The Tanach (Old Testament) discusses the Messianic Era, but doesn't say how long it will be. Daniel is the only book describing anything about the False Messiah. Why does the Tanach have so little to say about the end times and the New Testament have so much more in comparison?
Perhaps it had not yet been appointed yet. Pehaps part of the reason the book of Revelation did not get revealed until about 90AD is that the timing of the events had not been appointed yet. There is a theory that suggests that Yeshua was giving Israel a chance to repent and accept Him as Messiah. If they did that after His resurrection, He would set up His kingdom on earth THEN. But because they did not, He destroyed the temple in 70 AD and only after that judgment was decreed did He appoint the timing of the rest of the End Time events, including the length of the Messianic Kingdom.
The Talmud has this to say in support of this possible theory....
R. Alexandri said: R.Joshua b. Levi pointed
out a contradiction. It is written,
"In its time [will the Messianic Kingdom come],"whilst it is also written,
"I [the L-RD] will hasten it!"
If they are worthy, I will hasten
it; if not, [it will come] at the due time.
[b.San. 98a]and
"The school of Elijah teaches:
The world is to exist 6000 years.
In the first 2000 years was chaos;
2000 years the Torah flourished;
and the next 2000 years are the
days of the Messiah, but through
our many iniquities all these years
have been lost. "
[b.San. 96a-97b]So is the Talmud saying that God WANTED to set up Messiah's Kingdom on earth about 2000 years ago, but because they rejected Him as a nation, He did not and instead delayed the second coming? One could interpret it this way, though does that mean He would reign on earth over Israel for 2000 years and then the whole world for the last 1000? Hard to say exactly.
Is there Biblical evidence for this? Well, not directly, but it would explain several things.
"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no,
not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."
(Matt 24:36)Some manuscripts add "nor the Son", but this isn't in all manuscripts. Perhaps it was necessary for Yeshua to tell His disciples that it was not for them to know the timing because.....it had not been set yet...because it depended on Israel's repentence, and they were not to have foreknowledge of how that would turn out.
In perhaps an even bigger hint is
“Lord, will You at this time restore the
kingdom to Israel?” And He said to them,
“It is not for you to know times or seasons
which the Father has put in His own authority.
But you shall receive power when the Holy
Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be
witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all
Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the
earth.” (Acts 1:6-8)Note that He refused to answer the question, but merely said it was not for them to know the answer. Could that be because it was dependent on Israel's repentence, and they were not to get foreknowledge of whether Israel would repent, since foreknowledge could ruin opportunity. And note that immediately after asking, he responds with how they would be witnesses to Israel -> the very thing necessary for them to repent!!!!
If the timing depended on what Israel did, it would explain why the book of Revelation was not given until AFTER the destruction of the temple, and much after Israel had time to put God's Plan A in place. Perhaps Revelation was a revelation of "Plan B".
There is another variable in this in that Yeshua told us the "Plan A" timing would be shortened for a more practical reason.
"unless those days were shortened,
no flesh would be saved; but for
the elect’s sake those days will be
shortened" (Matt 24:22)I am not saying this IS the case, but it is an interesting theory to consider.
Shalom,
Joe