And as some spoke of the temple, that it was adorned with goodly stones and consecrated offerings, he said,
Moments earlier the Lord had watched a poor widow give her two coins to the temple treasury. Now others were admiring the building itself — its fine stonework and its dedicated gifts — and His reply raises a question: what does God value in a place of worship?
Luke does not say the disciples raised the subject. One writer notes that the wording points to a wider group. The title used for the Lord in the next verse supports this:
Wellhausen rightly points out that the question, as Luke's Gospel gives it, came from a wider circle than the disciples alone. Verse 7 bears this out. There the Lord is called "Teacher", while the disciples in Luke's Gospel usually say "Lord" or "Master".
The temple standing then was Herod's — a project decades in the making and the pride of the nation. Writers note both its scale and the character of the men behind it:
Herod's magnificent temple was still not finished, though it had been going up for nearly fifty years. It grew under their eyes, the glory of Israel, despite the murderous hands that built it. The temple still drew them.
A reference work adds the plain verdict on the builder and on those running the worship inside:
It was all on a magnificent scale... Herod was not God's man to build Him a house, nor were the leaders of the Jews fit men to carry on His worship.
The speakers and the Lord looked at one object and saw two different things. One writer puts the misplaced honour like this:
How little man sees as God does! The temple was God's house, but men gave more honour to the house than to its Lord: in fact it had become virtually their house.
Another writer traces the difference to the eye that looks. The Lord had already passed the sentence:
They saw the building, but not with the eye of Christ... He had seen it, and all that surrounded it, with the eye of God. Costly and beautiful beyond compare as it was, He had written its judgment... But the disciples still eyed the beauty of the stones. So Jesus, in patient grace, had to write out the doom of that place again — they had asked, and their eyes could not see as His did.
The chapter's opening scene and this one belong together. The widow had just given everything she had toward the upkeep of a building the Lord was about to condemn:
The widow showed her devotion to God by dropping her two coins into the collection for the upkeep of the temple building. Yet the Lord goes on to foretell its total destruction. The presence of the Lord had already replaced it. God was in Christ, not in Herod's temple. In her understanding the widow was, as we would say, behind the times. Yet this did not spoil the Lord's approval of her gift. He does value whole-hearted devotion, even when it is not expressed with full understanding.
One writer notes that Luke keeps close to the events then coming, and differs in focus from Matthew:
In this Gospel the Lord's account of the sorrows of Jerusalem is tied much more closely to one plain fact: the judgment on the nation and the change of dispensation. It differs greatly from Matthew 24, which refers fully to what will happen at the end... So Luke plainly sets out the siege and destruction by Titus, and the times of the Gentiles.
History confirmed the word to the letter, even against the wishes of the commander on the ground:
Herod's Temple was destroyed... In A.D. 70 Titus, the Roman general, tried to save such a wonderful building, but the divine word had decreed its destruction. The Lord's word was fulfilled to the last detail — not one stone remained on another.
The same admiration can settle on any building. One writer names the danger directly:
Fixing our thoughts on the house, in order to draw attention to it, is a snare. The building often becomes more than the Builder, and the house more than the One who lives in it... So beware of any teaching that makes more of the house than of its Occupant.
- Stones — the fine stonework and the dedicated gifts were real. Herod spent nearly fifty years on the work, and Herod was not God's man to build God a house.
- Sight — the same stones drew admiration from men and a sentence from Christ, who looked at them with the eye of God.
- Substitution — men honoured the house more than its Lord, so it became their house rather than God's.
- Sacrifice — the widow gave her two coins to a doomed building, and the Lord still approved. He values whole-hearted devotion even when understanding lags behind.
- Sentence — Luke ties the prophecy to the siege under Titus. In A.D. 70 not one stone remained on another, just as the Lord said.
[As to] these things which ye are beholding, days are coming in which there shall not be left stone upon stone which shall not be thrown down.
Days before the cross, people admired the temple — its fine stones and the gifts placed in it. Jesus answered with a sentence of total demolition. Why would God let His own house fall? And what does so exact a prediction prove about the One who spoke it?
The building was still magnificent. But its worth had already gone, because the nation had disowned the God whose house it was. One writer ties the sentence to His leaving:
A temple, however splendid, has no value when its God is disowned. Jehovah was there in the person of Jesus, and the nation did not know Him or recognise Him. Where He was recognised, He was rejected. He leaves the temple in sorrow, and whatever Jehovah abandons is truly desolate.
Another writer points out who the people had come to treat as the owner of the building:
The temple was God's house, but people gave more honour to the house than to its Lord. In practice it had become their house.
The disciples and Jesus looked at the same building and saw opposite things. One writer sets the two views side by side:
They saw the building, but not with the eye of Christ... He had seen it, and everything around it, with the eye of God. Expensive as it was, and beautiful beyond compare, He had written its judgment... The disciples still gazed at the beauty of the stones, and Jesus, in patient grace, had to write the doom of that place a second time, because they asked and because their eyes could not see.
Just before this, a poor widow gives two small coins to the temple. One writer keeps the two scenes together, and finds comfort in the mismatch:
The widow showed her devotion to God by putting her two small coins into the collection for the upkeep of the temple building. Yet the Lord goes on to foretell its total destruction. The presence of the Lord had already displaced it. God was in Christ, not in Herod's temple... He does value whole-hearted devotion, even when the way it is expressed shows less than full understanding.
Luke alone records what the disciples said about the gifts on display:
Luke is the only Gospel writer who notes that the disciples spoke to the Lord about the gifts offered to God that decorated the temple. All three writers mention its fine stones or buildings.
His answer then runs along two lines:
Here the question is about the time of the overthrow of the temple, and the sign of it. The answer falls into two parts. Verses 8-24 give the events leading up to the Romans destroying Jerusalem and trampling it down. Verses 25-33 give the appearing of the Son of Man at the end of the age.
A Roman army later took the city. One writer sets the outcome out as a contest between two commands:
Titus gave strict orders that the Temple, that magnificent building... should be preserved. Which would stand: the prophecy of the lowly Jesus, or the commands of the domineering Titus? One was no longer on earth to enforce His wishes, as people would say. The other was on the very spot, with all the power of a victorious army behind him.
Commentators differ on when the last stones went. One writer traces the final clearing of the site to a later hand — an enemy trying to disprove the words:
It is reported that the emperor Julian, who had first embraced Christianity and then rejected it, commissioned many Jews to return and rebuild the temple, to prove Christ's prophecy false. When they found it so badly damaged, they decided to pull it down completely and build it again. So they fulfilled Christ's prophecy to the letter, by taking every stone away.
Another writer sets the words beside what history records:
He foretold the destruction of the Temple, and it happened just as He said. He foretold the terrors of the siege of Jerusalem, and it was the worst in history for bloodshed... Could prophecy be more exact and wonderful? It proves beyond doubt that Christ and the Scriptures are inspired.
- Cause — the nation disowned Christ, and the sentence followed. A building is worth nothing once its God is turned away.
- Blindness — the disciples saw beautiful stones. Christ saw a house already judged, and stated its doom a second time for eyes that would not read it.
- Comfort — the widow gave to a doomed building, and He still valued her gift. He welcomes whole-hearted devotion even when understanding lags behind.
- Structure — the answer has two parts: the Roman destruction in verses 8-24, then the Son of Man appearing in verses 25-33.
- Proof — a victorious general wanted the temple spared and could not save it. The word of the rejected Christ stood, and every stone came down.
And they asked him saying, Teacher, when then shall these things be; and what [is] the sign when these things are going to take place?
The disciples have been admiring the temple's fine stonework. The Lord has just told them that not one stone will remain on another. So they ask: when, and by what sign? The three Gospel writers each report that question differently, and the difference shapes everything that follows.
One commentator ties their admiration for the stones to a deeper blindness:
The natural, earthbound thoughts of men then come out in another direction. Some drew attention to the decorations of the temple with its attractive and expensive stones and ornaments. How little man sees as God does! The temple was God's house, but men gave more honour to the house than to its Lord: in fact it had become virtually their house. The Lord pronounced solemn judgment upon it: there would not be left one stone upon another.
In Matthew the same question follows a different conversation:
In Matthew, Jesus had just spoken of the Jews' house being left desolate. He had also spoken of His own departure, until they should receive Him as the one coming "in the name of the Lord." Then someone points Him to the temple, and He foretells its ruin. So the disciples ask, "When will these things be? And what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" Here the leading thought is the "end of the age," and the Lord's reappearance after His predicted withdrawal. In Luke, however, Jesus has not been speaking of His departure or return, but simply foretelling the overthrow of the temple.
This does not mean one writer got it wrong:
All three tell us He was asked about the desolation of the temple. But Matthew and Mark add questions about what is still future, while Luke keeps to questions about what is now past. Luke tells us the questions were about the beginning of Jerusalem's troubles, not the end of them. There is no real difficulty here. All these questions were doubtless put to Him. But each writer records the ones that match the Lord's reply, as the Spirit guided him.
Because Luke keeps the narrower question, he keeps a body of detail no other Gospel gives:
Notice that the Holy Spirit inspired the writer to drop the question about the coming of the Son of man and the completion of the age. As with Mark, they ask when the destruction of the temple will be, and the sign of its beginning. The Lord fully replies, but as usual gives much more... On the other hand, only here do we get clear light on the coming siege and capture of Jerusalem by the Romans. Only here do we read of its later shameful subjection, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
The Lord gives the sign thirteen verses later:
In verse 20 He says: "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near." Here is the plain reply to the only part of the disciples' question which Luke records. Armies surrounding Jerusalem would be the sign that its desolation was near.
Their request for a date exposes a common blind spot:
This coming destruction shows that Christ had not come to establish His kingdom. Yet they asked Him when these things would take place. People usually want to know the order of events. They are not concerned about the moral issues behind those events. They asked for a sign, little realising that present moral and spiritual conditions matter most in God's future judgments.
He warns them about a promise of rest that comes too early:
"Watch out," He says, "people will be promising you rest before rest comes." ... The Lord here anticipates the very same thing. He says, "Now, do not mistake. The time cannot draw near until there has been judgment." And that is what I am bold to say to the world now. You are not going to have a kingdom — the time of glory is not drawing near; nor will it, until judgment has purged the earth.
- Stones — The disciples honoured the building above its Lord. That misplaced admiration drew out the whole prophecy.
- Question — Luke records only the narrow half of what was asked: when the temple falls, and by what sign. Matthew adds the question about His coming and the end of the age.
- Selection — All the questions were really asked. Each writer keeps the ones that match the answer he records.
- Sign — Luke's answer arrives at verse 20: armies encircling Jerusalem, and after that the city's long subjection until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
- Warning — Before any date, the Lord says: do not be fooled. Wanting a timetable is not being ready. Glory never comes before judgment.