Now you say this destruction is spiritual and not physical. I partially disagree, and so does the text. Yes, the destruction was spiritual, as they were separated from the Lord for rejecting Christ, but the destruction was also physical, as Christ prophesied they would be surrounded by armies and the city torn down to the ground:
Luke 19: 41-44
And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.
For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”
In the Olivet discourse, Jesus predicts that Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies. From historical records, we know that the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem and destroyed it in 70AD.
Incorrect. You are reading into Scripture. Allow me to explain...
We can't just completely ignore these verses in lieu of ones that we think we can prove because it supports our view. No,
"ALL" scripture must be taken into consideration before coming to any conclusion. Let observe Luke 19 again:
Luke 19:41-44
- "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
- Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
- For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
- And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."
Every time I submit these passages to the 70 AD Theorists, I am met with deafening silence, even as you will not address it. Do you hear what the Lord is saying there? The
exact same thing as He said about the Temple! If it's not literal here, then obviously, it's not literal about the Temple. Let's be honorable and consistent here. To say Christ was not talking about the city of Jerusalem as a covenant representation of the people of God ("
thy children within thee") shows a serious lack of understanding of the way the Bible is written. For very unambiguously, He is talking to PEOPLE (even the Scribes and Pharisees God said perceived that) and speaking of
their desolation as all the stones of a city being made desolate or thrown down. And Christ says the reason is that the
city knew not the time of its visitation. Think about it. Did Christ talk to the literal stones? No, He's talking to the city of Jews and saying they will be laid even with the ground (equating THEM to STONES of a building),
because they knew not the time of their visitation. Selah!! Christ has NOT prophesied here of literal buildings and a literal city,
but of spiritual buildings that are the external covenant congregation representation. Just as He calls the congregation an Olive Tree, He calls it a City, and He calls it a Temple, and a Vineyard, and a Kingdom, etc. Get it?! There's no mystery here to God's people, as
He has always spiritualized or spoke in parables this way. I know that something is "spiritually discerned" has come to be equated with a "Bad Phrase" these days, but
Biblical facts are facts. Read the Old Testament for your examples.
Micah 1:8-9
- "Therefore I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and naked: I will make a wailing like the dragons, and mourning as the owls.
- For her wound is incurable; for it is come unto Judah; he is come unto the gate of my people, even to Jerusalem."
The City Jerusalem was a representation of God's people, not a geographical location nor a physical wall in the Middle East! Selah!
And yes, I know that there are some people here who have insisted that the temple and its buildings in Matthew 24:1-2 MUST be physical (to fit their 70AD theory) when Christ said. But the problem is if we
COMPLETELY ignore all the other verses that I have been quoting to you (word for word) about not one stone left standing in Jerusalem and reading Matthew 24 in a Biblically insular fashion. But the fact is, we cannot read scripture
in a vacuum where there is nothing acceptable as truth except our own pet verses that "seem" to support us as long as we don't include others. All scripture must be in harmony with itself, and it most certainly is not "if" we attempt to claim that Matthew 24 stands by itself, or the passages of Luke 19 have nothing to do with the question at hand. God even gives us examples of the Devil attempting to use just that specific type of erroneous interpretive methodology.
Matthew 4:6-7
- "And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
- Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."
Note the Devil's hermeneutic style. Yes, he quotes from Scripture, but he doesn't consider "other scriptures" which have equal bearing on the question. That is what many people do today with Scripture! But Christ demonstrates the proper hermeneutic in answering,
"it is written again," or "it is written more" (
there is more written). Christ corrects by declaring there is more written beside your pet verse. Christ's solution is not to deny the Devil's scripture, but to tell him that this is
not all that scripture has to say concerning this. For example, there is more written on the subject. If we take one isolated verse, as in this example, we will inevitably come to private interpretations and improper conclusions. And what Christ said is exactly what I am saying. There is more written on the subject besides a few lines in Matthew about the Temple that has to be considered. And when all scripture (not just Matthew) is considered, clearly, the stones of Israel falling are figures representing (as the Pharisees perceived) the people. ...He spoke of
THEM! Not physical stones of the city! They, as people, are considered as the old stones that rejected Christ and the New Testament saints are the New Living stones in the rebuilding. Hello?!
Consider wisely..
Luke 19:39-42
- "And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.
- And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
- And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
- Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes."
He who hath an ear, let him hear!
Israel cried Hosanna to the King, but they were the old and so did hold their peace in proclaiming Christ King, and the stones "did" immediately cry out. Jesus did NOT talk about physical stones of the city, but the spiritual stones which are PEOPLE who did cry out! The word of God is a gigantic spiritual picture puzzle with every piece in place. Just because one does not understand this, does not make the truth of it null and void.
Now going back to Luke 19
Luke 19:41-44
- "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
- Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
- For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
- And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."
Listen... does that sound like the Lord never referred to these perimeter buildings of the city in His discourse? On the contrary. Does that sound like Christ is talking about a physical city, all the houses, bricks, mortar? Or does it sound like Christ is talking about a city of people who would be laid even with the ground because they didn't know the time of His visitation? Can a physical building or stones know anything? He's not talking to a physical city any more than you or I would, He's using the city Jerusalem
as a figure of his covenant people that would symbolically be ground to powder, laid even with the ground. Just as He always has spoken this way about them. ..it's "not" something new as some people would have you believe that it is.
Isaiah 40:1-3
- "Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.
- Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins.
- The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God."
Think about it. Using your hermeneutic, we would have to conclude that God is prophesying of a physical war coming to an end in the physical city of Jerusalem. And of a construction worker going through the streets of this city Jerusalem straightening out crooked roads. Does this sounds right to you, humm? Because your
system of interpretation
is wrong! WRONG! We cannot interpret by what seems right in our own ears and eyes, but we interpret scripture by other scripture. And that is how we know that the warfare being accomplished is
our spiritual warfare we had with God before Christ. And the Jerusalem, in view, is the
body of God's people. And the making straight a highway in the desert is
turning away from sin and following the straight and narrow road in Christ. This is what Isaiah 40:3 is about!
You see, A person's hermeneutic or system of interpretation will determine how he understands scripture, cities, stones, temples, abomination, and restoration.
And no, this has NOTHING to do with the physical temple in 70AD.