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.

What did atheistic author Mike Davis allege was the “smoking gun” that proved to him once and for all that “Christianity could not possibly be true”? What “sealed the issue” and led him to believe “Jesus was wrong…and no more deserving of our belief than any other guy”? When did the case against the Bible and Christianity become “closed”? In chapter one of his book, The Atheist’s Introduction to the New Testament: How the Bible Undermines the Basic Teachings of Christianity, Davis explained that Matthew 24:34 was the deciding factor.

In Matthew 24:34, Jesus stated: “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” According to Davis, since “Jesus tells his listeners that the judgment day will come before the generation he’s speaking to passes away,” and since that generation passed away 1,900 years ago, Jesus “could not have been divine” and the Bible is “untrustworthy” (2008, pp. 1-2). In actuality, what Davis confesses ultimately “proved” to him that the Bible and Jesus are unreliable is nothing more than a misinterpretation of Scripture. Jesus was not mistaken in His comments in Matthew 24:34—Jesus’ generation did not pass away prior to witnessing the things Jesus foretold in Matthew 24:4-34. But, Jesus did not foretell in those verses what Davis assumes He foretold. Davis and many others believe that, prior to verse 34, Jesus was describing events that would take place shortly before Judgment Day at the end of time. The fact of the matter is, however, Jesus was prophesying about the coming destruction upon Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and not the final Judgment.

When the disciples went to show Jesus the temple buildings (Matthew 24:1), Jesus said, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down” (24:2). Later, when Jesus was on the Mount of Olives, the disciples asked Him three questions, beginning with “when will these things be?” (24:3). In verses 4-34, Jesus revealed several signs that would indicate Rome’s destruction of Jerusalem, including the temple, was near. NOTE: “The fall of the Hebrew system is set forth in the sort of apocalyptic nomenclature that is characteristic of Old Testament literature, e.g., when the prophets pictorially portray the overthrow of Jehovah’s enemies (cf. Isaiah 13:10-11; 34:2ff; Ezekiel 32:7-8)” (Jackson, n.d.); cf. Matthew 24:29-31; see [Miller, 2003.] In verses 35-51 (and all of chapter 25), Jesus answered the disciples’ last two questions: “what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3). To summarize, in Matthew 24:4-34 Jesus foretold of the coming destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, while in 24:35-25:46 He commented on His future return and final Judgment of the world.

How sad it is that so many atheists and skeptics believe they have disproven the Bible and Christianity, when, in reality, they have simply twisted the biblical text to mean something God never intended (cf. 2 Peter 3:16). The fact that Mike Davis highlights Matthew 24:34 as the verse that once and for all proved to him the Bible is unreliable should tell us something about the extreme weakness of the skeptic’s case against Christianity.

Problem: Jesus spoke of signs and wonders regarding His second coming. But Jesus said “this generation” would not end before all these events took place. Did this mean that these events would occur in the lifetime of His hearers?

Solution: These events (e.g., the Great Tribulation, the sign of Christ’s return, and the end of the age) did not occur in the lifetime of Christ’s hearers. Therefore, it is reasonable to understand their fulfillment as something yet to come. This calls for a closer examination of the meaning of “generation” for meanings other than that of Jesus’ contemporaries.

First, “generation” in Greek (genea ) can mean “race.” In this particular instance, Jesus’ statement could mean that the Jewish race would not pass away until all things are fulfilled. Since there were many promises to Israel, including the eternal inheritance of the land of Palestine (Gen. 12; 14–15; 17) and the Davidic kingdom (2 Sam. 7), then Jesus could be referring to God’s preservation of the nation of Israel in order to fulfill His promises to them. Indeed, Paul speaks of a future of the nation of Israel when they will be reinstated in God’s covenantal promises (Rom. 11:11–26). And Jesus’ response to His disciples’ last question implied there would yet be a future kingdom for Israel, when they asked: “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” Rather than rebuking them for their misunderstanding, He replied that “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority” (Acts 1:6–7). Indeed, Paul in Romans 11 speaks of the nation of Israel being restored to God’s promised blessings (cf. vv. 25–26).

Second, “generation” could also refer to a generation in its commonly understood sense of the people alive at the time indicated. In this case, “generation” would refer to the group of people who are alive when these things come to pass in the future. In other words, the generation alive when these things (the abomination of desolation [v.15], the great tribulation such as has never been seen before [v. 21], the sign of the Son of Man in heaven [v. 30], etc.) begin to come to pass will still be alive when these judgments are completed. Since it is commonly believed that the tribulation is a period of some seven years (Dan. 9:27; cf. Rev. 11:2) at the end of the age, then Jesus would be saying that “this generation” alive at the beginning of the tribulation will still be alive at the end of it. In any event, there is no reason to assume that Jesus made the obviously false assertion that the world would come to an end within the lifetime of His contemporaries.