Abstract
In History and Eschatology, we find Wright’s discussion of natural theology from a biblical perspective as the fruit of his 2018 Gifford Lectures given at the University of Aberdeen. Wright does not merely provide a unique perspective on natural theology, but addresses the fundamental question that undergirds the discussion: Does natural theology have to be framed as distinct from supernatural theology? In distinction to many, Wright answers ‘no’ to this central question, and he challenges two positions that (as he sees them) keeps natural and supernatural theology separate. The first position is captured by more traditional approaches to natural theology that begin with nature and history to develop theology. The second position is that of those who emphasize (supernatural) theology over against history, particularly those who follow an ‘apocalyptic’ approach championed by Barth and Martyn, among others. Wright critiques both cases, those who emphasize a theology from below and those who emphasize (solely) a theology from above, because he claims they hold to a split-level world with the natural in opposition to the supernatural. To pursue natural theology from a biblical approach means that we must attend to nature as always shaped by divine presence and divine agency. As such, Wright redefines what should be included in natural theology and argues for a distinctly theistic and interventionist theology inherent to the Bible. In particular, he argues for a Christ-established cultic ontology, in which a temple cosmology and a sabbath eschatology shape our approach to time and space.
To achieve his goal of reframing natural theology in light of this biblical theology, Wright’s book assesses the contemporary discussion by means of detailing the wider cultural and philosophical influences that led us here. He then turns to an exposition of the content and the cultural and philosophical context of the Bible, particularly the NT, in order to establish the ground for a biblical approach to natural theology. I find the overall critique of split-world cosmology compelling, though some aspects of his argument are less convincing. One repeated claim throughout the book is a comparison of modern naturalism to Epicureanism. There are informative parallels, but also distinct differences, and a wider engagement with nominalism rather than Epicureanism would strengthen the contemporary analysis. The response to apocalyptic readings is more challenging. Wright and apocalyptic theologians emphasize the centrality of the Christ-event for grounding theology, but perhaps we can capture the difference between the two by noting that the emphasis (at least within this argument) for Wright is on the resurrection whereas apocalyptic theologians tend to place more emphasis on the cross. As such, Wright highlights the overlap of spiritual and natural, whereas his interlocutors highlight the fissure. Ultimately, this book extends many of the themes Wright has offered in the past and so brings together ancient and contemporary concerns in an enlightening manner.