The Destruction of the Temple and Messianic Expectations: Navigating Jewish Apocalyptic Hope and Preterism

How did the Messianic Jews viewed the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and how it related to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Did they expected the Messiah to return during their lifetime or around that time? It's a thought-provoking question because it seems clear, objectively speaking, that the apostles likely expected the return of Jesus in their own lifetime. They didn't seem to anticipate the destruction of the temple as an event distinct from Christ’s return, despite teachings such as Matthew 24. When it became evident that Jesus didn't return immediately following the destruction, their faith was undoubtedly tested, but like many other believers in history, they adjusted their timeline. Instead of abandoning their faith, they shifted their expectations forward, continuing to trust in God’s promises and his faithfulness.

We see this process in the New Testament writings that follow 70 AD, such as the Book of Revelation, where John reaffirms apocalyptic expectations, even after the temple’s destruction. This was reminiscent of how the Jews reacted when they returned from Babylon under Cyrus. Initially, they believed the prophetic promises were about to be fulfilled, only to face disappointment when the rebuilt temple paled in comparison to Solomon’s Temple. What they anticipated was everything that Jeremiah and Ezekiel said. Yet, God raised up new prophets, like Zechariah, Haggai and Malachi, to remind them that the promises were still in the future. Likewise, the apostles and their followers in the early church reoriented their eschatological hopes to the future, continuing to anticipate the return of Christ.

Another intriguing aspect of this conversation comes from historical accounts by Josephus and Tacitus. They both describe supernatural occurrences around the time of the temple's destruction—visions of riders and chariots in the sky. While some use these accounts to support preterist views, which claim that many biblical prophecies were fulfilled in 70 AD, these descriptions were not necessarily interpreted as the second coming of Christ. These sightings should not be interpreted as the second coming of Christ. In other words, these visions of armies were not affirming the prophecy from books like Enoch or Zechariah, where it is foretold that the Lord will return with thousands of His holy ones (often understood as the return of the Messiah with heavenly armies at the end of time).

This statement clarifies that the visions of armies or chariots in the sky, often cited in historical accounts, should not be interpreted as specifically Christian or Jewish events or affirmations of religious prophecy. Instead, these sightings were part of ancient discussions surrounding battles, and they were understood as symbols of divine judgment across various cultures. Historical parallels can be found in biblical passages like 2 Kings 6:17, where God opens a servant’s eyes to see a heavenly army of chariots, or in 2 Maccabees 5, which describes similar supernatural phenomena during Antiochus’s invasion of Egypt. These kinds of accounts were meant to emphasize divine judgment, not necessarily to assert that apocalyptic prophecies had been entirely fulfilled.

Preterism, particularly the full preterist view that claims all biblical prophecies, including the second coming, were fulfilled in 70 AD with the destruction of the temple, and it tends to focus on the negative aspects of realized eschatology. A partial preterist view would say that only some of the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in 70 AD. In contrast, realized eschatology often emphasizes the positive aspects, such as the establishment of God’s kingdom. Scholars like N.T. Wright may acknowledge that Jesus fulfilled Israel’s hopes and inaugurated the eschatological age, but preterists (Don Preston, Ken Gentry) argue that he doesn’t take his conclusions far enough, stopping short of full preterism. They will say N.T. Wright acknoweldges that Jesus fulfilled the hopes of Israel, that Jesus inaugurated the eschatology of Israel, but he won’t take it to its logical conclusion…full preterism. If 70 AD was the actualization of the Jewish narrative, second-century Jews did not apparently understand this reality. Interestingly, the second-century believers didn’t seem to adopt any form of realized eschatology either as their writings indicate no hint of realized eschatology. Instead, they held to a futuristic understanding of biblical prophecies, which suggests that the first-century church also maintained these apocalyptic eschatological hopes. Oddly enough, modern theologians will look back at second century writings and suggest that the second century believers did not catch on to what was really going on. How is that possible? They knew the apostles and they are the ones who gave us the Bible. How can we suggest that they missed something or got it wrong?

Looking at Israel's history and the cyclical pattern of covenant breaking and divine discipline, as laid out in the Torah, helps us understand why it’s incorrect to assume that everything was fulfilled in 70 AD. Moses and the prophets foresaw a final intervention by God to bring an end to this cycle of covenant breaking, culminating in the Messiah’s return. This is the exact pattern and expectation that Moses laid out in Dueteronomy. The destruction of the temple in 70 AD, though significant, was merely another step in this recurring pattern of judgment and repentance, not the ultimate fulfillment. Understanding this broader biblical context prevents us from prematurely concluding that all prophecies were completed at that time. Instead, we continue to look forward to the future fulfillment of God’s promises.

In light of Israel's history and the biblical pattern of covenant breaking, divine judgment, and eventual restoration, it becomes clear that the events of 70 AD were significant but not the final fulfillment of prophecy. The destruction of the temple was another instance of divine discipline within the cycle outlined in the Torah. However, Moses and the prophets anticipated a future, climactic intervention by God, culminating in the Messiah’s return. By understanding this broader context, we avoid the conclusion that all prophecies were fulfilled in 70 AD and continue to look forward to the ultimate fulfillment of God’s promises in the future. The early church and second-century believers maintained this eschatological hope, reminding us that the Messiah’s return and the establishment of God’s kingdom are still to come.