Quote[/b] ]Preterist and futurists do not agree on much when it comes to the Olivet Discourse. However, when it comes to the interpretation of Luke 21:20-24, we both agree that it is a literal prophecy of the a.d. 70 judgment. Preterist Dr. Kenneth Gentry says, "The context of Luke demands a literal Jerusalem (Luke 21:20) besieged by literal armies (Luke 21:20) in literal Judea (Luke 21:21)-which as a matter of indisputable historical record occurred in the events leading up to a.d. 70."[5] However, when expounding on Luke 21:25-28, preterists resort to massive doses of symbolic interpretation in their attempt to give these verses a first-century fulfillment. The futurist does not need to make such adjustments and continues a plain or literal reading of the text. I believe that Luke 21:25-28 is a brief prophecy that parallels Matthew 24 and Mark 13, as I will expound upon in the future.
Luke 21:20-24 demonstrates that preterists take prophecy literal when it is alleged to support their view, but if a passage would lead to a non-preterist view, if interpreted literally, they allegorize. On the other hand, futurists are able to take all parts of Christ's Olivet Discourse, and all prophecy literally.
It is clear that Luke 21:20-24 is spoke of the first-century Roman invasion of Jerusalem. Note that I have placed in italics the key phrases from Luke 21:20-24 above, that supports the a.d. 70 fulfillment. The entire passage speaks over and over again of judgment and wrath upon the Jewish people and their city, just as Christ prophesied in Matthew 24:2 and the other passages noted above. Yet, when one searches prophecies of Matthew 24 and Mark 13 this language is missing. Instead of "great distress upon the land, and wrath to this people," Matthew 24 speaks of rescuing the Jewish people who are under great distress (Matt. 24:29-31).
Contrasts Between a.d. 70 and a Future Temple
Preterists like to misuse Luke 21:20-24 and say that all of Matthew 24 was a prophecy of the Roman conquest in a.d. 70. 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.
