The argument that most or even all of the New Testament was written before AD 70 is very compelling when you consider that the only event bigger than the destruction of the temple in AD 70 was the advent, death and resurrection of Christ. But that event is more famous in retrospect than it was when it happened to most ordinary people. On the scale of newsworthy events in the first century for the average Roman reading their first century equivalent of The Daily Mail, or The Daily Planet, no event was more famous than the destruction of the temple. Nothing. It was the most famous event in Rome for at least a couple of centuries.

In fact, once that event happened, the Church exploded in size. Because Christians pointed to that event and pointed to the words of Jesus, which the churches were already sharing and preaching, and said, “See! Told you. Jesus predicted that.” This had been an integral part of the early Church’s message since the ascension of Jesus Christ.

Predicting the destruction of the temple in AD 33 would be like predicting the moon would fall from the sky. No one, not a person, who did not trust Jesus would have believed it even possible. Because even the Romans loved the temple, and they protected it. And yet it happened.

The love of the Romans for ancient religions, including the Jewish faith, is forgotten by many today. Many people forget that Rome originally took over Judea in relatively friendly circumstances, and the house of Caesar had a close affinity with the Herodians who ruled Judea in the first century. Remember, the Jewish faith had a favoured status as a religion in first-century Rome. In fact, in Josephus, it is even recorded that Titus tried to stop the fire that destroyed the temple. This might have been propaganda, but even if it was, this still proves that the Romans did not want to be held responsible for destroying such an ancient symbol of worship.

Christians would tell people that this is what happens to those who ignore Jesus’ words, and people were convinced in large numbers, because they were already aware that the church was teaching that this would happen. It is predicted in Matthew, Mark and Luke, and arguably in Revelation as well.

That is a very compelling argument that the New Testament was written very early. I have long resisted the idea of Revelation being written before AD 90. But the evidence is increasing that it was, because it teaches the destruction of Jerusalem in cryptic rather than explicit terms. In the 90s, it was not even controversial to talk about the subject. But in the 50s and 60s, Christianity was still a relatively small group of people being hunted by the Pharisees and their cronies, who had more power and influence in ancient Rome than many people realise, as well.

Compare this to how prophecy is handled today. Many people take ancient fulfilled prophecies and then tie them artificially to modern events and make outrageous claims that come crashing down. Just a few months ago, I saw people claiming that Israel’s strikes on Iran were the beginning of the liberation of Christianity in Iran. I was shocked that people were saying this and saying it seriously. Of course, nothing of the kind happened, but they saw all of this as part of the “prophetic plan of God”. Right now, foolish people are again putting a date on the return of Christ in late September. Many examples could be given.

But this type of handling of prophecy, instead of gaining great momentum for the church, gains great mockery. Don’t get me wrong, many Christians were mocked in the first century for believing Jesus’ message, including that the temple would be destroyed. But at least they had the sure words of Jesus to rely on. Taking words of his that have obviously been fulfilled and again giving them a forward date does great damage to the fact that his words were fulfilled. It removes their power as a testimony that we can trust his predictions because they have been shown to be correct.

We might learn more from the church of the past in showing how the Son of God’s word was fulfilled in the very generation he said it would be. When we approach these passages with greater care in showing how Jesus’ message was vindicated, we place our teaching on much firmer ground. When we argue that we have some kind of secret prophetic code for understanding conflicts happening in the Middle East today, even though such predictions keep being shown to be wrong, we do great damage to the witness of the church.