The short answer
No — the Second Coming did not already happen in AD 70. The idea that it did is called full preterism, and it collapses under the weight of what Scripture actually promises the return will accomplish. The Bible describes Christ's coming as a visible, world-transforming event: the dead are raised, all nations are gathered and judged, and creation itself is set free from its bondage to decay (Romans 8:19-23). None of that occurred in the year Jerusalem fell. Perhaps most tellingly, the Christians who lived through AD 70 did not treat it as the return; the early church continued to long for the coming as a future hope, precisely as they had before.
Yet the preterist reading is not built on nothing. Jesus really did predict a catastrophe within his own generation, and that catastrophe really did arrive in AD 70. The mistake is to fold two distinct things into one — a near judgment on Jerusalem and a far, universal return — because they appear side by side in the same prophetic discourse. This essay separates them: what Jesus foretold about the temple, what he promised about his coming, why AD 70 satisfies the first but not the second, and how the Divine Principle frames a return that is still ahead of us and still to be completed on earth.
What preterism actually claims
Preterism, from the Latin for "past," is the belief that end-times prophecy was fulfilled long ago, primarily in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. It comes in two very different strengths, and confusing them causes most of the argument. Partial preterism holds that many of the New Testament's prophecies of imminent judgment — especially in Matthew 24 and much of Revelation — were fulfilled in the first century, while still affirming a genuinely future bodily return of Christ, a future resurrection of the dead, and a future final judgment. This is a view held by a number of orthodox Christians. Full preterism, by contrast, claims that every end-times prophecy, the Second Coming and the resurrection included, was already completed in AD 70, leaving nothing prophetic still to come.
It is full preterism that answers our question with a flat "yes, it already happened," and it is full preterism that the overwhelming majority of Christian traditions reject as being outside the historic faith. One conservative assessment notes plainly that "Christians alive during A.D. 70, as well as the church fathers, believed the Second Coming was a future event" and "over and over they refer to it as a future event" (see NeverThirsty's survey of the question). If the return had truly occurred, the generation that witnessed it would have said so. Their unbroken forward-looking hope is itself strong evidence against the claim.
The "this generation" argument
The strongest verse in the preterist case is Matthew 24:34: "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." If "all these things" includes the Second Coming, and "this generation" means the people then living, then the return had to occur before roughly AD 70 — and so, the argument runs, it must have. The logic is tidy, but it rests on reading a single sentence apart from the conversation it belongs to. In Matthew 24 the disciples ask Jesus two questions at once: "when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" (Matthew 24:3). Jesus answers both, weaving together a near event and a far one.
Read in that light, "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" most naturally attaches to the near event he had just described in vivid detail — the siege of Jerusalem, the flight to the mountains, the desolation of the temple. That did happen within that generation. But the same discourse also reaches past it to something unmistakably universal: "as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man" (Matthew 24:27), a coming that "all the tribes of the earth" will see (Matthew 24:30). A local judgment fulfils the first horizon; a global, visible return answers the second. The verse does not prove the coming is past — it proves the fall of Jerusalem was near.
Why AD 70 does not fit the promise
The decisive problem for full preterism is not any single proof text but the sheer scope of what the New Testament says the return will do. Paul ties it to the resurrection of believers: "the dead in Christ will rise" and the living will be changed "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet" (1 Corinthians 15:52). He ties it to the liberation of the whole created order: creation "waits with eager longing" and will "be set free from its bondage to corruption" (Romans 8:19-21). Nothing remotely like a general resurrection or a renewed creation happened in AD 70. Graves were not emptied; the world went on aging and dying exactly as before. A "return" that leaves death fully in charge has not delivered what Scripture promises.
The manner of the coming is a second obstacle. At the ascension the angels told the watching disciples, "This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven" (Acts 1:11) — personally and openly, not as an invisible spiritual transaction buried inside a military siege. Even critics who take the destruction of Jerusalem seriously conclude that AD 70, for all its horror, is a "prophetic dead end" for the full-preterist claim, because the promised worldwide, resurrection-bringing return simply did not occur (see this examination of the AD 70 view). This is closely connected to the broader question we take up in whether we can know when Jesus will return: the return is a real future event, not one we can quietly relocate to the past.
What did happen in AD 70
None of this means AD 70 was insignificant. On the contrary, it was one of the most consequential moments in biblical history, and Jesus foretold it with startling precision. Looking at the temple, he said, "there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down" (Matthew 24:2). Within a generation the Roman general Titus besieged Jerusalem, the city fell, and the temple was burned to the ground, ending the sacrificial system that had stood at the centre of Israel's worship. This was a genuine act of divine judgment on a nation that had, as a whole, rejected its Messiah — a sober fulfilment of Jesus' warnings over Jerusalem.
But a judgment within history is not the same as the coming that ends and renews history. The fall of Jerusalem vindicated Jesus' prophetic word and closed a chapter of the old covenant order; it did not raise the dead, gather the nations, or establish the Kingdom of God on earth. Recognising this keeps two truths together without confusing them: Jesus was a true prophet whose near predictions came to pass exactly, and Jesus is also the returning Lord whose great promise is still to be fulfilled. The error of full preterism is to cash the whole promise at the smaller event — to mistake the judgment on one city for the redemption of the world.
The Divine Principle view of the return
The Divine Principle sharpens why the return must still lie ahead: it exists to complete what remains unfinished. God's original purpose was a world of true love — the Kingdom of Heaven realised on earth, where mature human beings live in full relationship with God and one another. That purpose was interrupted by the Fall and has been carried forward through the long providence of restoration. Jesus came to accomplish it, but his rejection and crucifixion meant that the outward establishment of that Kingdom on earth was left to be finished at his return. The Second Coming, in this view, is precisely the completion of salvation history — not a symbolic past event, but the actual fulfilment of God's creative purpose. We trace that goal in what the second coming will accomplish.
This is why the "already happened" claim rings hollow against the world we live in. If the return were complete, we would expect to see the Kingdom of Heaven realised — a world healed of sin, division, and death. Instead the world still groans, exactly as Paul said it would until its liberation. Far from settling Christian hope into the past, the Divine Principle calls believers to prepare for a real, future return that finishes the work, drawing the same distinction we explore in how Jesus will return. The right response to AD 70 is not to conclude that the story is over, but to recognise that its greatest chapter — the establishment of God's Kingdom on earth — is still being written.
Frequently asked questions
Did the Second Coming already happen in AD 70?
No. Full preterism claims it did, but the promised return raises the dead, judges all nations, and frees creation from decay (Romans 8:19-23) — none of which happened in AD 70. The believers who lived through the fall of Jerusalem kept awaiting the coming as future. What occurred in AD 70 was the judgment on Jerusalem that Jesus foretold, not his promised return.
What is the difference between partial and full preterism?
Partial preterism holds that many first-century judgment prophecies were fulfilled in AD 70 while still expecting a future bodily return, resurrection, and final judgment — a view held by some orthodox Christians. Full preterism claims every end-times prophecy, the Second Coming included, was completed in AD 70, leaving nothing future. Full preterism is rejected by the great majority of Christian traditions.
Does "this generation" in Matthew 24:34 mean the return was in AD 70?
No. In Matthew 24 Jesus answers two questions — the destruction of the temple and the sign of his coming. "This generation will not pass away until all these things take place" fits the near event, the fall of Jerusalem, which did occur within that generation. The same chapter also describes a visible, worldwide coming (Matthew 24:27, 30) that was not fulfilled then.
Why is AD 70 not the Second Coming?
Because it produced none of what Scripture says the return accomplishes: no resurrection of the dead, no gathering and judging of all nations, no renewed creation, and no visible coming "in the same way" Jesus ascended (Acts 1:11). AD 70 was a real judgment within history — the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple — not the coming that ends and renews history.
Is the Second Coming still future?
Yes. Scripture, the early church, and the Divine Principle all treat the return as still ahead. In the Divine Principle view its purpose is to complete God's providence of restoration and establish the Kingdom of Heaven on earth — the world of true love the Fall interrupted. Since that Kingdom has plainly not yet been realised on earth, the central promise of the return remains unfulfilled and calls us to prepare.