Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 7
On Jesus’ words “not one stone shall be left…upon another,” the speaker stresses how unusual it is for a temple to leave “no stones at all,” and he resolves the “Wailing Wall” objection by calling it Herod’s retaining wall, “not…part of the temple”; how does this detail change how you read Jesus’ prophecy, and what does it suggest about how early Christians might have handled apparent counterexamples?
Another way to ask: If the “Wailing Wall” is called a retaining wall and not part of the temple, how does that affect how you read Jesus’ “not one stone” prophecy? What does this suggest about how early Christians dealt with things that looked like objections?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
It tightens the prophecy: Jesus wasn’t merely predicting damage but an unusually complete removal of the temple structure itself, and the Wailing Wall doesn’t weaken that because it isn’t temple masonry. It suggests believers can answer counterexamples by careful investigation and clarifying what a claim actually refers to.
- Jesus’ wording is quoted: “not one stone shall be left here upon another that shall not be thrown down.”
- The speaker argues this is rare: most ruined temples still have “columns… stones on top of stones” (examples: Mayan, Aztec, Ephesus, Parthenon).
- He says fulfillment is extreme: “there is nothing, absolutely… There’s no stones at all. Nothing exists from the temple.”
- He addresses the objection personally: “I’d always wondered… what about the Wailing Wall?”
- The guide’s explanation: it was “not part of the temple… part of Herod’s retaining wall… holding dirt up… Gentiles could touch it.”