“To be honest, I don’t understand your problem.” Well, yes, I think a lot of people probably wonder what my problem is, though many are too polite to say so.

This response comes after some reflection by Paul, Daniel and others, but I have a very simple observation. The ‘coming of the Son of Man’ in Matthew 24 was, in the first place, a very visible event, with all the preceding signs being very clearly fulfilled in the 1st century. The event was the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70.

So when we speak of another 1st century (or whenever) ‘coming of the Son of Man’ in judgement on Rome, we naturally expect a similar, observable judgement. But for this, we seek in vain. I think the argument is getting very stretched if we now say there did not need to be any outward sign of judgement at all, or any date at which we could say Rome has now fallen.

It seems to me specious to argue that there did not need to be any evidence for judgement on Rome apart from the church’s survival (which is better attributed to other factors), when there is ample evidence for every other major NT event prophetically associated with Jesus - ie his death, resurrection, ascension, outpoured Spirit.

Which leads me to the view that it is these which should be the mainstay of theological interpretation, rather than an event which happened invisibly and never seemed to have any outward fulfilment.