N.T. Wright and the (Not Quite) Second Coming

Eminent scholar N.T. Wright (NTW) is a little controversial on the second coming for two reasons.

First, he argues that the Olivet Discourse of Mark 13/Luke 21/Matthew 24 is not about the second coming of Jesus, but is exclusively about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This is a preterist reading of the passage, one that I have advocated, such as this review of Robert Stein’s book on Mark 13.

Second, he contends too that there is no rapture, no being whisked away to heaven, certainly not part of the Lord Jesus’ return. Again, something I have also argued for, see the post earlier in the week.

Interestingly, I stumbled across an old video by William Lane Craig (WLC), a great Christian philosopher, who critiques NTW on his approach to the second coming. Here’s the video:

NTW himself responds in this video which is also interesting.

To be clear, while I love me some WLC, on this issue, I’m firmly on the side of NTW.

Let me explain why … and I’ll be most interested to see if you’re persuaded! There is a poll at the end where you can tell me!!

---

To read further, consider taking out a paid subscription, only $7 per month or $75 per year, supports me in my ministry and scholarship, and gets you 3-4 posts per week on biblical studies, Christianity and gender relationships, cultural commentary, previews of my books, and some cool videos.

First, NTW does believe in a second coming, it is predicated on the ascension, hence the words of the angels to the disciples after the ascension: “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). So ascension implies return!

Second, ‘Son of Man’ language can be used for enthronement rather than coming to earth, that’s the whole point of Mk 14:62, which is a conflation of Ps 110:1 and Dan 7:13, about another figure being co-enthroned with God. Matthew and Luke make it even clearer by adding “from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the power/mighty God” (Mt 26:64/Lk 22:69), as if the enthronement is already happening.

Third, Mark 13 is about the destruction of Jerusalem as the vindication of Jesus as the prophet who stood against its leadership.

Notice the whole affair begins with the disciples admiring the temple and Jesus telling them that one stone will not be left upon another. They then ask when these will happen (vv. 1-4).

What follows in vv. 5-23 is a summary of civil war, religious sacrilege in the temple, deceivers and demagogues, the persecution of Christians, and the devastation of Galilee and Judea.

I understand that some regard vv. 24-27 as a second coming text, but I think it uses apocalyptic language to describe the distress of the day and the deliverance of the Jerusalem church from the siege of Jerusalem. To be fair, Dale Allison, Edward Adams, and Paul Sloan all disagree. But look at vv. 28-31, which says these things will happen before “this generation” passes away and it relates back to the cursing of the fig tree which is a symbol of the corruption of the temple hierarchy. So it’s all temple-centric. In addition, I think Luke’s version makes it even clearer that Jerusalem’s sacking is in view by referring to even more explicitly to siege warfare. But Matthew in his version, for reasons I do not know or understand, I think conflates AD 70 with the second coming, or regards the sacking of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple as a preview of the final judgment. And since we tend to prefer Matthew’s version of events in the Synoptic Gospels, we all tend to read Mark and Luke as if he is Matthew.

Fourth, Andrew Perriman (The Coming Son of Man, 224) has composed a Titanic parable about how Jesus’s followers might have regarded the destruction of the temple and the obliteration of the Judean leadership with a mixture of lament and vindication:

Let us imagine first-century Judaism as a ship—a splendid but badly run ship in which the officers and crew mistreat the passengers and squabble and fight over who should have control of the vessel. Blinded by their obsessions and jealousies, no one on the bridge notices that the ship is drifting towards a ferocious eschatological storm. When one or two men raise the alarm, they are seized as trouble-markers, brutally beaten, and thrown overboard. As the winds tear at the rigging and waves wash across the deck, a few brave souls decide to heed the warnings; they lower a lifeboat and take their chances on the rough seas. To the passengers and crew who stay on board this seems a reckless and disloyal move—and at times those clinging desperately to each other in the belly of the small boat, as it pitches and rolls, wonder if they have made the right choice. Some are swept overboard, some die from exposure and hunger. They cry out to the dark heavens, praying that the storm would cease. But they do not give up hope; they believe that they have done the right thing. Then from a distance they watch in horror as the ship strikes rocks and sinks with massive loss of life—they are appalled, but they also feel vindicated. Eventually the wind drops, the waves subside. The lifeboat runs ashore on a sandy beach. They have come to the end of the end; they have survived. This is the beginning of a new age.

Anyway, that’s how I see it, and why I tend to side with NTW on the second coming, especially when it comes to the Olivet Discourse. Check out NTW’s books Surprised by Hope and History and Eschatology if you want to read more.

What about you? Persuaded or not?