We have been taught time and time again by popular works, ranging from The Late Great Planet Earth to the Left Behind series, and now also in books like John MacArthur's The Second Coming, that the quotes from Matthew and parallels concern a Temple yet built, a coming yet made, and a tribulation yet suffered.

But is it? And is partial preterist eschatology just an "excuse" to cover up an error by Jesus?

The charge implies that the interpretation is somehow "new," a construction invented by modern believers who are resisting the past. Actually, dispensationalism and its own idea of a Rapture are the new kids on the block; the idea that much of the Olivet Discourse and other passages refer to 70 AD events has a much longer pedigree. Commentators such as Lightfoot (1859), Newton (1754), and Gill (1809) predated dispensationalism and agreed that 70 AD was in view in these passages. To be sure, some in the early church held a view that what was recounted in places like the Olivet Discourse was a reference to a far-flung future event (though their views didn't match exactly with dispensationalism); but others held views akin to partial preterism as well, so this view is not a new view, but an older one revived.

Research has confirmed to me that the partial preterist standpoint of eschatology -- the idea that much of the localized prophecy of the Bible was fulfilled in 70 AD, prefiguring the ultimate and final Second Coming -- is the correct one.

All of what is recorded here is inarguably related to the statement of Jesus in the previous verse concerning the Temple's destruction -- with the exception of one argument. Mark and Luke provide no distraction, but Matthew, so it seems from the KJV, records Jesus as referring to the "thy coming" and to the "end of the world." Isn't this clear evidence of the dispensational view? No, it isn't. These considerations, first, about "the end of the world":

- The coming and the close of the age are grammatically linked. These are meant to be taken as simultaneous events.
- The word for "world" is not a reference to the physical world, but is the Greek aion, or "age." The question is about the end of the age, a time period, not the end of the physical world. Had that been the intent, the Greek word kosmos would have been used.
- What "age" is referred to here? The answer is found in knowing that the Jews divided time into two great ages: the age of law, and the age of the Messiah. This belief is commonly reflected in the Jewish apocalyptic era. The present age was a time when the creator God seemed to be hiding his face; the age to come would see the renewal of the created world. The present age was the time of Israel's misery; in the age to come she would be restored.

It boils down to this: the "end of the age" refers back to the destruction of the Temple and the end of the Old Covenant system. "The age to come, the end of Israel's exile, [was seen] as the inauguration of a new covenant between Israel and her God."

But what, then, of Jesus answering regarding his "coming"? The word Matthew uses is parousia, and Matthew alone among the Gospels uses this word. The word means presence or arrival... Prior to the NT and into the second century, the word was used "for the arrival of a ruler, king or emperor." It is used for example of a special visit by Nero to Corinth, when coins were cast in honor of his visit. However, the term was also used in Hellenistic contexts to refer to a theophany, or a manifestation of deity, acting in judgment.

Of course we now come to the central point of contention that got this started. Jesus speaks of these things happening within "this generation." The dispensational paradigm is required to understand "this generation" in other ways (i.e., the race of Jews, for example) but we have seen that there is no need for this. The generation Jesus spoke to saw these immediate historical judgments fulfilled.

Problem: Jesus told His disciples that some of them would not see death until they saw Him coming in His kingdom. Yet during the life of the apostles, Jesus never returned to set up His kingdom.

Solution: This is a question of when this was going to take place, not whether it would. There are three possible solutions.

First, some have suggested that this may be a reference to the Day of Pentecost where Christ’s Helper, the Holy Spirit, came to descend upon the apostles. In John’s Gospel (14:26), Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit, and, in the beginning of Acts (1:4–8), He tells them not to leave Jerusalem until they have received the Holy Spirit. But this hardly seems to fit the description of seeing Christ coming in His kingdom (Matt. 16:28).

Second, others believe this might be a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in a.d. 70. This would mean that He would return to bring judgment upon the city that rejected Him and crucified Him. While this is a possible explanation, it does not seem to account for the fact that Jesus appears to be coming for believers (those “standing there” with Him), not simply coming in judgment on unbelievers. Nor does the judgment on Jerusalem in a.d. 70 adequately express seeing the “Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (v. 28), a phrase reminiscent of His second coming (cf. 26:64). Nor does it explain why Jesus never appeared in a.d. 70.

A third and more plausible explanation is that this is a reference to the appearance of Christ in His glory on the Mount of Transfiguration which begins in the very next verse (17:1). Here Christ does literally appear in a glorified form, and some of His apostles are there to witness the occasion, namely Peter, James, and John. This transfiguration experience, of course, was only a foretaste of His Second Coming when all believers will see Him come in power and great glory (cf. Acts 1:11; Rev. 1:7).