How To Stay in Bible Context

[veteran]

I'm going to give examples of the difference with staying in a Bible chapter's context, and contrast that against not staying in the chapter's context.

The idea of 'context' is about words or phrases that continue to relate to the subject. For example: if the subject is electrical motors, moving to the idea of fish is to go out of context. Some can't seem to recognize when some do this going off topic, out of context error, since many of The Bible's topics appear to be so similar and interrelated.


Matt 24:1-3
1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and His disciples came to Him for to shew Him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, "See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
3 And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?"
(KJV)

What's that chapter's context which is set by those opening verses?

It covers many areas of Scripture in other Books of God's Word, but the context of the chapter is still very specific:

Setting - Christ and His disciples are upon the Mount of Olives east of Jerusalem, overlooking the Temple Mount area and the 2nd temple complex of buildings.

Future events involving Jerusalem, that temple mount, and the world - Jesus tells them one day coming not one of those stones will be standing on top of another. His disciples ask Him when those things will be and what will be the sign of His second coming, and of the end of the world.


A. OK, since Christ's disciples asked Him about the sign of His coming, could we leave this Matt.24 chapter to other Books of The Bible and study specific Scriptures about Christ's second coming? Would doing that be staying within the Matt.24 chapter's context? That's a big Yes.

B. What if someone decided the phrases "Thy coming" and "end of the world" meant the time of Christ visiting His Apostles and disciples after His crucifixion and resurrectiion, when He appeared to them for 40 days? That would be a no, no, and taking the subject of those verses out of the chapter's context. Why? Because even the Old Testament prophets foretold of two different advents (comings) of Messiah, the first to die upon the cross, and the second in judgment and to reign over His enemies with a rod of iron at Jerusalem, an event that has yet to occur to this day.

C. Would going back to the OT prophets to study about those events of Christ's two separate times of coming be going out of the Matt.24 chapter context? No. Why not? Because as long as the other Scripture examples stay within the Matt.24 chapter context, then it's an interrelated Message that goes with it.


D. In Matt.24:15 when our Lord Jesus mentioned the "abomination of desolation" from the Book of Daniel, would it be going out of the Matt.24 chapter's context to go back into Daniel and study about that "abomination of desolation" event? No, since our Lord Jesus included... that event within the Matt.24 chapter's context.

E. In Matt.24:33-34 Jesus said that generation would not pass until all "these things" (signs) are fulfilled. Would saying that those things (signs) were meant only for the days of those disciples back then be straying from the chapter's context? Yes, How? Because the generation He pointed to involves when all... of those signs He gave come to pass, the very last sign being about His second coming and our gathering to Him, which also reveals just what "end of the world" timing was meant too.


Can you see how staying within that Matt.24 chapter's context is still very specific, even though it may take us on a journey to many other related Scriptures in other Books of God's Word?

Those unlearned in all of God's Word are most subject to deceptions by false prophets that intentionally stray away from a Bible chapter's context. It's simply because the Biblically illiterate are not familiar enough with other Scripture that is related, vs. Scripture that is not related in context.

 

[7angels]

what you say is true but matt 24 is also a tough chapter to interpret. there is a lot of meaning under the surface and with it being prophetic means that without revelation from God it is virtually impossible to know the exact meaning. also what you say above is true but there is a lot more to it then just what you stated. there is meaning, repeats, #of times a certain word shows up in a verse, and ect. people in present day do not know how to really read anymore. it is like people read but are not really reading. there are punctuation, verbs, nouns, paragraphs, topic sentences, and ect. not only that but the original hebrew did not have the bible broken up into verses. that happened later on as did taking out a lot of the verses out of their paragraphs and ect. sorry i have to go. i will finish later.

 

[JLB]

what you say is true but matt 24 is also a tough chapter to interpret. there is a lot of meaning under the surface and with it being prophetic means that without revelation from God it is virtually impossible to know the exact meaning. also what you say above is true but there is a lot more to it then just what you stated. there is meaning, repeats, #of times a certain word shows up in a verse, and ect. people in present day do not know how to really read anymore. it is like people read but are not really reading. there are punctuation, verbs, nouns, paragraphs, topic sentences, and ect. not only that but the original hebrew did not have the bible broken up into verses. that happened later on as did taking out a lot of the verses out of their paragraphs and ect. sorry i have to go. i will finish later.

All the more reason to stay in context brother.

Could you give an example from Matthew 24 of some of what you are referring to above, that we may discuss it.


Thanks and God Bless you, JLB

 

[7angels]

first if you read matt 23 you will see that evil will befall that generation because they have turned from God. verses 1-2 of matt 24 are still being referred to by Jesus as another evil that will befall isreal for their neglect of God.

matt 24:3 asks 3 questions. Jesus answers 2 of the 3 questions. he leaves out the question about when the temple will be destroyed. of the other 2 questions Jesus answers the last question first and then answers the question about the sign of his coming.
now concerning the first question he explains it from verses 4-29(some people think this question ends anywhere from verse 29-32 but to my knowledge the bible does not specify exactly but seems to be more of preference at this time).
then the last question goes from verse 30-51. again depending upon where you stop at the first question will be where this answer starts.

now we can get into the meaning of each verse for example, verse 4 tells us people will be preaching things contrary to the word. verse 11 of the same chapter confirms this. but just because people are in error does not necessarily mean that we will not go to heaven. according to the word all we need to do is believe that Jesus is Lord and we will be saved and then if we are saved then we are going to spend eternity in heaven with God. some people look at being in error as you are now damned to hell. an example of doctrine error could be living without prosperity in our lives or supernatural gifts in operation every day. the word teaches both these doctrines as truth but how many live by just these two? there are many such examples in the word.

this is only a small portion of translating this chapter. there is much more if you want to take the time and study it.

 

[veteran]

what you say is true but matt 24 is also a tough chapter to interpret. there is a lot of meaning under the surface and with it being prophetic means that without revelation from God it is virtually impossible to know the exact meaning.

You mean some 'new' revelation from God is required? like some new private interpretation? It is very easy to know the exact meaning our Heavenly Father and His Son meant. It's called disciplined Bible study, asking His help. The difficult part is staying focused in that study, instead of turning to other things or men's doctrines. Clear the stones, clear the thorns, plough the ground, and then... the seed (God's Word ) will bear fruit.

...also what you say above is true but there is a lot more to it then just what you stated. there is meaning, repeats, #of times a certain word shows up in a verse, and ect. people in present day do not know how to really read anymore. it is like people read but are not really reading. there are punctuation, verbs, nouns, paragraphs, topic sentences, and ect. not only that but the original hebrew did not have the bible broken up into verses. that happened later on as did taking out a lot of the verses out of their paragraphs and ect. sorry i have to go. i will finish later.

Granted those who have an education are at an advantage with the languages, but it's still not that difficult. A KJV Bible and a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is quite enough for an English speaking believer. The heart of the problem is all the doctrines of men out there which cause confusion away from the simplicity of The Word. It's not difficult to follow a simple subject and object, regardless of the language one speaks. We don't have be a scholar to do scholarly Bible study.

There is an underlying method of study God put in His Word using metaphors, expressions, parables, etc. That part of God's Word simply requires focus, and the fact that you've already covered the majority of His Word in disciplined study (line upon line). I keep reminding brethren that some kind of 'effort' on our part is required in order for The Holy Spirit to help us in understanding. "Study to shew thyself approved unto God...", like Apostle Paul said (2 Tim.2:15).

first if you read matt 23 you will see that evil will befall that generation because they have turned from God. verses 1-2 of matt 24 are still being referred to by Jesus as another evil that will befall isreal for their neglect of God.

What are you doing up in the Matt.23 chapter? In that chapter our Lord Jesus was at the temple speaking to the scribes and Pharisees (Matt.23:29). Starting at Matt.24 He went out of the temple to the Mount of Olives with His disciples. How can you expect God to help you understand if you won't stay focused in His Word line upon line? If you'd covered all the Matt.24 chapter you would not have missed where He was per the 23rd chapter, and who all He was addressing.


The Matt.24 signs Jesus gave His Apostles and disciples upon the Mount of Olives is not in the same context as His Message in the 23rd chapter. But you're dearly trying to make it thus, aren't you?

 

[7angels]

i know where you are coming from but how do you explain these verses and how they fit in to what is being said.

[sup]1[/sup]JESUS DEPARTED from the temple [sup][a][/sup]area and was going on His way when His disciples came up to Him to call His attention to the buildings of the temple and point them out to Him.
[sup]2[/sup]But He answered them, Do you see all these? Truly I tell you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.

Jesus does not even answer the disciples question concerning the temple so what are these 2 verses saying? if you forget who Jesus is talking to in matt 23 but look at what he is talking about you will see that Jesus charged them that they will pay for their evil deeds. it is almost like Jesus was thinking about what is to come because of the religious leader's disobedience and when leaving the disciples commented on the temple(probably to refer to the magnificence of the temple. history shows that the temple was a wonder to look upon) and Jesus foresaw what would come to pass and so he told the disciples(they were looking at outward appearances) that the temple would be brought down to utter destruction(this i believe brought them back to what is important). this would help explain why Jesus never answered their question of when the temple would end up being destroyed. Jesus would not of answered the question if what he said was meant to be a lesson.

now the word does not say exactly what it is that i believe these 2 verses are referring to but it does fit and does not change the context of the word. now it is up to each one of us to decide for ourselves. just like is 7:14 is a double prophesy and was not the only son born of a virgin. read is 7 and you will see that God gave ahaz a sign that would show him that what God said would come to pass. how would ahaz know it was a sign if it did not come to pass for many generations. this verse came to pass once for ahaz and it was also a prophesy of Jesus' birth. like i said there are deeper meanings within the word that need revelation to see. i wonder how many of us have read that verse over and over again and never saw it before?

God bless you all..

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, veteran, and happy Pesach (Passover).

I'm going to give examples of the difference with staying in a Bible chapter's context, and contrast that against not staying in the chapter's context.

The idea of 'context' is about words or phrases that continue to relate to the subject. For example: if the subject is electrical motors, moving to the idea of fish is to go out of context. Some can't seem to recognize when some do this going off topic, out of context error, since many of The Bible's topics appear to be so similar and interrelated.


Matt 24:1-3
1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and His disciples came to Him for to shew Him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, "See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
3 And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?"
(KJV)

What's that chapter's context which is set by those opening verses?

It covers many areas of Scripture in other Books of God's Word, but the context of the chapter is still very specific:

Setting - Christ and His disciples are upon the Mount of Olives east of Jerusalem, overlooking the Temple Mount area and the 2nd temple complex of buildings.

Future events involving Jerusalem, that temple mount, and the world - Jesus tells them one day coming not one of those stones will be standing on top of another. His disciples ask Him when those things will be and what will be the sign of His second coming, and of the end of the world.


A. OK, since Christ's disciples asked Him about the sign of His coming, could we leave this Matt.24 chapter to other Books of The Bible and study specific Scriptures about Christ's second coming? Would doing that be staying within the Matt.24 chapter's context? That's a big Yes.

Technically, it's NO. Strictly speaking, staying within a context is staying within the chapter or even the surrounding chapters within a book. When one strays to another author, even an author under inspiration, one assumes that they are saying the same thing, but that assumption is not logically valid. First, no two people have exactly the same vocabulary, even if they speak the same language. Second, themes between the works of the two authors may be significantly different, even if they use some of the same language and/or words. Furthermore, even two works by the same author may have very different themes and therefore have different meanings to words being used, even if the same person wrote them both! It is a dangerous prospect, interpretively speaking, to involve a second person into the mix, or even a second work by the same author! One assumes too much in the prospect.

While it is possible to determine similar themes in two separate works by two different authors or even by one author at different times in his life, one must be sure that they are both "on the same page" enough to warrant a matching of passages and be very careful in the formulation of a connection between the two. A case in point is James' thoughts on "works" versus Paul's thoughts on "works." At face value, one might assume that these two authors contradict each other UNTIL one discovers how each defines "works." (Part of the problem is in the English translations.) Paul contrasts "works" with "grace" (Ephesians 2:8-9), but James contrasts "works" with "words alone" (James 2:14-18). This is a fairly obvious example, but different texts of prophecy may not be so easily rectified.

B. What if someone decided the phrases "Thy coming" and "end of the world" meant the time of Christ visiting His Apostles and disciples after His crucifixion and resurrectiion, when He appeared to them for 40 days? That would be a no, no, and taking the subject of those verses out of the chapter's context. Why? Because even the Old Testament prophets foretold of two different advents (comings) of Messiah, the first to die upon the cross, and the second in judgment and to reign over His enemies with a rod of iron at Jerusalem, an event that has yet to occur to this day.

This point is not about context; it's about CONTINUITY! Whenever there has been a collection of books, comic books in particular, or movies about a particular, familiar, iconic hero, consistency in the story plot is extremely important! Whether we are talking about Superman, Batman, Star Wars, Star Trek, or other such iconic stories, the need for consistency is the same. Readers and viewers will quickly pick up on inconsistencies in the story, if the authors stray too far from the fundamentals. Thus, continuity must be maintained throughout the works or such a stray will require DETAILED EXPLANATIONS for the departure. If the continuity breaks down, so will the loyalty of the readers or viewers. Sequels to books and movies are the authors' and continuity editors' dream of success or nightmare of failure, depending on how well they do!

Such "re-writes" were once thought necessary for the prophetic books of the OT by such men as Origen and Constantine back in the early centuries after the Messiah's first advent. This was the beginning of that interpretive theory called the "Allegorical (or 'Spiritual') Method of Interpretation." They felt it necessary to explain why the OT prophecies were now to be fulfilled in that entity known as the "Church" instead of the nation of Isra'el, and thus "Replacement Theology" was born. This theory was perpetuated and propagated by the success of the early Roman Catholic Church. It also bled into many of the various Reformers who protested against the RCC and therefore trickled down into many of the different Protestant denominations.

The better path (IMO) is to adhere to a "Historical-Grammatical Method of Interpretation" (sometimes erroneously called a "Literal Method of Interpretation" because it uses a literal interpretation as a primary starting point in understanding a book). As such, if a book of the OT, particularly a prophetic book, makes a prophetic claim for Isra'el, and in no place within that book or outside that book but still within the canon of the Scriptures are the recipents for that prophecy changed, then one should accept that the prophetic claim for Isra'el will be fulfilled.

We have to admit that we DO make assumptions, even if we can show that they are valid assumptions. First, we assume that God inspired His prophets to speak on His behalf. We also assume that God is immutable, that is, He does not change from one lifetime to the next. Therefore, we also assume that, when God, through His prophets, speaks on the same subject, that He will be consistent within His prophecies. These are all valid assumptions because of the test of a prophet: If a prophet speaks prophetically claiming that his words are from God, then ALL that he said MUST COME TRUE! If he fails in one prophecy not coming true, then he is to be taken as a false (or lying) prophet, and in ancient Isra'el, he was to be taken out and stoned by the people.

So, in essence, while I agree with you on this point, it's not about context; it's about continuity and consistency in prophecy.

C. Would going back to the OT prophets to study about those events of Christ's two separate times of coming be going out of the Matt.24 chapter context? No. Why not? Because as long as the other Scripture examples stay within the Matt.24 chapter context, then it's an interrelated Message that goes with it.

Again, as in point A above, unless Yeshua` in Matthew 24 quotes an OT passage, making it a part of the context, going outside of Matthew 24 IS going out of context.

D. In Matt.24:15 when our Lord Jesus mentioned the "abomination of desolation" from the Book of Daniel, would it be going out of the Matt.24 chapter's context to go back into Daniel and study about that "abomination of desolation" event? No, since our Lord Jesus included... that event within the Matt.24 chapter's context.

Right. THIS IS within context, because Yeshua` MADE IT A PART of His context! The trick is finding exactly WHERE Yeshua` quoted from in the book of Dani'el, and WHY He quoted it!

E. In Matt.24:33-34 Jesus said that generation would not pass until all "these things" (signs) are fulfilled. Would saying that those things (signs) were meant only for the days of those disciples back then be straying from the chapter's context? Yes, How? Because the generation He pointed to involves when all... of those signs He gave come to pass, the very last sign being about His second coming and our gathering to Him, which also reveals just what "end of the world" timing was meant too.

Here, you've made a technical error. You've assumed that Yeshua` was always speaking to a future generation, when He spoke to His disciples and answered their questions. However, that is not the case. There are many times within the chapter when He is speaking specifically and directly to the men (and women) standing and sitting right there around Him. He was, after all, answering THEIR questions! I agree with you that at least SOME of the things He spoke about were not to be fulfilled until a future date, and He implied a future date far off in the future; however, whenever He used the pronouns and the parts of speech that directed His answers to the disciples, He was specifically speaking TO His disciples, for THEIR lifetime! Wouldn't it be odd for Him not to warn them about the more immediate threats of the Roman occupation?

Can you see how staying within that Matt.24 chapter's context is still very specific, even though it may take us on a journey to many other related Scriptures in other Books of God's Word?

Those unlearned in all of God's Word are most subject to deceptions by false prophets that intentionally stray away from a Bible chapter's context. It's simply because the Biblically illiterate are not familiar enough with other Scripture that is related, vs. Scripture that is not related in context.

Context is defined as "1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specified word or passage and can influence its meaning or effect. 2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc."

Now, I understand how you might like to take the whole Bible as though it was one Book, and it is in a sense, because God is the Author of it all; however, when we are dealing with words and phrases and sentences and subjects written in human languages by human authors, however influenced and inspired of God, we must consider each individual book written by each individual author separately and distinctly, first. Therefore, a "context" of a verse or chapter are the verses and/or chapters preceding or following the verse or chapter in focus.

While I will grant you that a student of God's Word needs to understand that the Scriptures are a consistent set of messages, that is not the context. That is the continuity and consistency of the Scriptures.

 

[JLB]

Retrobyter wrote -


Technically, it's NO. Strictly speaking, staying within a context is staying within the chapter or even the surrounding chapters within a book. When one strays to another author, even an author under inspiration, one assumes that they are saying the same thing, but that assumption is not logically valid. First, no two people have exactly the same vocabulary, even if they speak the same language. Second, themes between the works of the two authors may be significantly different, even if they use some of the same language and/or words. Furthermore, even two works by the same author may have very different themes and therefore have different meanings to words being used, even if the same person wrote them both! It is a dangerous prospect, interpretively speaking, to involve a second person into the mix, or even a second work by the same author! One assumes too much in the prospect.

While it is possible to determine similar themes in two separate works by two different authors or even by one author at different times in his life, one must be sure that they are both "on the same page" enough to warrant a matching of passages and be very careful in the formulation of a connection between the two. A case in point is James' thoughts on "works" versus Paul's thoughts on "works." At face value, one might assume that these two authors contradict each other UNTIL one discovers how each defines "works." (Part of the problem is in the English translations.) Paul contrasts "works" with "grace" (Ephesians 2:8-9), but James contrasts "works" with "words alone" (James 2:14-18). This is a fairly obvious example, but different texts of prophecy may not be so easily rectified.


Your explanation could be valid with naturally inspired books, however, The Holy Spirit is The Author of all sacred text.



Thanks, JLB

 

[veteran]

i know where you are coming from but how do you explain these verses and how they fit in to what is being said.

[sup]1[/sup]JESUS DEPARTED from the temple [sup][a][/sup]area and was going on His way when His disciples came up to Him to call His attention to the buildings of the temple and point them out to Him.
[sup]2[/sup]But He answered them, Do you see all these? Truly I tell you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.

Jesus does not even answer the disciples question concerning the temple so what are these 2 verses saying?

I truly don't understand how in the world you could say that He didn't answer their question. His answer was that a day would come when there literally won't be one stone standing on top of another there at that temple mount. Even today, there's still huge stones standing on top of another from structures connected to that old 2nd temple mount complex. It's called the Wailing Wall.

Furthermore, He also foretold about the "abomination of desolation" idol that's to sit in a Jewish temple upon that spot, in connection with false worship to another. Antiochus Epiphanes of 165-170 B.C. was a blueprint for that event. Jesus even gave a ballpark timing when to start looking for the fulfillment of those signs He gave there for the generation of His future second coming. It's all layed out simply. And He was speaking none of that to the scribes and Pharisees, but only to His Apostles and disciples that were upon the Mount of Olives with Him.

if you forget who Jesus is talking to in matt 23 but look at what he is talking about you will see that Jesus charged them that they will pay for their evil deeds. it is almost like Jesus was thinking about what is to come because of the religious leader's disobedience and when leaving the disciples commented on the temple(probably to refer to the magnificence of the temple. history shows that the temple was a wonder to look upon) and Jesus foresaw what would come to pass and so he told the disciples(they were looking at outward appearances) that the temple would be brought down to utter destruction(this i believe brought them back to what is important). this would help explain why Jesus never answered their question of when the temple would end up being destroyed. Jesus would not of answered the question if what he said was meant to be a lesson.

Jesus did mark the time when all... those signs He gave in Matt.24 would happen; the generation that sees His second coming, the last generation of this present world. That's what His parable of a fig tree was about. Those who think some of those Matt.24 events involving the temple already happened in 69 A.D. with the Romans destructions haven't read enough of Josephus' history of that, nor pay attention to the specific time markers Christ gave there for when those 7 signs are to come to pass. The 2nd temple burned with a fire starting inside... it, while the Roman army was trying to sieze it entact. They never fulfilled the "abomination of desolation" event from the Book of Daniel. But those who would 'rather' believe different are determined to make it so, regardless of what the Scripture and history actually states.

 

[7angels]

I truly don't understand how in the world you could say that He didn't answer their question. His answer was that a day would come when there literally won't be one stone standing on top of another there at that temple mount. Even today, there's still huge stones standing on top of another from structures connected to that old 2nd temple mount complex. It's called the Wailing Wall.

this is something i need to check out before i can reply properly. Jesus refers to the buildings of the temple and not the temple itself. verse one tells that they were referring to the building of the temple.

Furthermore, He also foretold about the "abomination of desolation" idol that's to sit in a Jewish temple upon that spot, in connection with false worship to another. Antiochus Epiphanes of 165-170 B.C. was a blueprint for that event. Jesus even gave a ballpark timing when to start looking for the fulfillment of those signs He gave there for the generation of His future second coming. It's all layed out simply. And He was speaking none of that to the scribes and Pharisees, but only to His Apostles and disciples that were upon the Mount of Olives with Him.

Jesus did mark the time when all... those signs He gave in Matt.24 would happen; the generation that sees His second coming, the last generation of this present world. That's what His parable of a fig tree was about. Those who think some of those Matt.24 events involving the temple already happened in 69 A.D. with the Romans destructions haven't read enough of Josephus' history of that, nor pay attention to the specific time markers Christ gave there for when those 7 signs are to come to pass. The 2nd temple burned with a fire starting inside... it, while the Roman army was trying to sieze it entact. They never fulfilled the "abomination of desolation" event from the Book of Daniel. But those who would 'rather' believe different are determined to make it so, regardless of what the Scripture and history actually states.

your history is incorrect. the romans destroyed the temple and there was a high ranking roman officer(i am pretty sure it was an officer) tried to save the temple but by the time he got there the roman troops had already destroyed it.

 

[JLB]

Which would make the wailing wall a figment of everybody's imagination.

 

[veteran]

this is something i need to check out before i can reply properly. Jesus refers to the buildings of the temple and not the temple itself. verse one tells that they were referring to the building of the temple.

your history is incorrect. the romans destroyed the temple and there was a high ranking roman officer(i am pretty sure it was an officer) tried to save the temple but by the time he got there the roman troops had already destroyed it.

Matt 24:1
1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
(KJV)

"buildings" is Greek okiodome, and means architecture, a compound Greek word.


A witness by the Jewish historian Josephus about the temple's destruction (by Barnes):

Titus was desirous of preserving the temple, and frequently sent Josephus to the Jews to induce them to surrender and save the temple and city. But the prediction of the Saviour had gone forth, and, notwithstanding the wish of the Roman general, the temple was to be destroyed. The Jews themselves first set fire to the porticoes of the temple. One of the Roman soldiers, without any command, threw a burning firebrand into the golden window, and soon the temple was in flames. Titus gave orders to extinguish the fire; but, amid the tumult, none of the orders were obeyed. The soldiers pressed to the temple, and neither fear nor entreaties, nor stripes could restrain them. Their hatred of the Jews urged them on to the work of destruction, and thus, says Josephus, the temple was burned against the will of Caesar.-Jewish Wars, b. 6 chapter 4, section 5-7.
(from Barnes' Notes, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)


Thus the temple caught fire and was destroyed before the Romans could ever gain access inside it. The Daniel "abomination of desolation" event our Lord Jesus quoted as one of the signs in Matt.24 requires... a standing Jewish temple to fulfill it. Alas, the Orthodox Jews in today's Jerusalem have the materials all ready to build another one, even with the cornerstones already cut (see Temple Mount Faithful and Land of Israel website).