This was pretty disappointing after the tightly argued and convincing "Redating the NT" and "Priority of John" (though less tightly argued). Despite starting the book in general agreement with his thesis that most of what Jesus said that is commonly taken to refer to 2nd coming was actually about the destruction of Jerusalem, I found the book to muddle my thinking on the subject rather than clarify it.
Robinson spends most of the pages picking and waging fights that don't seem necessary. For example, he spends many pages arguing that Mark 13:26 = Luke 21:27 is late and editorial. But that passage could easily be read as about the destruction of Jerusalem (thus supporting his thesis) rather than 2nd coming since the OT references (Isaiah 19:1) are about this-worldly historical judgments via armies, and Jeremiah 4:13 is even specifically about Jerusalem's destruction.
I loved "Redating the NT" because throughout it struck me that he applied excellent critical thinking to the evidence in reaching his judgments. This books just seems to be a muddle.
The author rattles around too much within the accepted canons of liberal theology before settling down to his task, at which he does a decent job eliciting some interesting questions about how the early Church viewed the (second) coming of Jesus. Enlightening at points, drudgery (especially early on) at other points.