis 12; Exodus 9:14, 16, 29,
19:5; Jeremiah 2:3, 4:2; etc. (p. 46-47 - see Wright’s elaboration on these passages).

A unique experience
What God did in and through Israel was nonetheless unique. “The story of election, redemption,
covenant and inheritance… was a story shared by no other people” (p. 48). This isn’t to say that
God wasn’t active in other nations throughout history. Rather, it means that it was only through
Israel that the overall story of election, redemption, covenant, and inheritance, took place (p. 48).
This sense of exclusivity in story is reflected in Deuteronomy 4:32-34, 37-38. This uniqueness
wasn’t ultimately exclusive but was to bring God’s blessing to the nations (p. 49). It laid upon
the people a missionary importance and greater moral responsibility” (Amos 2:6-16; 3:2; 9:7)
(pp. 50-51). Jesus as Messiah meant that he was “the completion of all that Israel had been put in
the world for” (p. 52). Thus, Jesus shares in the uniqueness of Israel.

Israel And Other Stories

God in control of all history
Though the story of Israel is unique, God was clearly in control of all history and nations.
Sometimes this was in relation to Israel, sometimes it wasn’t (see Amos 9:7) (p. 53). “Mostly,
however, it is the case that other nations are said to be under Yahweh’s control in relation to how
their history interacts with Israel’s” (p. 53). Since Yahweh’s work in and through Israel was
ultimately redemptive, thus God’s work in other nations fits into the wider redemptive purpose
(p. 54). Examples of God’s work in/through other nations include Egypt (Ex. 9:13-16), Assyria
(Is. 10:5-19), Babylon (Dan. 2:37-38; 4:17, 25, 32), and Persia (Is. 40-48). Salvation history is
not in a vacuum, but it’s in the overall course of world history under God’s control (p. 55).

The nations share in Israel’s history

As Wright notes: “In the Old Testament it often seems as if the nations are the intended audience
of what God is actually doing in Israel” (p. 55). This can be seen in passages such as Exodus
15:14-16; 32:11-12; Deuteronomy 4:6-8; 29:22-28; Ezekiel 36:16-23; and in the Psalms, such as
Psalms 47; 96:1-3 (pp. 55-56 - see Wright’s discussion of these passages).

The nations share in Israel’s future

 7

The OT goes further than just having other nations as spectators but as participants. This is
clearly seen in Psalm 47:8-9. Here, “the nations before God’s throne are there not behind the
people of God, nor even just alongside them, but as the people of the God of Abraham” (p. 57).
Further support is given by Wright in Amos 9:11-12 (in corporation with Acts 15:13-19), Isaiah
19, Jeremiah 12:15-16, Isaiah 44:5; 51:4-5; 45:6, 22 (pp. 57-59 - see Wright’s elaboration on
these passages). As Wright demonstrates, “the eschatological future hope of Israel saw its own
history ultimately flowing into the universal history of the nations, in order that all people from
all nations could be granted salvation and included within the people of God” (p. 59).

CHAPTER 2 - JESUS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT PROMISE

“And So Was Fulfilled…”
Wright’s next point of discussion is five “scenes” woven together in Matthew's version of Jesus’
conception, birth, and early childhood (p. 63). Matthew then ties these scenes to a quotation from
the OT that, he claims, “has been ‘fulfilled’ by the event described” (p. 63).

Five scenes from Jesus’ childhood

Wright lists these five scenes as follows:
1) “The assurance to Joseph concerning the child conceived in Mary” (Matt. 1:18-25, to
fulfill Is. 7:14) (p. 63).
2) “The fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:1-12, to fulfill Mic. 5:2) (p. 63).
3) “The escape to Egypt, and then the return from there” (Matt. 2:13-15, to fulfill Hos. 11:1)
(p. 63).
4) “The murder by Herod of the boys in Bethlehem” (Matt. 2:16-18, to fulfill Jer. 31:15) (p.
64).
5) “The settlement of Jesus’ family in Nazareth” (Matt. 2:19-23, to fulfill “the prophets”) (p.
64).
Through Matthews's use of fulfillment language in these passages, it seems he’s trying to
communicate that Jesus wasn’t just the completion of the OT story, but that he was even more so
its fulfillment (p. 64).

Wright also mentions tha the texts Matthew used were relatively obscure, and these OT
texts are not predictions (with only Mic. 5:2 being a prediction) (p. 65). Wright concludes that “it
was the events in the life of infant Jesus that suggested the Scriptures, not the other way around”
(p. 66).

Geography and history

Wright goes on to state that there are likely a couple of levels of meaning in the mind of Matthew
as he uses these OT texts: one geographical, and one historical, and they are tied together.
Geographically, for example, because “the Messiah, born in Bethlehem, ended up in Nazareth
 8

after a stay in Egypt” (p. 66). All of this argues for, and portrays, “Jesus as the Messiah, the
completion of a story and the fulfillment of a promise” (p. 66).

Furthermore, the universal scope for all nations in Matthew 1’s history is geographically
corroborated in Matthew with the entrance of the Magi and the visit of Jesus to Egypt (p. 67).
Jesus is the Messiah for all nations, not just Israel (p. 68). As Wright says, “The history lesson in
the genealogy of chapter 1 is corroborated by the geography lesson in chapters 2-4” (p. 67).

Wright then goes on to expound on the OT texts Matthew uses in chapters 1-2. We see
illusions of the Exodus in Matthew’s quotation of Hos. 11:1, and exile (both to Egypt and
Babylon) in his quotation from Jer. 31:15-17. These illusions place deep significance on Jesus -
who he is and what he’s doing (pp. 68-71). It’s not just predictions coming true, it’s the
fulfillment of a promise (p. 71).

The Promise Declared

Wright then moves into a discussion of how the concept of promise can help us understand the
OT better (p. 72).

Promise involves commitment to a relationship

A promise presupposes a relationship, whereas a prediction can be impersonal (p. 72). “A
promise is made to someone, whereas a prediction is made about someone” (p. 72). Relationship
and promise are what characterized God’s connection with Israel from Abraham forward (pp.
72-73). However, this relationship had a universal goal - to be a blessing to all nations (Gen. 18)
(p. 73). Paul clearly discusses this in Gal. 3 (pp. 73-74).

Promise requires a response of acceptance

Predictions need no response (see Wright’s discussion on pp. 74-75). Whereas promise does. For
example, “There was no point in God having promised a return from exile if nobody actually got
up and returned” (p. 75). This is the consistent pattern throughout scripture. Understanding the
OT as promise has two effects.
1) It reminds us that salvation is by God’s grace and promise (p. 75). The OT is not
salvation through obedience, it’s still by grace (p. 75).
2) It “reminds us that there is a conditional element to the promise” - a response of faith
and obedience (p. 76). We see this in passages such as Amos 2:10-16; 3:2; and 9:7 (pp.
76-77).

Promise involves ongoing levels of fulfillment

While a prediction is fairly basic (either it comes true or doesn’t), a promise is different - it’s
more dynamic (p. 77). While the fulfillment of OT promises may look a bit different than the
initial words, and on different levels, the promise was no less kept (pp. 78-79). There are also
 9

patterns of promise-fulfillment, followed by fresh promise-fresh fulfillment (pp. 79-80). Jesus

fulfilling the OT was not something new, it was the “final destination of an already
well-recognized pattern of promise-fulfillment” (p. 81). This is clear in the NT (pp. 81-83). Jesus
fulfilled the OT at a “different level but still with continuity of meaning and purpose in line with
the original promise” (p. 83).

The Promise Guaranteed

Wright’s point in this section is that the concept of promise “is very much at the heart of the
word covenant” (p. 85).

The features of biblical covenants

Wright first discusses the various kinds of covenants, both in the secular ancient near east (p. 85),
but even more so in the context of the relationship between God and humans. The standard
features of the God-to-human covenants included the following.
1) God’s initiative - “It is God himself who says, ‘I will make a covenant with you” (p. 86).
2) God’s promises - When God takes initiative in the covenant, this presupposes a
commitment. “God chooses to bind himself to his own word” (p. 86).
3) Human response - As always, with a covenant, there is a required human response. To
Wright, the covenant in the light of human response is both conditional (there are
stipulations) and unconditional (it’s purely and graciously initiated by God) (pp. 86-87).

Wright then leads into a helpful summary of the different OT covenants and how they all
connect and lead to the New Covenant. While surveying these covenants, he focuses on the
scope of each covenant and its contents (pp. 87-88).

The covenant with Noah (Gen. 6:18-21; 8:21-9:17)

The scope of this covenant is universal - it’s extended to all creation. Its contents are negative in
that God will not destroy the earth again, but positive in that God will “preserve the conditions
necessary for life on earth” (p. 88).

The covenant with Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:1-21; 17:1-27)

The scope of this covenant is universal - it’s a redemptive work for all nations. The contents can
be seen in what was promised: posterity, relationship, and land (p. 90). It’s missional and
socioethical combined (p. 91)

The Sinai covenant (Ex. 19:3-6, 24, and Deut.)

The scope of this covenant was national - it was between God and Israel. Yet, it ultimately has
missional intentions and universal conclusions (p. 92). The contents “filled out what had been
promised to Abraham”: land (Ex. 6:6), relationship (Ex. 6:7a), knowledge of Yahweh (Ex. 6:7b),
 10

and land (Ex. 6:8). It required a response of total loyalty to Yahweh (pp. 93-94) and love to
others (p. 94). The intended goal was the promised blessing of all nations (p. 94).

The covenant with David (2 Sam. 7; 23:1-7; Psalm 89; 132)

The scope of this covenant “was primarily the house of David itself” (p. 94). The contents were
the same - “that there would be a house of David to continue on the throne of Israel” (p. 94). Yet,
it also had universal implications for the whole nation (p. 95). It held connections to the Sinai
covenant (comp. 2 Sam. 7:22-24 with Deut. 4:32-38) and the Abrahamic covenant (see Psalm
72:17) (p. 96), and ultimately led to the goal of blessing all nations through Israel (p. 98-99).

The new covenant

The OT (especially the prophets) leaves it that there is a need for a new covenant (as worded by
Jeremiah, but not unique to Jeremiah) (pp. 99-100). The scope is at first glance national - the
restoration of Israel (Jer. 30-31; Ez. 34: 36-37) (p. 100-101). However, the inclusion of the
nations in this covenant is also from the outset (see Wright’s discussion of Is. 40-55 - pp.
101-102). The contents of this covenant are five-fold.
1) A new relationship with God (Jer. 31:33; 32:38-40; Ez. 37:23, 27) (p. 103).
2) A new experience of forgiveness. God would solve the sin problem for good (Jer. 31:34;
Ez. 36:25; 37:23) (p. 103).
3) A new obedience to the law. Knowledge of God would be an inner characteristic (Jer.
31:33-34) (p. 103). What it means to know God can be seen in Jer. 22:15-16 (p. 104).
4) A new Davidic king (Jer. 23:5-6; 33:15-26; Ez. 34:23-24; possibly Is. 55:3-4) (p. 105).
5) A new abundance of nature (p. 105). This has three horizons: 1) the restoration of Israel
to the land and the continuation of God’s purpose with them; 2) new covenant fulfillment
in the death and resurrection of Jesus; and 3) the eschatological view of the full
restoration of relationship between God and man and beauty to the world (p. 106).

Conclusion
The NT writers looked at the events in the life of Jesus and “understood them, illuminated them,
explained and finally recorded them, all in the light of the whole sweep of Old Testament
promise” (p. 108).

CHAPTER 3 - JESUS AND HIS OLD TESTAMENT IDENTITY

Who was Jesus? (p. 109-110)

“This Is My Son”
To answer this question, Wright takes us into the narrative of the baptism of Jesus by John the
Baptist (Mark 1:10-11). Wright shows that this was an important event (p. 110) and that it was
also confirmation to Jesus of his identity and mission from the Father (p. 111). In this
confirmation, the Father used OT references.
 11

● “This is / You are my Son.” This echoes Psalm 2:7, a Psalm about King David and kings
descended from him (p. 112).
● “My loved one, in whom I delight.” This echoes Is. 42:1, a passage about the servant of
the Lord (p. 112). The Father identifies Jesus as this servant of the Lord (p. 112).
● My son, my beloved one.” This likely echoes Gen. 22:2 (p. 112). The Father identifies
Jesus as His only son whom he loves but was willing to sacrifice for the world (p. 113).

OT Pictures and Patterns

“It was the Old Testament that helped Jesus understand Jesus” (p. 114). The words of the Father
at Jesus’s baptism confirmed what Jesus already believed about himself (p. 115). At Jesus’
baptism, Jesus’ identity is affirmed through three OT figures: Abraham, David, and the servant
of the Lord. Wright then shows from this that Jesus’ identity included Kingship, servanthood,
and sacrifice (p. 116). This reiterates that the OT “provided the patterns and models by which
Jesus could be understood” (p. 117).

“That’s just typical.”

“The images, patterns and models that the Old Testament provides for understanding him are
called types” (p. 117). Here are some important points about types.
1) “Biblically, typology is not a theological or technical term” (p. 117). The word type
comes from the Greek meaning example, pattern, or model (For various NT uses of this
word see 1 Cor. 10:6, 11, Phil 3:17, and Rom. 5:14) (p. 117), and its significance relates
to a range of examples, models, etc.
2) “Typology is a normal and common way of knowing and understanding things” (p.
118). In teaching, for example, we often use analogies or correspond things to what is
known and familiar (p. 118).
3) “Typology was already a feature of the Old Testament itself” (p. 118). The OT has a
sort of internal typology. Events/persons are seen as “typical” - illustrating “something
characteristic about the way God does things.” One example is Sodom and Gomorrah
becoming “proverbial for God’s judgment against human sin” (p. 118).
4) “Typology is a matter of analogy” (p. 119). The NT writers draw connections between
the OT and NT “where the word typos may or may not be used” (p. 119). An example of
this is the word of God in Genesis creation connected with the beginning of the new
creation through the Word, Jesus (John 1). See pp. 119-120 for this and other examples.
5) “Typology is a matter of history” (p. 120). The OT-NT correspondence “points to the
repeating patterns of God’s actual activity in history” (p. 120). It displays what is
“typical” of God both in His actions and character (p. 120).
6) “Typology is not merely prefiguring or foreshadowing” (p. 121). A faulty assumption
is that “any event, institution or person in the Old Testament” had been “arranged by God
for the primary purpose of foreshadowing Christ” (p. 121). This leads to two problems:
1) little meaning and reality is found in the original OT events and persons, and 2) it leads
 12

to fanciful attempts to interpret every OT “type” as foreshadowing some detail about

Jesus (p. 121-122).

Typology, in summation, “is understanding Christ and the various events and experiences
surrounding him in the New Testament by analogy or correspondence with the historical realities
of the Old Testament seen as patterns or models” (p. 122). Typology should not be “the only or
primary way of interpreting the Old Testament for itself” (p. 122).

Jesus As the Son of God

Here, Wright jumps back to discuss Jesus’ baptism further, starting with the phrase, “You are my
son” (p. 123). Jesus’ awareness of his sonship to the Father “is probably the deepest foundation
of Jesus’ selfhood”, and he “experienced a relationship with God of such personal intimacy and
dependence that only the language of Father and Son could describe it” (p. 123).

God as Father -- Israel As Son

First, Israel called God Father and God called Israel son (p. 124). Wright first points to Deut. 32
where it talks about the “parenthood of God” (p. 124). This parenthood is “linked to his creation
of his people (Deut. 32.6), Yahweh’s own uniqueness as God (Deut. 32:15-18, 39), and his
corrective discipline of his people (Deut. 32:19-20)” (pp. 124-125).

Fathers and songs in Israelite society.

The father/son metaphor draws from human experience and was commonly understood in
Israelite culture (pp. 125-126). This metaphor has two complementary meanings.
1) “The attitude of God as Father toward Israel” (p. 126). This includes love, pity, etc.,
but also things like discipline (Deut. 1:31; 8:5; Psalm 103:13; Prov. 3:12; 2 Sam. 7:14).
2) “The expectation of God as Father from Israel” (p. 126). Just as a good human father,
Yahweh is viewed as trustworthy and protective. For example, God grieves when his
fatherly care is scorned (Deut. 14:1; Is. 1:2-4; Jer. 3:19; Hos. 11:1-4; Mal. 1:6) (p. 126).
The role of an Israelite father included domestic, judicial, educational, spiritual, and even
military authority (pp. 126-127). In light of this, Yahweh’s fatherhood wasn’t just an emotional
metaphor, but one of authority and obedience (p. 127).

Israel’s sonship and the covenant.

There is a close link between sonship and covenant. Texts that interact with father-son concepts
show a similar duel aspect to the duel nature of the covenant (p. 127).
1) National level. Israel as a whole is called Yahweh’s son in some passages, and Yahweh is
portrayed as the father of the nation (Ex. 4:22; Deut. 32:26, 18; Hos. 11:1; Jer. 31:9; Is.
63: 15-16; 64:8) (p. 128).
 13

2) The personal level. Other passages address Israelites as “sons/children” of Yahweh

(plural) (Deut. 14:1; 32:19; Is. 1:2; 30:9; Jer. 3:22). The focus is on individual loyalty and
obedience (p. 128).
Thus, “both poles of the covenant (God’s initiative and Israel’s obedience) are held together
within the same relational metaphor of father and son” (p. 129). Jesus was to be the true son who
would succeed where Israel failed (p. 130).

Sonship as the foundation for hope.

Jesus had confidence that though he would suffer, he would rise again. Wright lists a couple of
different possibilities for Jesus’ confidence but concludes that, in his opinion, Jesus’ confidence
ultimately came from his identity as the Son of God (p. 131). Jesus represented the father-son
relationship between God and Israel which held hope and permanence (p. 131). Wright nicely
argues this confidence basis through several OT texts (Ex. 4:22; Is. 63-64; Jer. 31:18-20) and
Jesus’ prediction of rising on “the third day” (pp. 132-133).

Israel’s sonship and God’s universal purpose.

The hope that Israel had was directly connected to its relationship with God. Along with that was
the role it would play in God’s purpose for the nations (p. 134). OT concepts such as election,
covenant, the kingship of Yahweh, and being firstborn, which seemed restricted to Israel were
ultimately universal (pp. 134-135). However, the only way the ultimate universal fulfillment
would occur in light of all of these concepts is if Israel walked in obedience (pp. 135-137).

“If You Are the Son of God”

Being the Son of God (along with all of the OT concepts that brought with it), Jesus must be
obedient. It was the only way for the universal missional plan to take place (p. 137). This is why
the devil tried so hard to tempt Jesus to disobedience - it would prevent Jesus from winning the
world to God (p. 137). However, Jesus was successful in his mission as the true son, and now
even the Gentiles can be sons of God (pp. 138-139).

CHAPTER 4 - JESUS AND HIS OLD TESTAMENT MISSION

Jesus knew he had been sent. He declared this himself when he quoted Isaiah that the Lord had
anointed (commissioned) him. It was Jesus’ meat and drink to follow the Father’s will (John.
4:34) (p. 142). But what was Jesus’ mission?

Jewish Expectations At the Time of Jesus

The strongest Jewish expectation at the time of Jesus was for the restoration of Israel by God. (p.
143). They felt, in many ways, that they were still in exile (p. 144). The second expectation “was
that after the restoration of Israel, there would be an ingathering of the nations to become part of
the people of God with Israel” (p. 144). These expectations were seated deeply in the OT. With
regard to Israel, it can be found in passages such as Jer. 30-34; Ez. 40-48; and Is. 40-55 (pp.
 14

144-145). With regard to the nations, it can be found in passages such as Zech. 9:9-13 and Ps.
102:13-22 (p. 145). Both groups would experience judgment and salvation (p. 146).

John the Baptist

It was in this expectant, hopeful atmosphere that John the Baptist arrived. John prepared the way
for God’s purging and restoration (p. 146). However, not every seed of Abraham would enter that
hope, only the repentant (Luke 3:8-9). John was called to identify the faithful remnant and
prepare the way for God’s arrival (p. 147). At Jesus’ baptism, he agreed with John’s message (p.
147). Jesus saw his mission as fulfilling the hopes of the restoration of Israel (p. 148).

The Messiah
At the time of Jesus, Psalm 2 was interpreted messianically and it was commonly understood that
the Messiah would be the son of David (p. 148). However, the term “Messiah” is rarely used in
the OT. It is used in Daniel 9:25-26, but before this text, “Messiah/anointed” is never used
futuristically (pp. 148-149). Thus, it’s not inherently a predictive term but descriptive (p. 148). It
can symbolize being set apart for a special role or duty in God’s name, and it’s even used for
Cyrus in Is. 45:1 (p. 149). In the latter case, though Cyrus is not an Israelite, Davidic king, or
“Messiah,” he was chosen by God for God to accomplish His purpose. It achieved the
redemption and restoration of Israel, which means his grand purpose was to deliver and establish
the people of God (Is. 41:2-4; 45:1-4) (pp. 149-150), which then led to the ultimate goal of
worldwide salvation (Is. 4521-25) (p. 150). All of these concepts help us understand the post-OT
concept of “Messiah” (p. 150).

So why did Jesus rarely use this term? Most likely because of its political baggage (p.
150). “Jesus had no intention of being a conquering king, militarily or politically” (p. 151). He
was a king and conqueror but in a different way. Jesus advocated for a spiritual revival, not a
political one (p. 152). This culminated in his death and resurrection (p. 153), and his
“resurrection was Israel’s redemption” (p. 153).

The Son of Man

Jesus “saw that for him to be the Messiah meant taking on himself the identity and destiny of
Israel,” which is confirmed by his favorite term for himself, “the Son of Man” (p. 154). Who is
the “Son of Man”? First, it was a relatively casual term in Hebrew (something like “Mister”) and
Galilean Aramaic. It’s commonly held that it was also not a messianic term. Thus, Jesus used a
basic term that didn’t engender political misunderstanding that he could load with meaning
himself (p. 154). Jesus used this phrase in three categories: 1) about his present earthly ministry
(Mk. 2:10, 28); 2) sayings about the Son of Man suffering, dying, and rising again (e.g. Mk.
8:31); and 3) his coming in eschatological glory (e.g. Mk. 14:62; Matt. 13:41-42). The
combination of these categories displays how Jesus saw his own identity and destiny (p. 155).
 15

It’s likely that the “Son of Man” figure described in Daniel 7 laid behind Jesus’ choice of
“Son of Man” for his own designation. This figure in Daniel 7 represents both the saints (p. 155)
and God Himself (Dan. 7:13-14) (p. 157). Thus, there were elements of deity related to the Son
of Man” (p. 157). When Jesus associated himself with this figure at his trial (Matt. 26:63-64), it
could have been understood that he was relating himself to deity, or as the representative of
God’s saints - both of which were touchy to say the least (p. 157).

The Servant of the Lord

Jesus stated that the “Son of Man” would suffer (Luke 9:22). This concept of suffering was
drawn from the “suffering servant” in Isaiah (pp. 158-159). The ideas of suffering and
servanthood explicitly “come together in a key saying of Jesus in Mark 10:45” and then also in
Luke 22:37 where Jesus references Is. 53 about himself (p. 159). It’s clear that “Jesus saw
himself as the Servant figure of Isaiah and interpreted his mission and especially his suffering
and death in terms of Isaiah 53” (p. 161).

In addition to suffering, Jesus also saw his ministry of teaching and healing in the servant
context of Isaiah, such as when he quotes Is. 61:1-2 about himself in Nazareth (pp. 161-162).
Thus, it seems that “Jesus saw himself as fulfilling the mission of the Servant of God” (p. 162).

The Mission of the Servant in the Old Testament

The term “Servant of the Lord” is first applied to Israel (Is. 41:8-10) (pp. 162-163. “Many of the
things that are said about the Servant figure as an individual are also said or implied about Israel
as God’s servant in a corporate sense” (p. 163). Thus, there is continuity between the servant
figure as Israel and an individual. However, there is also discontinuity and distinction, as the
corporate servant is rebuked in Is. 42:18-22, 24 for sin and failure, needing to be restored
spiritually (pp. 164-165). Who better to solve this problem than the servant individual (Is. 49:5)
(p. 165). However, this servant figure will not just restore Israel, but the whole world (Is. 49:6)
(p. 166).

The Servant and The Mission of The Gentiles

At this point, we should be able to see how Jesus’ mission to Israel is related to the later
apostolic mission to the Gentiles (the nations) (p. 167). Certainly, he would first restore Israel -
that was his primary mission during his lifetime (pp. 167-168). But, Isaiah also talks about the
Servant individual and their mission to the nations (p. 168). The universal scope of Jesus’
mission to all people can be seen in his interaction with Gentiles throughout his ministry (p.
168), and in OT texts like Is. 43:5, 49:12, and Ps. 107:3. After Jesus’ resurrection, the disciples
are to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19). They were to be witnesses that Jesus was Lord
and Savior (Luke 24:46-48; Acts 1:8; cf. Is. 43:1-7, 10, 12) (p. 169). Jesus was “the climax and
fulfillment of the hope of Israel and the beginning of the hope of the nations” (p. 170).
 16

Yet, the Gentile mission gets off to a shaky start. Wright thinks this is due to an
“ambivalence and misunderstanding about the restoration of Israel that we hear in Acts 1:6” (p.
171). While Israel had been restored at Christ’s resurrection, most still hadn’t responded to the
good news (p. 171), while Gentiles were (p. 172). The fact that Gentiles were converted led them
to the conclusion that the restoration of Israel did come after all (Acts 15:12-18) (p. 172). God
had not failed in his promise to Israel (pp. 173-175), and had simultaneously succeeded in the
universal mission to all nations (pp. 174-177).

Our Mission In The Light of Christ’s

Better Understanding Jesus’ mission and identity should impact our modern Christian mission in
four ways (p. 177).
1) The unity and continuity of missions. As we consider the continuity and integration of the
mission of God’s people from Israel to today, we should see the importance of joining in
that mission. “For there is one servant people, one Servant King and one servant mission”
(p. 178).
2) “To the Jews first.” Scripture is clear that the mission is to the Jew first, and Israel would
be saved (p. 178). As discussed in Rom. 11, “Israel had been redefined and extended [to
include gentiles], but the Jewish roots and trunk were not replaced or uprooted” (p. 179).
3) Mission in servanthood. The servant Servant figure (Jesus) “ought to be the model and
pattern for all Christian mission in the name of Jesus” (p. 180). As Christ washed feet, so
should we (p. 180-181). If Jesus’ outreach strategy to the world was servanthood vs.
power/control, so should ours (p. 181).
4) Mission in its wholeness (p. 181). Wright says it well: “Christian mission, if it is true to
the whole biblical pattern, cannot be confined to verbal proclamation alone. The mission
of the Servant included justice, compassion, enlightenment and liberation” (p. 182) - ours
should too.

CHAPTER 5 - JESUS AND HIS OLD TESTAMENT VALUES

To begin this chapter, Wright leads into a discussion of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness.

Jesus Tested in The Wilderness

“If you are the Son of God…”
This temptation went to the core of Jesus’ identity, mission, and responsibility (pp. 184-185).
“Jesus must live as God had wanted Israel to live” (p. 185), and this is where Satan was trying to
trap him. Jesus’ means of getting through this spiritual battle was quoting passages from
Deuteronmy that he had deeply meditated on - Deut. 8:3; 6:13, 16 to be precise (p. 185). Why
hunger? To teach dependence on God and His promise (p. 186). Why not jump? Because we
trust God for protection when needed, not to test Him (p. 187). Why not worship Satan to reap
the world? Because “their is only one living God,” and “he is to be loved and obeyed
 17

exclusively” (p. 188). Clearly, Jesus used the OT “to define and affirm the whole orientation of
his life toward God” (p. 189).

The basic orientation of life before God: Deut. 4-11

Clearly, Deut. 4-11 deeply impacted Jesus. There is a repeated command to obey God’s law
wholeheartedly as a response to God’s grace (pp. 189-190). There is a stress on the uniqueness of
Israel’s historical experience and its intended design (p. 190). There are warnings about drifting
as a result of prosperity (p. 190). Moses makes it clear that Israel can’t take credit for their
history. They had no numerical, economic, or moral superiority over other nations (pp. 190-191).
And, they always had a choice: they could either love or hate God resulting in blessing or curse
(p. 191).

Simple obedience.
The point here isn’t that obedience is easy, but that it shouldn’t be complicated by other gods or
moral bondage to legalism (p. 192). “When you read the Gospels you can see that the common
people heard Jesus gladly and responded to his invitation to enter the kingdom of God not
because he made things easy… but because he made them simple” (p. 192). Jesus even
sumarized the whole law into two commands: love God and love others (p. 192). Jesus “restored
the true perspective and essential point of the law” (p. 193).

Jesus and The Law

Jesus didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Below, Wright lays out some of the major
features of the law and how these reflect in the values of Jesus’ teaching (p. 193).

The law as response to grace.

It’s important to note where the law came from - the context of a story (pp. 193-194). Before the
law, Yahweh gave himself as redeemer (p. 194). “In God’s grace and in faithfulness to his
covenant promise, he had acted first and redeemed them [Israel]… He saved it and then asked it
to keep his law in response… The law was never intended as a means of achieving salvation but
rather as a guidance for responding to salvation by living in a way that pleased the God who had
saved you” (p. 194). This priority of relationship with God over behavior is reflected in Jesus’
teachings as well, perhaps especially in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) (p. 195).

Motivations for obedience.

The OT commonly has a “motive clause” - phrases added to certain laws giving motives/reasons
why people should obey them (pp. 196-197). Some of these motivations are seen in Jesus’
teaching as well.
1) Gratitude for what God has done. In light of all that God has done for his people, they/we
should respond with gratitude leading to obedience (p. 197). We should also treat others
compassionately because God has done so for us. Wright goes on to discuss various
 18

passages which support this concept: Ex. 22:21; 23:9; Lev. 19:33-36; 25:35, 37-38, 42;
Deut. 15:7-8, 13-15; Prov. 14:31; 17:5; 19:17; 21:13; 29:7; and Matt. 18:21-35 (pp.
197-198).
2) Imitation of what God is like. “The law was meant to enable Israel to be like Yahweh, its
God. His character and behavior were to be its moral example” (p. 200). Israel was called
to “walk in the way of the LORD” (Gen. 18:19; Deut. 10:12, 17-19) as opposed to the
way of other nations (2 Kings 17;15), oneself (Is. 53:6), or sinners (Ps. 1:1) (p. 200). We
are to be holy as God is holy (Lev. 19:2), which is quite practical in application (p.
201-203).
3) Being different. To be “holy” is to be different - distinct, set apart, and separate (p. 203).
This is God - distinct and different than anything in the created world (p. 204). Israel was
to be “different” (e.g. Ex. 19:5-6). Not better than the other nations, but a light to the
nations (p. 204). This is also true for the NT believer (Matt. 5:14-16). Christians are to be
different themselves (Lk. 22:25-30; Matt. 5:46-48; 6:31-34) (p. 205).
4) For our own good. A frequent motivation for obedience is that it’s simply for our own
good (e.g. Deut. 6:24) (pp. 205-206). Wright makes an important point here: “The law
was given for people’s sake not for God’s sake… the purpose of the law was not to make
him happy, but us” (p. 206). Thus, obedience, rather than being a burden, leads to our
greatest blessings (pp. 206-208).

The law’s scale of values.

Jesus stated that all the law and the prophets hung on loving God and others (pp. 208-209). Yet,
we seem to see a value level on laws of some sort in Mark 12:32-33. Wright then discusses what
the OT discusses as of greater or lesser importance.
1) God comes first (pp. 209-211).
2) Persons matter more than things (pp. 211-212)
3) Needs matter more than claims (pp. 213-217). The OT puts human needs before claims
and legal rights. This can be seen with
a) The runaway slave (e.g. Deut. 23:15-16) (p. 213).
b) The female captive (e.g. Deut. 21:10-14) (pp. 213-214).
c) The debtor's pledge (e.g. Deut. 24:6, 10-13) (p. 215).
d) The gleanings of the harvest (e.g. Lev. 19:9-10) (pp. 215-217).

The authority of Jesus.

Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it (p. 217). To Wright, “fulfill” means that
“Jesus was bringing into full clarity the inherent values and priorities of the Torah” (p. 218).
This meant when Jesus taught he taught as one who had authority (Matt. 7:28-29) (p. 218). In
fact, the Pharisees plotted to kill Jesus quite early on because he “set himself up as having even
greater authority than the law.” For example, “He claimed authority over the Sabbath” (p. 220).
Thus, they set out to kill him, just like they did the prophets (p. 220).
 19

Jesus and The Prophets

Many people in Jesus' time saw him as a prophet - something in his behavior and teaching must
have led them to this conclusion (p. 220). The prophets mainly dealt with three main areas: 1)
spiritual, 2) social and economic, and 3) political (p. 221).

Spiritual loyalty to God.

At Mount Carmel, Elijah gave the people a choice - if Baal is God, serve him; but if Yahweh is
God, serve him (1 Kings 18) (p. 221). Essentially, you can’t serve both. “Like the prophets, Jesus
was consumed by a spiritual jealousy for the honor of God. Like them, he attacked those who
imagined that God was impressed by religion divorced from the moral and social values of God
himself” (p. 222).

Economic issues.
A prime example of prophetic concern with economic issues is Elijah’s confrontation with
“Ahab over the illegal seizure of a vineyard” in 1 Kings 21 (p. 222). This illustrates the overall
injustice that often took place in Israel during the time of the prophets (p. 223). During the time
of Jesus, things were not all too different (p. 224), and he likely experienced it firsthand (p.
224-225). So, when Jesus read Is. 61:1-2 in Nazareth, it was very applicable to his social context
(p. 226). “Jesus took the themes of release and restoration and applied them both in the economic
sense in which they originally functioned and also with the ‘value-added’ spiritual dimensions”
(p. 227 - see Wright’s helpful in-depth discussion of this on pp. 227-231).

Political conflict.
Some compared Jesus to Jeremiah (p. 231). Jeremiah suffered rejection because of his
uncompromised “warning of judgment to come upon his nation (Jer. 4:5-9),” and for his
prophetic threats against the nation and the temple (p. 232). “So if the crowds saw Jeremiah in
Jesus, it presumably wasn’t a ‘gentle Jesus meek and mild’... The crowds were witnesses tot he
gathering storm of conflict between Jesus and the religious and poligical authorities” (p. 232).
Jesus’ prophetic significance is serious as it relates to three areas (p. 233).
1) The Romans. Just because Jesus didn’t preach revolution against Rome doesn’t mean he
wasn’t political (p. 233). It was more an issue of the kind of political advances he
advocated for. In Jesus’ case, it was to love the oppressors (Matt. 5:40-45) (p. 233).
2) The Pharisees. The conflict here was over their definition and practice of holiness (p.
234-236).
3) The temple. Jesus created controversy in his threatened destruction of the temple (p. 236),
his “cleansing” of the temple (pp. 236-237), and various other things that he said in
connection with the temple (pp. 237-239).

Jesus, The Psalms And The Reign of God

 20

Jesus often quoted the Psalms, even at the time of his death (p. 239). While there are various
ways to show links between the Psalms and Jesus, for Wright's purposes, he chooses to focus on
the concept of “the kingship of God” (p. 239-240). Notably, “the kingdom of God” concept was
not introduced by Jesus (p. 240), it was an OT concept (p. 241).

The universal dimension.

The Psalms affirm that Yahweh rules over the whole earth. Yahweh “is king of all nations and all
creation” (p. 241).

The earthly dimension.

“The Psalms celebrate the kingship of Yahweh over all the earth as an act of faith” (p. 242). This
is because it’s not evident to the naked eye. However, Israel, through a covenant relationship, had
accepted God as their king, so much so they refused to have a human king for a long time (p.
242). “The kingship of God in Israel had very practical, earthly effects. It was not just a
theological item or belief” (p. 243). “So when Jesus came proclaiming the kingdom of God… the
term itself speaks of the aligning of human life on earth, in all its dimensions, with the will of the
divine government of God” (p. 244).

The eschatological dimension.

Since neither of these previous areas was realized in full, the kingship of God also held
eschatological dimensions (p. 245). “There developed the hope and expectation that at some time
in the future God himself would intervene to establish his reign in its fullness over his people and
over the world” (p. 245). Wright discusses this concept in Jer. 23:1-6; Ez. 34; Is. 52:7-10; 2:2-5;
33:20-24; and Ps. 98:6-9 (see pp. 244-47). So, when Jesus came announcing the kingdom is at
hand, that matter of future hope just entered their present, yet still with a future dimension to it
(p. 247). This was “good news… for those who were prepared to receive it in repentant hearts
and a radical new agenda for living” (p. 248). Beautifully, it was a message characterized by
grace and joy (p. 249).

CHAPTER 6 - JESUS AND HIS OLD TESTAMENT GOD

This chapter deals specifically with the question of whether or not Jesus’ claims to be God are
legitimate (p. 252). Wright argues that Jesus’ claim to be God was legitimate. He builds his
argument for this thesis by first dealing with various NT texts and elements of Church history.

Jesus and the Arrival of God

With the arrival of Jesus came the arrival of God. To support this truth, Wright discusses
Matthews's introduction to John the Baptist. In Matthew 3:3, John the Baptist is equated with the
one in Isaiah 40:3. As Wright says, “The implication is clear: John was preparing the way, not
just for the arrival of Jesus but for the arrival of the Lord himself— which in Old Testament
terms, of course, meant the Lord, Yahweh, the God of Israel” (p .253). Obviously, this would
 21

have been difficult to comprehend for those early listeners, which explains why John the Baptist
sends his disciples to ask Jesus about his deity. Rather than Jesus simply telling them He was
God, in Matthew 11:4-5, Jesus pointed them to an Old Testament text: Isaiah 35:3-6 (and
possibly Isaiah 61:1). Wright also supports this point through the Mount of Transfiguration
narrative (pp. 256-257). Thus, Jesus seems to very clearly be claiming to be the anointed one of
God that was prophesied in these OT passages, emphasizing that it was God that had come after
John, and not just a man. (pp. 254-255).

Wright also discusses Matthew 28. The self-descriptor that is used by Jesus in relation to
his authority connects to passages such as Deut. 10:14, 17, and 39. Thus again, through scripture,
Jesus declares himself as God. As Wright says: “Jesus adopts the Yahweh position and uses
scriptural Yahweh texts about himself.” (p. 258). Through the combination of all of these
references, it would’ve been clear that Jesus of Nazareth was Yahweh God, the holy one of Israel
(pp. 257-258)!

Jesus and the Identity of God

Wright then goes on to discuss Jesus’ deity as seen from points of the early church.

Maranatha.
This Aramaic phrase means “O Lord, come.” “Mar” or “Maran” was the Aramaic word for
“Lord” (p. 259). This phrase must have been well-known to the early church (probably first to
Aramaic-speaking Christians) and well-established in their worship (p. 259). Paul uses
Maranatha in 1 Corinthians 16:22. In context, Paul is using “Lord” to refer to Jesus in v. 23.
Thus, the “Lord” in Maranatha is almost certainly a reference to Jesus. This word was also used
in reference to the God of the old testament - Yahweh. So, in this phrase Maranatha, we can see
that the earliest Aramaic-speaking Christians addressed their prayers to Yahweh God. They were
telling Jesus, their God, to come (pp. 259-260).

Kyrios Iesous.
In Greek, this phrase means “Jesus is Lord.” This term was inherited by Paul from the early
followers of Jesus. While this word can also mean “master,” before it was applied to Jesus it was
likely being used for the divine name Yahweh as seen in the LXX (p. 261). Due to the
established norm of using Adonay in place of Yahweh in the OT, it would have likely been
second nature for them to read Kyrios (“Lord” in Greek) as the translated word of the OT
scriptures. With this in mind, it offers greater significance to the usage of Kyrios (“Lord”) in
reference to Jesus. This wasn’t just Jesus their “master” (kyrios), this was Jesus who was their
God, Yahweh (Kyrios (Greek) = Adonay (Hebrew) = Yahweh (Hebrew).

On pages 262-263, Wright then better supports this concept of Jesus being equated with Yahweh
by showing how Paul quotes an Isaiah text about Yahweh in Phil 2:6-11 and then applies it to
 22

Jesus. This supports the early Christian view that Jesus shares “the identity and uniqueness of
Yahweh as sovereign God and Savior” (p. 263). This type of Jesus to Yahweh application also
occurs in passages such as Rom. 10:13; 14:11; 1 Cor. 1:31, 2:16; 2 Cor. 10:17; and 2 Tim. 2:19.

Jesus and the Actions of God

Wright makes a very important point: the NT doesn’t just blankly claim that “Jesus is God.”
Rather, and perhaps more importantly, the NT says that things only God can do Jesus does. This
provides more definition than does the statement, “Jesus is God,” which can be almost abstract
and undefined (p. 264). Wright then claims that the OT affirms that “Yahweh alone is universal
Creator, ruler, judge and Savior” (p. 264). And, according to the NT, Jesus meets each of these
criteria.

Creator
Wright initially uses segments from 1 Corinthians 8-10 to support how Jesus is creator. In 1 Cor.
8:6, Paul says: “for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we
exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”
(ESV) Paul seems to elude to Deut. 6:4, and then expand on it to include Christ in the
framework. As Wright says: “all things came from one God, the Father, and all things came
through one Lord, Jesus Christ” (p. 265). Wright then shows how Paul alludes to Jesus as the
creator again in 1 Cor. 10:26 where Paul quotes Psalm 24:1. This passage says: “The earth is the
LORD's and the fullness thereof…” (ESV) Paul equates “LORD” in Psalm 24:1 as can be seen
through the context of Paul referring to “‘the cup of the Lord’ and ‘the Lord’s table’” (p. 266).
Thus again, Paul affirms Jesus as the creator of all things. Wright goes on to utilize Colossians
1:15-20, Hebrews 1:2, John 1:3, and Mark 13:31 to effectively and clearly support the
conclusion that Jesus, as Yahweh, is creator.

Ruler
First, Wright supports the fact that Yahweh has acted as ruler throughout history. This can be
seen in passages such as Psalm 33 and Isaiah 40-55. He then goes on to show how Jesus also fits
this second criterion. Jesus applied the words of Psalm 110 to himself in a couple of scenarios,
but most notably in Mark 14:61-62, when the high priest asks Jesus if he is “the Christ, the Son
of the Blessed.” Jesus simply says, “‘I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right
hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’” (v. 62 ESV). The phrase, “seated at the
right hand of Power,” echoes Psalm 110:1, which “linked Jesus with the rule and government of
God” (p. 268). This point in v. 62 was only strengthened by the fact that he included the
reference to Daniel 7:13-14 (pp. 268-269). The fact that Jesus was at the right hand of God
became the way the early church referred to Christ’s location (p. 269). And, ultimately, Wright
argues, supports the divine rulership of Christ. Thus, as Yahweh is ruler, so is Jesus (p. 270).

Judge
 23

Clearly, Yahweh is judge (see Gen. 18:25) (p. 271). As Wright logically argues, if Jesus is at
God’s right hand then He must also share in the role of judge, which the NT affirms (p. 271). The
first affirmation of this truth is in Jesus’ parable in Matt. 25:31-32. Paul alludes to this in Phil.
2:16 when he refers to the “day of Christ,” which refers to the “day of Yahweh” in the OT. The
day of Yahweh is directly connected to judgment and salvation, thus Paul’s phrase connects
Christ with this judgment and salvation (p. 271). Thus, as Yahweh is judge, so is Christ.

Savior
Wright shows how clearly Jesus is shown to be Savior just as Yahweh is. We first see this in Rev.
7:10, where Salvation doesn’t just belong to God, but to the Lamb. In the OT, Salvation
belonging to Yahweh can be seen in passages such as Ex. 15:2, Deut. 32:15, Ps. 88:1; 95:1; and
more - this easily concluded (p. 273). But what about Jesus? Wright first mentions how Jesus’
name itself means “Yahweh is salvation” (p. 273). Luke contains many mentions of the arrival of
Jesus with terms of Salvation (see Luke 1:47, 69, 71, 77; 2:11, 30; and 3:6) (p. 273).
Furthermore, Jesus forgave sins, something only God can do (Mark 2:7) (p. 274). Even Jesus’
entrance into Jerusalem on a donkey - to refer to His salvation in reference to Zech. 9:9 (p. 274).
Thus, while these early Christians strongly affirmed that Yahweh was the only source of
salvation (Is. 45:21-22), now they also strongly believed Jesus was too (Acts 4:12; 2:38; 5:31;
13:38; 15:11; Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:25; etc.) (p. 275). Thus, as Yahweh is Savior, so is Jesus.

In Wright’s conclusion, as a result of these points in the chapter, Wright solidifies that Jesus
didn’t just claim to be God, He was Yahweh God in incarnate flesh.