The Destruction of the Second Temple and the Reformation of Jewish Identity
The destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD was not merely a catastrophic historical event; it marked a profound theological and eschatological turning point for both Judaism and Christianity. While Christian preterist perspectives often see this event as the fulfillment of biblical prophecies, ushering in the New Covenant and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in a spiritual sense, the Jewish response was far more complex. The loss of the Temple forced a reevaluation of religious practice, identity, and eschatological hope. Rabbinic tradition, shaped by figures such as Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, Rabbi Akiva, and later Saadia Gaon, reconstructed Judaism in a way that did not rely on the physical sanctuary. However, unresolved questions from biblical prophecies, especially those found in the Book of Daniel, continued to provoke debate and interpretation among Jewish scholars.
Yet, the preterist framework, especially as articulated by thinkers like Philip Mauro and compiled in resources such as the Preterist Archive, often neglects or mischaracterizes the Jewish response to 70 AD. Preterism views the fall of Jerusalem as the definitive end of the Old Covenant and the beginning of an entirely new era, but this perspective fails to engage with how Judaism itself interpreted these events. Many early and medieval Christian interpretations disregarded the fact that Jewish tradition did not see the destruction as an abandonment by God but as a reformation of covenantal identity. The survival of Judaism post-70 AD directly challenges the sweeping claims of full preterism, demonstrating that the covenantal relationship between God and Israel was not terminated, but transformed.
This disregard for the Jewish perspective in preterist thought is part of a broader tendency within Christian eschatology to frame Judaism as a vestigial faith, superseded by the Church. However, the very survival and theological evolution of Judaism after 70 AD presents a fundamental challenge to this assumption. While preterists argue that the destruction of the Temple was the definitive sign that God’s covenantal dealings with Israel had ended, Jewish tradition never embraced this interpretation. Instead, rabbinic authorities saw the loss of the Temple as a profound national judgment but not a theological termination. The adaptation of Jewish life, seen in the establishment of the Yavneh academy and the codification of the Mishnah, reflects not a faith that was rejected, but one that was refining itself for a new era. If the destruction of Jerusalem was meant to signal the end of Judaism, then its survival and flourishing into the medieval and modern periods must be reckoned with as an undeniable counterpoint to full preterism’s claims. The endurance of Jewish scholarship, the ongoing debates over Daniel’s prophetic timelines, and the sustained longing for redemption found in Jewish liturgy all indicate that the Jewish covenant was never abrogated—only reoriented.
Yet, this brings up a fundamental theological question: does this process reflect progressive revelation? In Christian theology, progressive revelation suggests that God unveils His plan over time, often in ways that surpass previous understandings, culminating in the arrival of Christ and the New Testament. However, Jewish tradition does not frame history this way. Instead, it views revelation as covenantal continuity with adaptive interpretation—an ongoing engagement with divine truth that does not replace previous revelation but deepens its application. The destruction of the Temple was not the end of the covenant but a shift in how the covenant was to be lived. The Torah remained the foundation, and its meaning continued to be explored and applied in new historical contexts.
This is a major point of divergence from full preterism, which insists that 70 AD represents a completed eschatology, with no further fulfillment of prophecy to expect. Judaism, on the other hand, sees history as ongoing, not yet reaching its final redemption. If we were to frame this in terms of Augustine’s philosophy of history, the Jewish perspective maintains a teleological view—history is moving toward a goal—but it does not assume that goal has already been reached. The very structure of Jewish timekeeping reflects this. The Jewish calendar, currently in the 5800s, still anticipates the completion of the 6000-year framework that many traditions hold will mark the Messianic Age. This view suggests that we are not yet in the final phase of history but rather in a state of preparation, refinement, and expectation.
From this perspective, history remains open-ended, not because it lacks direction, but because the final stage of redemption is still unfolding. This can be seen in the concept of tikkun olam—repairing the world—a responsibility that suggests that human agency and divine fulfillment are still in active interplay. The destruction of the Temple was therefore not the final act of judgment, as preterism assumes, but part of an ongoing process in which Israel and the nations remain participants in history’s divine drama.
This also complicates the evangelical and cessationist worldview, which often struggles with prophetic constraints—the idea that prophecy has ceased and that revelation has been sealed. Full preterism, in particular, embraces a closed eschatological system, in which all biblical prophecy has already been fulfilled. But this perspective creates an internal contradiction: if preterism is forced to redefine biblical eschatology in order to explain why history continued beyond 70 AD, does this not, in some way, reintroduce an open-endedness that its framework seeks to deny? Semi-preterists, who hold that some prophecies were fulfilled but others remain, inadvertently expose this inconsistency. Their view suggests that while 70 AD was a major fulfillment, it was not the fulfillment—there is still something to come. This demonstrates the instability of full preterism as a theological system.
By contrast, Judaism has never had to “revise” its eschatology to accommodate the continued flow of history. The Jewish expectation of redemption has remained intact, even as its form has been refined over centuries. The very fact that Jews still pray for the rebuilding of the Temple, still debate the meaning of Daniel’s prophecies, and still maintain a Messianic expectation indicates that Jewish eschatology was never closed or exhausted by the events of 70 AD.
Thus, when examining the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the real question is not whether it marked the fulfillment of prophecy but how prophecy itself is understood. Christian preterism assumes a one-time eschatological event that reshapes history permanently. Judaism, however, sees prophecy as a continuous engagement, moving toward redemption but not yet reaching its culmination. The idea that we are “given time to get our act together” is deeply embedded in Jewish thought: history is a process in which we are still active participants, not mere observers of a completed past.
In light of this, preterism’s fundamental assumption—that 70 AD was the ultimate eschatological moment—fails to account for the Jewish experience of time and history. The continued survival and theological development of Judaism is itself an argument against the notion that 70 AD marked the end of God’s covenantal dealings with Israel. Instead, history continues, and with it, the expectation of ultimate redemption. This is a reality that neither Christian preterism nor cessationist theology can fully account for, yet it remains at the heart of Jewish eschatology
The Destruction of the Temple: The Jewish Perspective
Jewish tradition preserves vivid accounts of the destruction of the Temple, particularly in the Talmud (Gittin 56b-57a), which attributes the fall of Jerusalem to both Roman aggression and internal Jewish strife, most famously the notion of sinat chinam (baseless hatred). In contrast to Christian preterism, which interprets the destruction as God’s final judgment on Israel and the beginning of a new era, rabbinic Judaism viewed it as a divine punishment but not the end of the covenant. The response was not to discard Judaism as it had been practiced but to adapt and preserve its core tenets.
At the forefront of this transformation was Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, a Pharisaic leader who, according to tradition, secured permission from the Romans to relocate the Sanhedrin to Yavneh. This move effectively shifted the focus of Jewish religious life from the sacrificial system to Torah study, prayer, and acts of loving-kindness. Citing Hosea 6:6—“I desire mercy, not sacrifice”—rabbinic Judaism reinforced the idea that Judaism could survive, and even thrive, without the Temple. This was not merely a theological adjustment; it was a survival strategy.
Rabbi Akiva and the Hope for Messianic Restoration
Even after the destruction of the Temple, Jewish messianic expectations did not fade. The most prominent example of this hope was Rabbi Akiva’s endorsement of Simon Bar Kochba as the Messiah during the Jewish revolt against Rome (132–135 AD). Akiva’s belief demonstrates that within Jewish thought, 70 AD was not seen as the end of prophetic fulfillment but rather a moment of judgment that could still be reversed through national redemption.
However, the failure of the Bar Kochba revolt was devastating. Jewish independence was crushed, Jerusalem was rebuilt as a pagan city, and Jews were banned from the city altogether. This marked a turning point: the rabbis distanced themselves from active messianism, shifting from apocalyptic hopes to a long-term vision of redemption. The messianic age was no longer an imminent expectation but rather something that would unfold at an undetermined time in the future.
Saadia Gaon and the Unfulfilled Prophecies of Daniel
Centuries after the destruction of the Temple, Jewish thinkers continued to wrestle with the eschatological implications of 70 AD. Among them was Saadia Gaon (882–942 AD), one of the most important Jewish philosophers of the medieval period. Saadia struggled with the timeline of the 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel 9, which seemed to suggest a specific period for the redemption of Israel. He attempted to reconcile this with historical events, but the passage remained elusive, indicating that Jewish tradition had not fully resolved the issue.
Saadia’s approach was part of a broader trend in Jewish exegesis: rather than viewing the destruction of the Temple as the final fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecies, Jewish tradition left room for future redemption. Unlike preterism, which tends to see 70 AD as a completed event in salvation history, Jewish thought often viewed it as a significant turning point but not the conclusion of God’s dealings with Israel.
The works compiled in the Preterist Archive and other preterist literature often do not engage with figures like Saadia Gaon or the later kabbalistic interpretations of Daniel. This reflects a broader trend in Christian eschatological discourse—an avoidance of serious engagement with Jewish exegetical traditions, which continued to interpret these same prophecies but arrived at very different conclusions.
The Mishnah as the Jewish Response to Crisis
Another crucial response to the destruction of the Temple was the compilation of the Mishnah (c. 200 AD), a codification of oral traditions that had been at risk of being lost due to the turmoil of the post-Temple era. The destruction of the Temple had not only been a physical and spiritual catastrophe but also an epistemological crisis—many Jewish teachings were transmitted orally, and the devastation threatened their survival.
The Mishnah was a defensive measure to preserve Jewish identity and law in a new world where the Temple no longer existed. This is a stark contrast to the early Christian response: while Christianity saw the destruction as confirmation of a New Covenant, Judaism saw it as a challenge to ensure continuity. The Mishnah and later the Talmud functioned as a new “Temple,” preserving the centrality of Torah study as the heart of Jewish religious life.
Evaluating the Second Temple Period and the Limitations of Preterism
The Second Temple period was not merely a time of Jewish religious practice but a battleground of theological and ideological struggles. The Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and early Christians all viewed the Temple differently, reflecting the diversity of Jewish thought at the time. The destruction of the Temple forced Judaism into a new form, ensuring its survival but leaving unresolved eschatological questions.
For Christianity, 70 AD marked the end of the Old Covenant, the beginning of the New Covenant, and the establishment of a spiritual Kingdom. For Judaism, it was a devastating but ultimately transformative moment, requiring a redefinition of religious life while still holding onto the hope of redemption.
The works of Christian preterists, such as Philip Mauro, and resources like The Preterist Archive, often portray the destruction of the Temple as the definitive conclusion of Jewish eschatology. However, this interpretation overlooks how Jewish thought continued to engage with prophecy long after 70 AD. While preterism sees the destruction of the Temple as a completed event, Jewish thought continues to wrestle with its implications, keeping alive the question of what role, if any, the Temple still has in the unfolding divine plan.
By incorporating the Jewish response into this discussion, we gain a fuller picture—one that acknowledges that history did not simply end in 70 AD but continued to unfold, with both Jewish and Christian traditions continuing to interpret its significance in vastly different ways.
Sources for Further Study:
• Babylonian Talmud: Gittin 56b-57a, Berakhot 17b, Sanhedrin 43a
• Josephus, The Jewish War
• Saadia Gaon, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions
• Neusner, Jacob. Rabbinic Judaism: Structure and System
• Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity
• Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity
