Hi Andrew,

Regarding the apocalyptic-prophecy of Daniel as ‘contextualizing’ the parable of the wheat and tares, you write: "But the fact that the figure at the centre of Jesus’ interpretation of the parable is the ‘Son of man’ and the allusion to Daniel 12:3 in verse 43 certainly point in this direction."

Perhaps.  But not necessarily.  As you no doubt well know, "son of man" is Jesus’ favorite self-designation, and as such is employed in many varied contexts.  In fact, he employs the title in ways that clearly go beyond Daniel’s usage, even ways contrary to the exalted imagery of chapter 7 (e.g., Matthew 8:20; 17:12, 22; 20:18; 26:2, 24, 45).  In fact, Jesus appears to integrate the messianic-apocalyptic imagery of Daniel with the mysterious ‘suffering servant’ of Isaiah (Matthew 20:28).  So we cannot confine his usage and understanding of the title to Daniel’s heavenly man. 

Regarding the reference to Daniel 12:3, ‘allusion’ is the right word (Jesus’ words are only vaguely similiar to Dan.12:3 LXX - in fact, Paul’s statement about the Philippians shining ‘as stars in the universe’ in 2:15 is a closer parallel).  With most commentators, I understand the point of this allusion to refer to the resurrection in the latter days (Daniel 12:2), which Jesus mentions elsewhere (e.g., Luke 14:14; 20:35-36; cf. John 5:28-29).  The point of fact here is thet Daniel 12:2-3 is the clearest and most direct OT testimony to a future resurrection of the dead (both the righteous and the wicked).  Jesus’ reference then to Daniel’s language in chapter 12 is to the ‘end of the days’, in which all the dead, including Daniel himself, will be raised to receive their ‘alotted inheritance’ (12:13) [which btw seems highly problematic for your approach of ‘historicizing’ the eschaton within the circumference of AD 70].    

You write, "The language of the kingdom, I would suggest, has to do quite concretely with whether Caesar or YHWH was king over the covenant people. Once the kingdom was given to the Son of man to reign on behalf of YHWH, we are no longer in a situation in which we are waiting for the kingdom still to come."

Wha?  I guess I would refer to 1Co.15:23ff., but apparently another author has ‘dealt’ with this text.  Nevertheless, Paul says the ‘end’ will come after the resurrection of Christ’s ‘own’, at which time the kingdom will be handed over to the Father. To suggest this resurrection happened in ‘some sense’ is to ignore the entire context of chapter 15, which is an involved argument for the corporality of the future resurrection.  Ironically, the ‘historicization’ of the NT eschatology here denies the concreteness and physicalty of the future resurrection. 

When then did Jesus ‘drink of the fruit of the vine’ with his disciples in his Father’s kingdom?  When did the son of Man establish twelve thrones for the twelve apostles to judge the twelve tribes of Israel?  And as far as the coming of the son of man appearing as lightening, flashing from one end of the heavens to other being applied to the mission of the church (preaching the gospel to the nations post-AD 70), what can I say?  This defies any grammatico-historical, contextual exegesis of Matthew 24:27.  The reference is clearly to the appearance of the Son of Man, contrasted with the false appearances of pseudo-messiahs. How then can the spread of the gospel (over a period of decades, even centuries) be reconciled to the words of Jesus here?  I deduce from your interpretation of chapter 24, that all this talk of angels gathering the elect, the tribes of the earth mourning in response to the Son of Man coming on the clouds with power and great glory is all mythological, and is to be ‘demythologized’, de-eschatologicalized, and reduced to an historical moment.  Such a radical re-reading of the texts not only contradicts the historic understanding of God’s people, but would have been (understandably) mystifying to Jesus’ original audience (for whom such language was understood in accordance with Jewish acopalyptic with its trans-historical eschatology). Moreoever, it is clear that the apostles did not understand the ‘coming of the Son of Man’ in this manner (see 1Thess.4:13-5:10, which according to your interpretation would be irrelevant for, or at least quite misapplied to Gentile Christians living in Macedonia). 

"God reigns over his people through the Son of man who through his (and their) suffering overcame death and satan and was vindicated."  

When have the martyred saints been vindicated by God in history?  Apparently not in any spiritualized resurrection of ‘going to be with the Lord’ (see Rev.6:9-11).  Or do you believe martyrdom of the saints has ceased?

"The ‘now and not yet’ argument would have made sense at a time when the church was longing for deliverance from its persecutors in the first centuries, but we have moved beyond that."

Really.  May I suggest that such a view could only come from a modern Western perspective, isolated from the rest of the world.  Does the persecuted church today figure in at all? 

"What we wait for now is not the coming of the kingdom but the renewal of creation - these are distinct themes."

Distinct perhaps, but not separate.  In fact, John ties them closely together in Revelation 20-22, in which the final judgment, the coming of the New Jerusalem from heaven to earth (the full restoration of ‘the kingdom to Israel’, as John’s numerous references to the prophets in these chapters would indicate) in the sphere of the new heavens and the new earth.  Cf. Jesus’ comments to the disciples in Matthew 19:28 ("at the regeneration") and Luke 22:30 ("in My Kingdom").  Cf. Peter’s comments about the new heavens and new earth as our promised ‘home of righteousness’, in light of which we are to be diligent in our faith (2Peter 3:13-14) and the kingdom we are to (yet) receive through the same diligence (2Peter 1:10-11).  

Contra the realized eschatology of Dodd (which your view seems to approximate) I would recommend Ridderbos’ "The Coming of the Kingdom".