Scandal of the day: Snodgrass critiques Wright
In discussing the various analyses of the parables of future eschatology, Snodgrass argues that 'certain options are [to be] excluded'. The second of his excluded options is the proposal that 'the coming of the Son of Man in glory' is to be equated with 'the destruction of Jerusalem as N.T. Wright suggests' (479). His reasons:
'Jerusalem had been destroyed in 586 B.C. and would be again in 135 A.D. What makes the destruction in 70 A.D. so crucial that it would be describes as the coming of the Son of Man, and why was the destruction so unimportant to the early church that it is never mentioned?' He continues: 'The early church saw the vindication and victory in the resurrection, the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, and in the expected parousia' (479).