I would offer it was destroyed when Jesus the prophet was given powerful words from the Father it is desolate not will be when a few bricks fall.
I would argue otherwise. I see nothing in that particular exchange with the disciples that is allegorical. At that point in the discussion Jesus is quite literal.
The Bible reader should understand what Matthew is reporting is a narrative that covers a single day in the life of Jesus and his disciples, a narrative that Matthew uses
five chapters and part of a sixth to describe. The narrative begins the day after Jesus entered Jerusalem. In a few days he would be dead. Jesus knew this; he knew his death was imminent and as he approached Jerusalem the nature of his parables changed. They changed from being soteriological to being eschatological, form salvation to judgment and wrath.
So it's not possible to wholly grasp what Jesus is saying in two or three sentences in one chapter unless we read and understand the whole narrative and what lead up to that narrative. It also helps to examine the parallel and informing passages in the other gospels, the OT references employed by Jesus and the writer, and the later explanatory passages in the epistolary (such as John 2:13-22.
I rarely see anyone noting the larger contexts when they discuss anything in Matthew 24. It is egregiously common for discussion board Christians to select one or two verses and remove them from their context and makes claims nowhere supported by the text itself, especially when rendered in light of whole scripture. For now, I'll keep it simple.
The first, and most basic rule in exegesis is to read a verse or passage literally (normal usage, ordinary meaning of the words) unless the text itself gives reason to do otherwise. When it comes to the temple, the temple of stone is a temple God never wanted. Yes, God abided the temple and used it to foreshadow the Messiah, but God never asked anyone to build Him a temple of stone and the post-gospel texts plainly tell us God does not live in houses built by human hands (Acts 7:48, 17:24). To understand the history of the stone temple one has to start with 2 Samuel 7 where God said He would build the temple, and the prophets spoke of a temple not built by human hands.
So, yes, there is a very real (and valid) sense in which the temple itself was desolate and had always been so. The entire structure (like the earthly monarchy) was an act of disobedience, wholly sinful, and an enduring snub toward God. This is part of the basis for the eight "
woes" of chapter 23.
But..... is Jesus being allegorical when he speaks Matthew 24:2? Is he spiritualizing or should his words be taken figuratively or metaphorically? I don't think so. The disciples are not being metaphorical when they admire the buildings.
Jerusalem sat atop a geographic area of seven hills or mountains (as did Rome). The temple sat above the city walls, and it was clad in gold. It's not clear from scripture if this was both interior and exterior but 1 Kings 6 and 2 Chronicles 3 describe how the interior, even the floor, was covered with gold by Solomon. This was replicated by Herod ancient writers describe how portions of the temple's exterior was covered with "plates of gold," and decorative devices like "vines of gold," adorned the outside. They also describe how the temple shined brightly and travels approaching Jerusalem could not look directly at the temple if the sun was shining at the right angle. It was literally a ball of light coming from Jerusalem to the naked eye. Which is probably why the Romans did not destroy it when the first captured the city. In every other city the captured they either destroyed the temples or usurped them as their own and subjugated them to Caesar. They would normally have scoffed at the Jewish leaders' protests about Gentiles entering the Holy of Holies (and killed the protesters right there) but for some reason
that did not happen in Jerusalem. All this also explains how and why the temple was an idol, and idol that violated the Commandment, and had to be destroyed. To this very day there is a large swath in Christendom who still think another temple of stone is God's wish. The have a two-temple theology.
The point being, the disciples were admiring the stone temple, a work of human hands that stood in idolatrous disobedience to God. Jesus, being God, found it insulting and he knew it was coming down. Just the day before he'd found it infested with idolators - the profiteering money changers and collaboratively grifting temple priests and administrators. So he cleaned it out. In the OT Law of Moses an infested house had to be cleaned out and remain uninhabited for seven days. The next day (the Matthew 24 narrative begins at Matthew 23:18) Jesus returned to the temple to find priests and elders there and Matthew recounts how various groups of leaders came to test Jesus. Over and over, again and again until Jesus finally confronts them in chapter 23 and pronounces judgment on them and the house desolate. In the OT Law, when a previously infested house was cleaned out and the infestation returned the house had to be torn down..... never to be inhabited again (see Lev. 14).
Lastly, the term "desolate" has its origins in the creation account in Genesis 1. When God began the beginning the scriptures state the earth was "
formless and void." That word for "
void," "
wabahu" is the root for "
desolate." The Hebrew "
bohu" means empty. Throughout the OT desolation is described as an abomination to God, so the phrase "abomination of desolation" is not some figure of speech (as many imagine it). It is quite literal. Desolation is abominable to God. The temple had just been declared desolate and the disciples are stupidly admiring it.
The Son man Jesus the prophet apostle has no power to rebuke or raise mankind from the dead. The lord not seen does all the rebuking.
Perhaps I am not correctly understanding that because the grammar is problematic but, as written, that statement is incorrect. Even people who deny Christ's divinity should understand Jesus is the perfect human and as such he possesses all the power and authority Adam had at Genesis 1:27-28. In addition to all the power and authority A&E had in the beginning
with the divine mandate to conquer and rule over that which was desolate
, Jesus was also the tree of life. Jesus did not
become the tree of life just because he came back from the dead. That would be works, not grace. Jesus stated, "I am the resurrection and the life, and he said that long before he was dead. He did not say, "I will become the resurrection," or "I am going to be the resurrection." Jesus made an ontological statement. He
is the resurrection and the life before he dies and is raised. On a more elementary level the stories of lazarus and Jairus' daughter contradict the premise he has no power to raise mankind from the dead.
It made the whole wall, the abomination of desolation to no effect . .desolate. It is testified until I will see you no more . The Son of man disappeared before 70 AD .
Mathew 23 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me (dying flesh and blood )henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he. . (Not the Son of man, Jesus ). that cometh in the name of the Lord.
2 Corinthians 2:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
One promised demonstration of the Lamb of God "the Spirit of Christ"..
Irrelevant to Matthew 24:2 and the whole of scripture explains how and why Jesus said what he said with literal meaning. The full force of human history was bearing down on the temple and the disciples as they walked away from that desolate idolatrous abomination that was so glorious to the human eye even the Caesars admired it.
(my apologies for the length)
.
