Contrasts Between a.d. 70 and a Future Temple
Preterists misinterpret Luke 21:20-24 and say that all of Matthew 24 was a prophecy of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and herod's Temple in 70 A.D. Dr. Randall Price has noted six major differences between the a.d. 70 Temple and the Temple of the future tribulation period spoken of in Matthew 24.
During this time Jesus speaks of a signal event connected with the Temple; its desecration by an abomination which was prophesied by the Prophet Daniel (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14). What Temple is being spoken of here by Jesus? Was the Temple that was to be desecrated the same Temple as the one predicted to be destroyed? There are a number of contrasts within this text that indicate that Jesus was talking about two different Temples:
(1) The Temple described in Matthew 24:15 is not said to be destroyed, only desecrated (see Revelation 11:2). By contrast, the Temple in Jesus' day (or Matthew 24:2) was to be completely leveled: " not one stone would be left standing on another" (Matthew 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 19:44).
(2) The Temple' s desecration would be a signal for Jews to escape destruction (Matthew 24:16-18), " be saved" (Matthew 24:22) and experience the promised " redemption" (Luke 21:28). By contrast the destruction of the Temple in Matthew 24:2 was a judgment " because you did not recognize the time of your visitation [Messiah' s first advent]" (Luke 19:44b) and resulted in the Temple being level[ed] to the ground and your children [the Jews] within you" (Luke 19:44a).
(3) The generation of Jews that are alive at the time that the Temple is desecrated will expect Messiah' s coming " immediately after" (Matthew 24:29), and are predicted to not pass away until they have experienced it (Matthew 24:34). By contrast, the generation of Jews who saw the Temple destroyed would pass away and 2,000 years (to date) would pass without redemption.
(4) The text Jesus cited concerning the Temple' s desecration, Daniel 9:27, predicts that the one who desecrates this Temple will himself be destroyed. By contrast, those who destroyed the Temple in a.d. 70 (in fulfillment of Jesus' prediction)- the Roman emperor Vespasian and his son Titus- were not destroyed but returned to Rome in triumph carrying vessels from the destroyed Temple.
(5) The time " immediately after" (Matthew 24:29) the time of the Temple' s desecration would see Israel' s repentance (Matthew 24:30), followed by, as Matthew 23:29 implies, a restoration of the Temple. By contrast, the time following the destruction of the Temple only saw a " hardening" happen " to Israel," which is to last " until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" (Romans 11:25)- still 2,000 years and counting.
(6) For the Temple that is desecrated, the scope is of a worldwide tribulation " coming upon the world" (Luke 21:26; compare Matthew 24:21- 22; Mark 13:19- 20), a global regathering of the Jewish people " from one end of the sky to the other" (Matthew 24:31; Mark 13:27), and a universal revelation of the Messiah at Israel' s rescue (Matthew 24:30- 31; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:26- 27). This scope accords with the prophesied end-time battle for Jerusalem recorded in Zechariah 12- 14, where " all nations of the earth will be gathered against it" (Zechariah 12:3). By contrast the a.d. 70 assault on Jerusalem predicted in Luke 21:20 is by the armies of one empire (Rome). Therefore, if there are two different attacks on Jerusalem, separated by more than 2,000 years, then two distinct Temples are considered in Matthew 24:1- 2 and Matthew 24:15.[6]
The above points demonstrate preterist problems that have no resolution in their attempt to cram still future prophecy into a past mold. Details of Matthew 24 cannot be made to fit into a first century fulfillment.
Dr. Randall Price is credited with the six points contained within the OP.
Preterists misinterpret Luke 21:20-24 and say that all of Matthew 24 was a prophecy of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and herod's Temple in 70 A.D. Dr. Randall Price has noted six major differences between the a.d. 70 Temple and the Temple of the future tribulation period spoken of in Matthew 24.
During this time Jesus speaks of a signal event connected with the Temple; its desecration by an abomination which was prophesied by the Prophet Daniel (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14). What Temple is being spoken of here by Jesus? Was the Temple that was to be desecrated the same Temple as the one predicted to be destroyed? There are a number of contrasts within this text that indicate that Jesus was talking about two different Temples:
(1) The Temple described in Matthew 24:15 is not said to be destroyed, only desecrated (see Revelation 11:2). By contrast, the Temple in Jesus' day (or Matthew 24:2) was to be completely leveled: " not one stone would be left standing on another" (Matthew 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 19:44).
(2) The Temple' s desecration would be a signal for Jews to escape destruction (Matthew 24:16-18), " be saved" (Matthew 24:22) and experience the promised " redemption" (Luke 21:28). By contrast the destruction of the Temple in Matthew 24:2 was a judgment " because you did not recognize the time of your visitation [Messiah' s first advent]" (Luke 19:44b) and resulted in the Temple being level[ed] to the ground and your children [the Jews] within you" (Luke 19:44a).
(3) The generation of Jews that are alive at the time that the Temple is desecrated will expect Messiah' s coming " immediately after" (Matthew 24:29), and are predicted to not pass away until they have experienced it (Matthew 24:34). By contrast, the generation of Jews who saw the Temple destroyed would pass away and 2,000 years (to date) would pass without redemption.
(4) The text Jesus cited concerning the Temple' s desecration, Daniel 9:27, predicts that the one who desecrates this Temple will himself be destroyed. By contrast, those who destroyed the Temple in a.d. 70 (in fulfillment of Jesus' prediction)- the Roman emperor Vespasian and his son Titus- were not destroyed but returned to Rome in triumph carrying vessels from the destroyed Temple.
(5) The time " immediately after" (Matthew 24:29) the time of the Temple' s desecration would see Israel' s repentance (Matthew 24:30), followed by, as Matthew 23:29 implies, a restoration of the Temple. By contrast, the time following the destruction of the Temple only saw a " hardening" happen " to Israel," which is to last " until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" (Romans 11:25)- still 2,000 years and counting.
(6) For the Temple that is desecrated, the scope is of a worldwide tribulation " coming upon the world" (Luke 21:26; compare Matthew 24:21- 22; Mark 13:19- 20), a global regathering of the Jewish people " from one end of the sky to the other" (Matthew 24:31; Mark 13:27), and a universal revelation of the Messiah at Israel' s rescue (Matthew 24:30- 31; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:26- 27). This scope accords with the prophesied end-time battle for Jerusalem recorded in Zechariah 12- 14, where " all nations of the earth will be gathered against it" (Zechariah 12:3). By contrast the a.d. 70 assault on Jerusalem predicted in Luke 21:20 is by the armies of one empire (Rome). Therefore, if there are two different attacks on Jerusalem, separated by more than 2,000 years, then two distinct Temples are considered in Matthew 24:1- 2 and Matthew 24:15.[6]
The above points demonstrate preterist problems that have no resolution in their attempt to cram still future prophecy into a past mold. Details of Matthew 24 cannot be made to fit into a first century fulfillment.
Dr. Randall Price is credited with the six points contained within the OP.
Last edited: