Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”
Many of my commentaries point to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 as the fulfillment of the Lord’s prophecy in v 2. But is this correct in view of the surrounding context? My husband wrote to Pastor Kurth and asked, "Does the Lord’s prediction regarding the destruction of the temple in Matthew 24:2 refer to it’s destruction in A.D.70 or a coming destruction at the (end of?) the Tribulation, or both? And why?"
Pastor Kurth's response:
"After the Lord talked about the destruction of the temple in Matthew 24:1-2 and the apostles asked Him “when shall these things be?” (v 3), everything He said in the rest of the chapter is future, so I believe the destruction He was describing is future as well. I don’t know how it could be past and everything else be future. I personally don’t think that what happened in 70 AD was any fulfillment of it, other than something the devil did to make people think it won’t happen again. Kind of the way people think Antiochus Epiphanes was the fulfillment of the prophecies about the Antichrist. I think Satan just made sure someone looked like he fulfilled those prophecies so people would think there isn’t another Antichrist coming. In my mind, the destruction of the temple is the same thing. Since it happened, people think it won’t happen again. But I’m not positive, so I copied Dave in on this reply."
Dave’s response:
"I agree. Verses 33 and 34 say to look for “all these things” and indicate that they will all happen together. This is in answer to their question, when shall “these things” be, referring to the temple’s destruction. So vs 2 cannot be separated from the rest of the events described in Matthew 24. Also, in vs 15 the abomination of desolation stands “in the holy place” which indicates that the temple’s destruction described in vs 2 must occur some time after vs 15 and the events leading up to it.
Antiochus Epiphanes is a good comparison. He’s a pseudo-fulfillment which the Lord clearly refutes in vs 15 when He says that the fulfillment of Daniel 9:27 was yet to come in His day. 70 AD falls into the same camp, and for the same reasons. The rest of Daniel’s prophesy, like the coming and cutting off of Messiah, had to occur first. But those elements of the prophesy are ignored in favor of an “antichrist has already come and gone” interpretation of vs 27. It’s the same with Matthew 24. The [people who take this view think the] rest of the prophesy doesn’t matter as long as we understand that antichrist is past already. 70 AD is merely a back-up plan. If we don’t buy Antiochus Epiphanes, they’ll give us Titus."
buildings of the temple - At the end of the previous chapter, Jesus had said to the Pharisees: "See! Your house is left to you desolate." As He leaves the temple, His disciples point out to Him that Herod’s temple is anything but desolate (v 1).
"Herod the Great began the building of this Temple in 20 B.C., and it was finished in A.D. 64. Many stones visible to the disciples were 10-12 ft (3-3.6 m) in length. Foundations stones were much larger." (Ryrie)
Many of my commentaries point to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 as the fulfillment of the Lord’s prophecy in v 2. But is this correct in view of the surrounding context? My husband wrote to Pastor Kurth and asked, "Does the Lord’s prediction regarding the destruction of the temple in Matthew 24:2 refer to it’s destruction in A.D.70 or a coming destruction at the (end of?) the Tribulation, or both? And why?"
Pastor Kurth's response:
"After the Lord talked about the destruction of the temple in Matthew 24:1-2 and the apostles asked Him “when shall these things be?” (v 3), everything He said in the rest of the chapter is future, so I believe the destruction He was describing is future as well. I don’t know how it could be past and everything else be future. I personally don’t think that what happened in 70 AD was any fulfillment of it, other than something the devil did to make people think it won’t happen again. Kind of the way people think Antiochus Epiphanes was the fulfillment of the prophecies about the Antichrist. I think Satan just made sure someone looked like he fulfilled those prophecies so people would think there isn’t another Antichrist coming. In my mind, the destruction of the temple is the same thing. Since it happened, people think it won’t happen again. But I’m not positive, so I copied Dave in on this reply."
Dave’s response:
"I agree. Verses 33 and 34 say to look for “all these things” and indicate that they will all happen together. This is in answer to their question, when shall “these things” be, referring to the temple’s destruction. So vs 2 cannot be separated from the rest of the events described in Matthew 24. Also, in vs 15 the abomination of desolation stands “in the holy place” which indicates that the temple’s destruction described in vs 2 must occur some time after vs 15 and the events leading up to it.
Antiochus Epiphanes is a good comparison. He’s a pseudo-fulfillment which the Lord clearly refutes in vs 15 when He says that the fulfillment of Daniel 9:27 was yet to come in His day. 70 AD falls into the same camp, and for the same reasons. The rest of Daniel’s prophesy, like the coming and cutting off of Messiah, had to occur first. But those elements of the prophesy are ignored in favor of an “antichrist has already come and gone” interpretation of vs 27. It’s the same with Matthew 24. The [people who take this view think the] rest of the prophesy doesn’t matter as long as we understand that antichrist is past already. 70 AD is merely a back-up plan. If we don’t buy Antiochus Epiphanes, they’ll give us Titus."
No comments:
Post a Comment