The Narrow Path Ministries

Does anyone see the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 as a "type" or shadow of Christ's second coming?

Douglas wrote:Does anyone see the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 as a "type" or shadow of Christ's second coming?

There are many who hold to that view, but Scripture does not express the destruction of Jerusalem as either a type or a shadow... If I have perhaps missed the Scriptures signifying it in this manner, I am certainly open to having them revealed to me.

The destruction of Jerusalem is fulfillment of Scripture. It constitutes the "days of vengeance" (Isaiah 61:2 <-> Luke 21:22). The first half of Isaiah 61:2 was fulfilled when Christ proclaimed it in the temple (Luke 4:18-21) and the second half is proclaimed by Christ on the Olivet Mount in Luke 21 as just mentioned. Luke 21:22 says at this time all things which are written will be fulfilled. The Jewish context demands it be associated with the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-22, Matthew 24:15-17, 20; Mark 13:14-15). Christ is answering the first century disciples' original question because they were there to hear what Christ had said to the unbelieving Jews in Matthew 23 regarding the destruction of the temple within their generation (Matthew 23:38 <-> Matthew 23:36) and reiterated in (Matthew 24:2 <-> Matthew 24:34), Mark 13:2 <-> Mark 13:30) and (Luke 21:6 <-> Luke 21:32).

While there is great argument as to what is meant by the all things fulfilled in Luke 21, I don't see why we just can't accept what Jesus said. And if all was fulfilled at that time, there are no further "comings" of Christ since all the prophecies concerning that event (and others) would be fulfilled.

Just as an aside, what Jesus said in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32 (the parousia occurring within the disciples' generation) has also come under suspicion because people refuse to accept His parousia coming as happening to the first century generation even though it lines up with Luke 21:22. The Jews had killed the prophets, would murder Jesus and would persecute His followers (Matthew 23:34-35). This would make their iniquity full and ripe for the judgment. The "final" coming that many believe is yet to come is considered to be a judgment upon all the peoples of the earth, but where is this "all-encompassing" judgment found in Scripture? The Olivet judgments concern itself with judgment upon the Jews who insisted upon the old covenant and rejected the new covenant in Christ. Revelation 1:7's "they also which pierced them" is very apt to this analysis. Add to this the time frame of Revelation's beginning "things which must shortly come to pass" (Rev 1:1) and "the time is at hand" (Rev 1:3) and closing with "things which must shortly be done" (Rev 22:6), "for the time is at hand" (Rev 22:10) and the first century fulfillment should come alive. Unfortunately, those who are bound by their theological traditions have made the Word of God of "none effect" and are unable to accept the inspirational account of Scripture concerning this matter...

Those who don't believe "all things which are written" were fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem, and there are many, do so to support another parousia (coming) of Christ in the future despite the fact the NT speaks of only one "The" coming... I have asked many who hold to this view to list the Scriptures they believe refer only to 70 AD and the Scriptures that refer to their "final" coming and have not heard from anyone, nor have I seen the list on any site or in any publication. Since I am but human and unable to look everywhere, perhaps the list is out there somewhere. If someone knows where this list is and would like to post it I would be much obliged.

Blessings, Mellontes

Mellontes wrote:There are many who hold to that view, but Scripture does not express the destruction of Jerusalem as either a type or a shadow... If I have perhaps missed the Scriptures signifying it in this manner, I am certainly open to having them revealed to me.

I wonder if the people reading the O.T. back before Jesus Christ came to earth the first time knew that much of what they read was a "type" or "shadow" of His first coming? For example, did they know that the Passover was looking forward to Christ's dieing for our sins, as is made known to us in the N.T? Maybe some people of the time did, who knows, but does the O.T. expressly say that it was a shadow of things to come?

How do we know that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 is NOT a type for a future coming of Christ? The Bible does not say it is as you have pointed out, but it doesn't say it is not either. And again, did the O.T. expressly tell the readers of that time what were shadows and types? Can we read the Bible and say "Is there a pattern for how God deals with His people and the world and His plan?"

Douglas wrote:How do we know that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 is NOT a type for a future coming of Christ? The Bible does not say it is as you have pointed out, but it doesn't say it is not either. And again, did the O.T. expressly tell the readers of that time what were shadows and types? Can we read the Bible and say "Is there a pattern for how God deals with His people and the world and His plan?"

If the events of the first century were only a type of things to come, that would mean that we would be hoping that there would be another big judgment upon the earth. Is that what we should desire? Another hope would be for the resurrection of the Last Day to occur and with the assumption that the resurrection of the Last Day happens with a coming. My contention is that we are mixing up scriptures in order to make this connection.

Douglas wrote: I wonder if the people reading the O.T. back before Jesus Christ came to earth the first time knew that much of what they read was a "type" or "shadow" of His first coming? For example, did they know that the Passover was looking forward to Christ's dieing for our sins, as is made known to us in the N.T? Maybe some people of the time did, who knows, but does the O.T. expressly say that it was a shadow of things to come?

I am pretty well convinced that people couldn't figure out God's plans from the Old Testament until after the Day of Pentecost when people got the Holy Spirit. It was after Pentecost that people could start finding significance about Christ in the feasts. They realized that He is the passover lamb and then the other feasts started to show as a message. And of course Jesus was revealed as the Lamb of God before people could understand the significance.

If you look at the Book of Daniel also, then the prophecies were kept sealed until the Book of Revelation.

The third thing I understand about... the Book of Isaiah had items that had to be fulfilled by the first century in accord with Christ's life and the subsequent events. One thing of former mystery was about the prophecies of Jerusalem in Isaiah 3 and 4. In chapter 3 Jerusalem was dying and in chapter 4 Jerusalem was again a place of glory. The problem in the first century though was that Jerusalem was totally destroyed and not rebuilt. So in Revelation 21 to 22, the Church became the New Jerusalem subsequent to the destruction of the old physical Jerusalem.

The mention of shadows and types seemed to arise as part of the effort to make sense of the scriptures (the Old Testament), of their former rites and rituals, in light of Christ. The insights about Christ connected closely with the images in the Old Testament and naturally led to the descriptions we find in the New Testament writings.

The effort to assign New Testament prophecies as being types and shadows of something else then lacks the necessity and the basis as was found in the Old Testament studies.

I was thinking a little bit more about the idea of types and shadows as relating to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Isaiah 13 (destruction of Babylon) is often referred to as the type of the final day of the Lord. Now if it can be proven that 1st century Jerusalem meets those qualifications then the anti-type can not be further typed...

1st century Jerusalem is expressed as Babylon:

Peter tells his audience that he is writing from Babylon (1 Peter 5:13). Peter's ministry was in Jerusalem.
Babylon is THE GREAT CITY of Revelation: Rev 14:8, Rev 16:19, (possibly Rev 18:2), Rev 18:10, Rev 18:21,

The only other GREAT CITY is identified as Jerusalem "where also our Lord was crucified." Rev 11:8

In allusion to this GREAT CITY is another great city by the same name - new Jerusalem: Rev 21:10

Blessings, Ted

Mellontes wrote:I was thinking a little bit more about the idea of types and shadows as relating to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Isaiah 13 (destruction of Babylon) is often referred to as the type of the final day of the Lord. Now if it can be proven that 1st century Jerusalem meets those qualifications then the anti-type can not be further typed...

1st century Jerusalem is expressed as Babylon:

Peter tells his audience that he is writing from Babylon (1 Peter 5:13). Peter's ministry was in Jerusalem.
Babylon is THE GREAT CITY of Revelation: Rev 14:8, Rev 16:19, (possibly Rev 18:2), Rev 18:10, Rev 18:21,

The only other GREAT CITY is identified as Jerusalem "where also our Lord was crucified." Rev 11:8

In allusion to this GREAT CITY is another great city by the same name - new Jerusalem: Rev 21:10

Blessings, Ted

Ted,
I'm glad you picked up on that concerning Peter saying he was in Babylon because in my NKJV it tells me that he was actually writing from Babylon which I could not agree with. I have thought for some time that he was actually telling us something that God had been saying for a long time concerning the great whore Jerusalem. My Bible commentaries are certainly bias towards their futurism mindset.

And a little bit more...

If Isaiah's day of the Lord (fulfilled) is taken to be a type of the final coming then how can the first century destruction of Jerusalem be again that type?