I understand your point about Luke 21, but there's something else those men haven't considered about the Olivet prophecy from our Lord Jesus. The signs He gave there parallel the seven signs He gave John in Revelation. And Revelation is linked with the final "one week" of the Book of Daniel, which means for the very end of this world just prior to Christ's second coming (still future to us).
The dilemma some have with not knowing whether to place that destruction of the temple only back to 70 A.D. or sometime in the future with another temple built for the end is one of their own making, simply because the prophecy is actually following a pattern first given back in the Old Testament. Since the signs Jesus gave there are linked with the events of His Revelation for the end, it means both must be weighed together in understanding how to properly interpret His Olivet Discourse.
Per the Jewish historian Josephus, the 2nd temple caught fire while the Jews and Romans battled over it, with the Romans trying to get possession of it. According to Josephus, Titus had no intention to destroy it. And today the Western Wall of the old temple complex is still standing in Jerusalem, meaning our Lord's prophecy that there would not be one stone standing on top of another was not actually fulfilled in 70 A.D. The temple and Jerusalem were flattened like He said would happen, but with those huge stones of the Western Wall (Wailing Wall) still in place today means not all the 'parameters' of the prophecy was fulfilled. Makes sense too when we look at the rest of the signs He gave there which point directly to the very end of this world and His second coming.
As of today, the orthodox Jews in Jerusalem already have the materials ready to build another temple, even stones already being cut, and they plan to build it. The "abomination of desolation" prophecy from Daniel which our Lord Jesus quoted requires a standing temple to be fulfilled. We also know from the Daniel prophecy for the final "one week" (or last 7) that animal sacrifices will also be going on in order for the false one to be able to end them in the middle of that final 7 and instead place the idol abomination in the temple.
So there's a lot more going on within that prophetic alignment that a cornered approach of thinking those signs were fulfilled in 70 A.D., or only applied to 70 A.D., obviously fails to address.
Hello NoHype.
I read your reply and understand how you are interpreting these two chapters (Matthew 24, Luke 24).
I am glad that you do see the similarity between these two chapters. There is a dilemma in the minds
of anyone who reads and understands these two chapters. I wish to treat these two chapters further
but for now I will reply to your post.
Here is what you stated NoHype.
Per the Jewish historian Josephus, the 2nd temple caught fire while the Jews and Romans battled over it,
with the Romans trying to get possession of it. According to Josephus, Titus had no intention to destroy it.
And today the Western Wall of the old temple complex is still standing in Jerusalem, meaning our Lord's
prophecy that there would not be one stone standing on top of another was not actually fulfilled in 70 A.D.
The temple and Jerusalem were flattened like He said would happen, but with those huge stones of the
Western Wall (Wailing Wall) still in place today means not all the 'parameters' of the prophecy was fulfilled.
Makes sense too when we look at the rest of the signs He gave there which point directly to the very end
of this world and His second coming.
Your account above is based purely on the colorful and some what biased version by Josephus.
Josephus sided with the Roman Empire and painted Titus (the future emperor) in a glorious light.
Josephus was an adviser to Titus during the siege of Jerusalem, Josephus supported Rome.
Titus did not wish to destroy the temple in Jerusalem is what Josephus proclaims. Though the
temple was the epicenter of Israel and Titus was crushing all rebellion in Israel. There can be
no doubt that Titus had his cross hairs trained on the pulsing heart of Judaism, the temple.
A later historian named Sulpicius actually claims the opposite to Josephus. Sulpicious argues
that Titus did indeed seek to demolish the temple. Here read the following NoHype.
The Temple was destroyed despite Titus' order that it be preserved, and despite his attempts to put
out the fire once it started. So writes Josephus, and so this is how Titus wished to be seen. But a later
historian, Sulpicius Severus (apparently based on Tacitus' lost history) says the opposite -- that Titus
ordered the destruction. It is difficult to know the truth, but a glaring piece of evidence is the calendar:
Titus held the decisive council to determine the Temple's fate on the Ninth of Av, and the fire began the
next day, the Tenth.
The Tenth corresponding exactly to the date of the destruction of the First Temple
by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (Jeremiah 52:12; but 2 Kings 25:8 places it on the Seventh of Av).
Titus' Jewish advisers, including Josephus, would have made him aware of that fact. We can be all
but certain that Titus chose the meeting date for its historical significance, ad attack on the Temple
on the Tenth would have been auspicious for Roman success and a fateful signal for the Judeans.
(G. J. Goldberg, A continuation of the Chronology of the War)
There can be no doubt at all that Titus was intent on crushing Jerusalem and destroying the temple.
Titus dismantled the temple stone by stone after the fire in the temple occurred. Surely this starts
the bells ringing NoHype, why would Titus dismantle the fire ravaged temple?
Your argument that the lower foundation, western wall of the temple still stands. Hence the
temple was not destroyed and the prophecy still stands is very unreasonable. There is the
simple facts of history that not only was the temple dismantled. But also the nation of Israel
was also obliterated to boot. It was the clear end of the old covenant that God established
with Israel. God's hand was powerfully moving against Israel in AD70 and I do believe
this is beyond debate NoHype. Even Paul supports this reality with his description of the wrath
of God coming upon the Jews to the fullest. (1 Thessalonians 2:16)
Then you said;
As of today, the orthodox Jews in Jerusalem already have the materials ready to build another temple,
even stones already being cut, and they plan to build it. The "abomination of desolation" prophecy from
Daniel which our Lord Jesus quoted requires a standing temple to be fulfilled. We also know from the
Daniel prophecy for the final "one week" (or last 7) that animal sacrifices will also be going on in order
for the false one to be able to end them in the middle of that final 7 and instead place the idol abomination
in the temple.
This is not necessarily true NoHype, the modern temple does not need to be an old covenant temple.
There is no way on earth that Israel would rebuild the old temple, not in this day and age.
Certainly not on the temple mount which is an impossibility and is beyond consideration.
Even moving a bulldozer onto the temple mount to commence excavation for a temple. Would
most certainly premeditate war between Islam and Israel. The temple mount is probably one
of the most sensitive areas in Israel for both the Israel and Islam.
I would be revising how you understand the temple and it's place in futuristic prophecy.
Try adding a spiritual component to the interpretation. The modern temple may be a branch
of Christianity, it could be an Islamic mosque. A Jewish temple is probably at the bottom of
the list of potential temple candidates.
There is virtually no doubt that the destruction of the temple in AD70 is the clear and correct
fulfillment of Matthew and Luke. Since the temple's demise also included the end of covenant
Israel and the practices of the old covenant.
