I do not come to abolish the Law, but FULFILL it.

[smaller]

Really?

What does Jesus prophecy in Matthew 24? He prophecies that the temple - yes the very one they were looking at - would be flattened within a generation.

When did the temple get destroyed?

70 AD.

Now I will expect people to somehow try to say that Jesus was talking about some other temple and/ or that he was talking about some other generation?

Well, they were sitting looking at the first-century temple. It is going to take a very inventive argument to make the case that some other temple is at issue.

Same thing with the reference to a "generation". A general principle of exegesis - be aware of those who will deny the plain sense of a text simply to make the text fit to a model that they bring to the text. Now, let's be clear: I have argued in other threads for the use of literary devices. But the case needs to be made on grounds other than "force-fitting" to pre-conceived model.

The Temple was destroyed on the Cross and Rose on the Third Day.

s

 

[John 8:32]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow
In your opinion. I think they were and have the evidence to support it.

BTW, did you even read the book of Hebrews? That's where the answer to your question is.

Really?

What does Jesus prophecy in Matthew 24? He prophecies that the temple - yes the very one they were looking at - would be flattened within a generation.

When did the temple get destroyed?

70 AD.

Now I will expect people to somehow try to say that Jesus was talking about some other temple and/ or that he was talking about some other generation?

Well, they were sitting looking at the first-century temple. It is going to take a very inventive argument to make the case that some other temple is at issue.

Same thing with the reference to a "generation". A general principle of exegesis - be aware of those who will deny the plain sense of a text simply to make the text fit to a model that they bring to the text. Now, let's be clear: I have argued in other threads for the use of literary devices. But the case needs to be made on grounds other than "force-fitting" to pre-conceived model.

Mat 24:21 For thenshall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world tothis time, no, nor ever shall be.

Mat 24:22 And exceptthose days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for theelect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Far more Jews lost their lives and far more destruction was done during WWII to Jewry than during the razing of the temple in 70 A.D.

And of course this is all figurative???...


Mat 24:27 For as thelightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall alsothe coming of the Son of man be.

Mat 24:28 Forwheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

Mat 24:29 Immediatelyafter the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moonshall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powersof the heavens shall be shaken:

Mat 24:30 And thenshall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all thetribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in theclouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Mat 24:31 And heshall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gathertogether his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Sounds to me like salvation may be figurative, just a kind of dream like hope that is never realized. It is all figurative.

 

[Drew]

Mat 24:21 For thenshall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world tothis time, no, nor ever shall be.

There was indeed great tribulation in the paroxysm of violence that accompanied the fall of Jerusalem in the Jewish Roman wars. It manifestly begs the question to assume such tribulation is of lesser magnitude than an "end of times" tribulation.

Mat 24:22 And exceptthose days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for theelect's sake those days shall be shortened.

This text is entirely consistent with a "first century" fulfillment - the Jewish-Romans war was indeed quite violent and bloody.

Now, can you explain why Jesus would say the very temple they were looking at would be gone in a generation, if He did not mean what He said "literally". And, of course, it seems like you are in the very awkward position of having to explain the seeming co-incidence of that temple actually being destroyed in 70 AD.

 

[John 8:32]

[/SIZE][/FONT]
There was indeed great tribulation in the paroxysm of violence that accompanied the fall of Jerusalem in the Jewish Roman wars. It manifestly begs the question to assume such tribulation is of lesser magnitude than an "end of times" tribulation.


This text is entirely consistent with a "first century" fulfillment - the Jewish-Romans war was indeed quite violent and bloody.

Now, can you explain why Jesus would say the very temple they were looking at would be gone in a generation, if He did not mean what He said "literally". And, of course, it seems like you are in the very awkward position of having to explain the seeming co-incidence of that temple actually being destroyed in 70 AD.

You think there would not have been a Roman, Spaniard or Chinaman left alive due to the actions against Jerusalem?

 

[John 8:32]

[/SIZE][/FONT]
Now, can you explain why Jesus would say the very temple they were looking at would be gone in a generation, if He did not mean what He said "literally". And, of course, it seems like you are in the very awkward position of having to explain the seeming co-incidence of that temple actually being destroyed in 70 AD.

Seems it is literal and then figurative depending on what point you wish to make.

 

[Drew]

You think there would not have been a Roman, Spaniard or Chinaman left alive due to the actions against Jerusalem?

Not sure what your point is.

However, I suggest you are reading this text as a 21st century westerner, not as a first-century Palestinian. And Jesus was not speaking to 21st century westerners.

I have argued in other posts that there is a Biblical precedent for the use of literary device. And those arguments have not been challenged. I suggest it is entirely plausible that since it is Biblically well-established that over the top cosmic end-of-the-world language is used to describe socio-political change, it is entirely plausible that much of this Olivet discourse employs literary device.

Now, you are going to have to acknowledge this possible mode of discourse since you still - I will keep reminding you - have the sticky problem of explaining why the factual destruction of the temple within a generation of Jesus uttering these words is not the fulfillment of the prophecy about the destruction of the temple within a generation. I would find that to be a very challenging case to make.

 

[Drew]

Someone on the web commenting on NT Wright's analysis of Matthew 24 (my emphasis):

Some, following the lead of Albert Schweitzer, have read the judgment teaching of Jesus as a prediction of the imminent end of all things, an end destined to be cosmic and universal in scope. According to this reading of the apocalyptic imagery of Matthew 24:29 (“Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shakenâ€), Jesus gave a mistaken forecast of the near future. The end didn’t come. Celestial objects kept their place. Jesus was hopeful, but deluded. Further, it is held that Jesus’ followers perpetuated his mistake by living out an ‘interim ethic’ in anticipation of the dissolution of the world.

Wright agrees with Schweitzer that Jesus offered a warning about imminent destruction. But the destruction threatened was not regarding the entire cosmos. Rather, Jesus was employing apocalyptic imagery from the Old Testament to warn the Jews of a shake-up of their symbolic worldview – a shake-up involving the destruction of the Temple, the severe punishment of the Jewish people and the vindication of Jesus and his followers

Now I am the first to concede that the above is merely is a statement of a position. But we all need to be open to the possibility that we are looking at this texts with unexamined assumptions that will necessarily colour our reading of it.

 

[Drew]

Seems it is literal and then figurative depending on what point you wish to make.

I am not sure what you are saying. My best guess is that you are pointing out the seeming inconsistency of taking one bit literally and another bit as literary device.

Fair enough - but this is not surprising. We should not expect a narrative like the Bible to be either entirely literalistic, or entirely not (literalistic).

I believe that Jesus was referring to "real temple" and predicting its destruction with a real generation. I plan to support this position with more material.

 

[John 8:32]

Originally Posted by John 8:32
You think there would not have been a Roman, Spaniard or Chinaman left alive due to the actions against Jerusalem?

Not sure what your point is.

The point is...

Mat 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Not sure how this would occur in the days of swords and spears. I do understand how it can occur in the days of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. This particular verse became a distinct possibility somewhere around 1954 A.D. and has become ever more likely as we see the hands of the doomsday clock dance around at a few minutes 'til midnite.

 

[Hitch]

The point is...

Mat 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Not sure how this would occur in the days of swords and spears. I do understand how it can occur in the days of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. This particular verse became a distinct possibility somewhere around 1954 A.D. and has become ever more likely as we see the hands of the doomsday clock dance around at a few minutes 'til midnite.

Wow. Where in the Bible did you find the 'doomsday clock' and did it also contain instruction on how to set it accurately?

 

[John 8:32]

Wow. Where in the Bible did you find the 'doomsday clock' and did it also contain instruction on how to set it accurately?

How do you view and explain Mat 24:22?

 

[Drew]

The point is...

Mat 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Not sure how this would occur in the days of swords and spears. I do understand how it can occur in the days of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Again, you are taking "no flesh" literally as indicating that every single human being will be killed. We know that at least some Biblical texts are not to be taken literally.

And, of course, you still have the temple problem. They were discussing the very temple that stood in Jesus' day:

Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. 2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down

This, I suggest, is devastating to your position. Jesus is clearly talking about the very temple that stood at that time - this rules out anything but a "literalist" reading in respect to the temple. And Jesus goes on to say it will be destroyed in a generation.

And it was.

How do you explain this?

 

[John 8:32]

Again, you are taking "no flesh" literally as indicating that every single human being will be killed. We know that at least some Biblical texts are not to be taken literally.

And, of course, you still have the temple problem. They were discussing the very temple that stood in Jesus' day:

Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. 2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down

This, I suggest, is devastating to your position. Jesus is clearly talking about the very temple that stood at that time - this rules out anything but a "literalist" reading in respect to the temple. And Jesus goes on to say it will be destroyed in a generation.

And it was.

How do you explain this?

They were not discussing the temple. This was a kin to a farm boy going to New York city and saying, "Wow, did you see the Empire State Building?" when they pointed out the temple to Him.

Now comes the real discussion...

Mat 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

They actually asked three questions, when would these things be, what would be the sign of His second coming and the sign of the end of the world (aion=age).

You are confusing the issue with the Temple. The discussion is not about the temple at all.

Now there is a little problem with verse 2 and the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. There are still some stones left one upon the other at the Wailing Wall, the foundation of the Temple courtyard.
Christ said...

Mat 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
Mat 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Notice that buildings in verse 1 is plural? Not just the Temple, itself. Now in verse two, Christ said there would not be left here one stone upon another. He was including the whole Temple complex, not just the Temple proper. But, again, from verse three on, the discussion is no longer about the Temple.

 

[Drew]

This was a kin to a farm boy going to New York city and saying, "Wow, did you see the Empire State Building?" when they pointed out the temple to Him.

Now comes the real discussion...

This is simply not true to the broader context - you are, I suggest, trying to force fit the text into a pre-existing scheme. However, thos present post only makes part of my overall counter-argument:

In verses 1 and 2: Jesus makes a clear statement about the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. Granted, the disciples ask a further question about Jesus' 'coming' and the 'end of the age'.

The flaw, I suggest, in your argument is the presumption that the issue of the destruction of the temple has been "left behind" in what Jesus goes on to say in response to the further question. Well, that is possible, but, and this is vital, the asking of the question about Jesus' return and the end of the age is not necessarily de-coupled from the temple question.

Again, it would be begging the very question at issue to presume this - it certainly could be the case that the disciples see the destruction of the temple as connected to the issue of Jesus' "coming" and the end of the age. It is a methodological error to presume that the asking of the question in verse 3 is essentially a "new issue" - you cannot simply assume this.

Let me illustrate by analogy. Consider this material:

The owner of the New York Yankees came out and pointed at the old Yankee stadium and said to the reporters 'Do you see this stadium? Truly I say to you, it will be torn down'. Then the reporters asked him "Tell us, what will be the signs of your decision to transform the image of the New York Yankees.

The point should already be clear. Yes, the question does not explicitly address the fate of the Stadium. But, from broad context, we all know that tearing down the old stadium is part and parcel of any effort to transform the image of the New York Yankees.

Likewise with the Mattew 24 text - it is an illicit exegetical moves to decouple the matter of the temple discussion from the follow-on question simply because the question does not explicitly address the temple.

So: where are we? We know that one cannot presume such a decoupling. So what does the broader context suggest? Is the destruction of the temple inextricably bound up with the question the disciples ask (like in the analogy)? Or is it not?

I also plan to address other aspects of your post later.

In later posts, I will argue that it is.

 

[Stormcrow]

They were not discussing the temple.

In verses 1 and 2: Jesus makes a clear statement about the destruction of the Jerusalem temple.

As Drew correctly asserts, they certainly were discussing the Temple and all of the buildings that comprised the Temple grounds!

{1} As He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples *said to Him, "Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!" {2} And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down." Mark 13:1-2 (NASB)

{5} And while some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, {6} "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down." Luke 21:5-6 (NASB)


The questions they asked Him on the Mount of Olives revolved around the statements He made regarding the Temple: the center of Jewish life and religion.

 

[Drew]

The questions they asked Him on the Mount of Olives revolved around the statements He made regarding the Temple: the center of Jewish life and religion.

I agree. I also happen to accept the argument that Jesus' scourging of the temple was not simply a critique of the materialism of the vendors, but was rather a carefully crafted symbolic act of judgement against the Israel of His day.

The argument that John 8:32 has put forward is that the temple statement at the very beginning of Matthew 24 is "left behind" when the disciples ask a further question about the "end of the age". I believe I have successfully argued that one cannot simply assume this. I also worry that he (she) has, again, simply presumed that the "end of the age" refers to a "cosmic" end of the world, and that Jesus "coming" refers to a physical 2nd coming.

In any event, there are many reasons to believe that the temple statement is connected with the rest of the stuff in the chapter, and that Jesus is saying all these things will happen within a generation.

As you appear to imply, I suggest the disciples knew all too well of the connection between the destruction of the temple and the dawn of a new age.

 

[Stormcrow]

I suggest the disciples knew all too well of the connection between the destruction of the temple and the dawn of a new age.

Yep. In fact, it was the parable of the vineyard (Matthew 21) wherein Christ told the religious rulers that the kingdom of God would be taken away from them that later prompted this question:

{6} So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" Acts 1:6 (NASB)

The removal of the kingdom of God from the stewardship of national Israel and its priesthood involved removing the symbol of God's presence here on earth: the very Temple itself where His glory - His Holy Spirit - dwelt on earth under the Old Covenant.


Christ didn't answer their question except to say - in so many words - "that doesn't concern you."