Response to Wayne Jackson's
“The Menace of Radical Preterism”
By Don K. Preston
Wayne Jackson is an
esteemed brother in Christ, and one who has done invaluable work in the field
of Christian Apologetics. I have respected him for years, and counted him as a
friend. However, when it comes to eschatological matters we have little in
common. Jackson is an ardent opponent
of Covenant Eschatology. And while Jackson is normally a very
careful and logical thinker, when it comes to his writings against Covenant
Eschatology, it is sad to see his desperation.
It is my purpose to
interact with his article
The
Menace Of Radical Preterism.
I have "cut and pasted" the parts that I will respond to from that
article. I urge the reader to read his entire article to see that I do not
misrepresent what he says. [1] For brevity we cannot respond to every false
statement he makes. However, it is my intent to reveal some of the more glaring
errors in his arguments against what he calls this menace.
Jackson
"Radical Preterism (also known as "realized eschatology" or the
"A.D. 70 doctrine") is so "off the wall" — biblically
speaking — that one wonders how anyone ever falls for it. But they do. And, as
exasperating as it is, the doctrine needs to be addressed from time to time.
One writer, in reviewing the A.D. 70 heresy, recently quipped that dealing with
Preterism is like cleaning the kitty litter box; one hates to fool with it, but
it has to be done. He can just be thankful that cats aren't larger than they
are."
Response
The fact is, that the reason Jackson does not like to deal
with "Radical Preterism" is because in arguing against it, the
inherent contradictions in his own paradigm are revealed. I urge the reader to
examine some of the articles I have written in response to Jackson's writings. [2] It will
soon become apparent that Jackson's logic has abandoned
him when he lashes out against Realized Eschatology. And, we might note, that
to our knowledge, Jackson has never responded to
a single one of our responses.
Prophetic Imminence
Jackson
" A major fallacy of the Preterist mentality is a failure to recognize the
elasticity of chronological jargon within the context of biblical prophecy. It
is a rather common trait in prophetic language that an event, while literally
in the remote future, may be described as near. The purpose in this sort of
language to is emphasizes the certainty of the prophecy's fulfillment.
Obadiah, for instance,
foretold the final day of earth's history. Concerning that event, he said:
"For the day of Jehovah is near upon all the nations..." (vs. 15).
This cannot refer to some local judgment, for "all nations" are to be
involved. And yet, the event is depicted as "near."
Response
Actually, it amazes me that Jackson continues to parrot
this specious argument! I have shown elsewhere that this argument fails to
consider the historical fulfillment of the passage. [3] Let's take a look at
Obadiah, for it seems to be Jackson's favorite court of
appeal to disprove the objective nature of Biblical time stats.
The problem normally
associated with this text is the referent to the judgment of "all
nations" being "near." Since "all the nations," in the
modern universal sense, did not occur, then the "near" statement
cannot be objective. Jackson is guilty of the worst
sort of inconsistency.
Jeremiah 25 gives the
proper context for the fulfillment of Obadiah. [4] A few thoughts to set the
stage.
First, the language of
the Day of the Lord, in Obadiah, is typically metaphoric and non-literal.
Interestingly, on Matthew 24:29-31, Jackson argues that the
language is typical OT language to describe a non-literal Day of the Lord. See
his comments below. It is strange that in Matthew 24, Jackson appeals to figurative
Old Testament language, and then, in the Old Testament, insists that the
language is literal. See my Who Is This Babylon? For fuller discussion
of the Day of the Lord language.
Second, Jeremiah
provides a lengthy list of the "nations of the world" that were to
come under the judgment of the invading Babylonians (25:15-26). It says it was
to come on "all the nations." Edom is specifically
included in the list. Does Jackson believe that this
judgment was to be on all the nations of the globe? No, he can't because
Nebuchadnezzar was to bring this judgment on all the nations. (Jeremiah 25:9f,
cf. Also chapter 51).
Obadiah was written
sometime after the initial invasion of Jerusalem 606 BC, but before the
final fall in 586. [5] The Edomites failed to come to the rescue of their
brethren. There is one tradition, perhaps questionable, but nonetheless
indicative of the animosity between Edom and Israel, that says the Edomites
actually burned the Temple when Judah was devastated by the
Babylonians. [6] Whether this story is true or not, the Edomites, rejoiced over
the plight of Jerusalem, and consequently were
to be judged along with "all the nations."
When Jerusalem fell (586 B.C.) it was
only a short time before Nebuchadnezzar proceeded to conquer Edom, and in 583 B.C. she
was destroyed by him. As the New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
says, "While the 7th century B.C. saw the height of Edom's prosperity, it also
saw the beginning of its end. Edom, like Judah, was subject to
destruction by the Babylonians in the 6th century B. C. (Jeremiah 27:2, 6;
49:7-22; Ezekiel 32:32. The oracle of Malachi 1:2-4 indicates that by the time
of its writing Edom was in ruins."[7]
Jackson has adopted the
millennial "gap theory" in order to make the Day of the Lord in
Obadiah still future, and to destroy the objective imminence of the text.[8] He
interjects a span of 2500 years, and still counting, between the judgment on
Edom, and the judgment of the nations. And what is his proof? The identical
kind of proof the Premillennialists offer to deny that the gospel has been
preached into all the world! The millennialists ask, "Was the gospel
preached in South America, was it preached in North America?" Jackson categorically refutes
and rejects that argument in Matthew 24:14, see our citation of his writings
elsewhere in this article, and yet employs it in Obadiah. He says, "The
judgment of the nations did not occur soon, therefore at hand cannot mean at
hand!"
In Ezekiel 35:14-15,
parallel with Jeremiah 25, Jehovah said to Edom, "the whole earth
will rejoice when I make you desolate." A careful reading of Jeremiah
45-51, where the judgment of "all the nations" is chronicled, reveals
that the term "all the nations" "all the earth" etc. simply
cannot be used in the modern geographical sense. Just as the Lord said
"all the nations" would be judged in the Day of the Lord against Edom, He said that "all
the earth" would rejoice at her judgment. The terms "all the
earth" and "all the nations" are equal in their compass. Would
Jackson argue that "all
the earth" meant that citizens of North America would rejoice at the
fall of Edom? Not for a moment...at
least one would hope he would not be desperate enough to say this. And
considering the fact that Edom no longer exists, then
for "all the nations" in the modern Jacksonian definition of that
text, to rejoice at the fall of Edom, Edom will have to be
restored, and then destroyed by Babylon again. Wow — what a
scenario!
Here is a final
interesting and significant fact. In his attempts to destroy the imminence of
the text, Jackson actually establishes
it! On the one hand he says that "at hand" cannot mean near. Yet,
Jackson must admit that Edom was judged within a
short time of the prophecy of Obadiah. Thus, Jackson actually has the term
"at hand" meaning Edom's judgment really was imminent as the words
indicate, but the judgment of the nations was actually a long time away, in
violation of the normal meaning of the words. Or, would Jackson try to convince us that
the "at hand" referent in Obadiah did not refer to Edom at all? Does our
brother really expect us to believe that the word "near" meant both
"at hand," and "far off," in the same verse? What
linguistic gymnastics we are asked to believe.
Babylon destroyed Edom in 583 B.C. Since Edom ceased to exist long
ago, it seems prima facie evident that her judgment — and the judgment of all
the nations — has therefore been fulfilled. The judgment that inspiration
declared was imminent came, and it came soon.
Jackson
"James (5:8 DKP) could not have been predicting the literally imminent
return of the Savior, for such knowledge was not made available to the Lord's
penmen. Not even the Lord himself knew the time of his return to earth (Matthew
24:36)."
Response
Jackson's inconsistency, lack of logic, and
desperation to mitigate the Biblical statements of imminence is glaringly
obvious here.
First, the disciples
certainly claimed that they had (inspired) knowledge that Christ's coming was
near. If the knowledge that the "end of all things has drawn near"
was not "given" to the writers by the Spirit, where did they get the
idea? Did they just make it up? Were they wrong? For someone to claim that they
could not have made such statements is more than a little arrogant. The words
are not uncertain, they are emphatic and clear "The coming (Greek, Parousia)
of the Lord has drawn near." Interestingly, the identical Greek word in
the identical tense is used in this verse that is used in Matthew 3:2 "The
kingdom of heaven is at hand", and Jackson, as we shall see, is
adamant that the kingdom really was near.
Now, it is true that in
Matthew 24:36, Jesus did not know the day or the hour of His coming. It is not true;
however, that He did not know the generation. He emphatically stated the
contrary, "Verily I say unto you, this generation shall by no means pass
until all these things be fulfilled."[9] And, the "all these
things" included His coming on the clouds with power and great glory of
verses 29-31.
Further, to appeal to Matthew
24:36 to prove that the time statements in the epistles were not true, is a
denial of the revelatory work of the Spirit after Christ's ascension. In John
16, Jesus told His disciples that there were many things He could not yet tell
them, but that the Father would send the Spirit. When the Spirit came, He would
reveal to the disciples "things to come" (John 16:7). The Spirit was
to reveal to the disciples what Jesus could not reveal to them while He was on
earth, and what was to be revealed was "things to come." In other
words, what Jesus did not know while He was on earth, was to be revealed by the
Spirit after Christ's ascension! It is therefore, a denial of the revelatory
work of the Spirit to insist that because Jesus did not know the time of His coming
while on earth that this same "ignorance" prevailed after His
ascension, and the sending of the revelatory Spirit.
Jackson even seems to admit
this in another article, where he is not writing against Preterism, "Is it
not rather ironical that Christ, who gave these "signs," (of Matthew
24, dkp), did not know (while on earth), (my emphasis, dkp) when his return
would take place."[10]
Thus, when arguing
against Covenant Eschatology, Jackson says the NT writers
could not have said the Parousia was near, because that knowledge was not given
to them, and cites Matthew 24:36 as proof. This indicates that he is claiming
that even after Christ's ascension, Christ did not know the time, and could
not, or did not reveal it to the disciples. However, when not addressing the
issue of time, he tacitly admits that while on earth, Jesus did not know the
time. However, this certainly opens the door to the possibility that after the
ascension He did know the time, and could have revealed it to the disciples. If
it be admitted for even one moment that the time of the Parousia was, or even
could have been, revealed to Christ after His ascension, then the argument that
the disciples, inspired by the Spirit sent by the Father, could not have known
that the Parousia was near, becomes a false argument.
Finally, if the
disciples could not know that the Parousia was at hand because that knowledge
was not given to them, then on the identical basis, they could not know that
the establishment of the kingdom was at hand either.
Jackson cites Matthew 24:36 to
prove that the disciples — even after the ascension and sending of the
revelatory Spirit — could not know the Parousia was near. Well, in Acts 1:6f,
the disciples asked Jesus "Will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"[11] Jesus
responded, "It is not for you to know the times and the seasons."
Now here is something
strange. In Matthew 3, Luke 10, and other texts, the disciples proclaimed,
"The kingdom of
God is at hand!" (Luke
10:9). Jackson says "John the
Baptizer, Jesus himself, and the twelve disciples, all preached that the
kingdom of heaven is 'at hand,' literally meaning 'has come near.' (Compare
Luke 21:30 for the meaning of 'at hand.') Thus,
they preached the nearness of the kingdom of
God, and such can scarcely
be harmonized with the notion that it hasn't come!"[12]
Notice that Jackson says
"at hand" literally means "has come near," and yet, as we
have noted above, the exact same word and tense translated "at hand"
in Matthew, Mark, and Luke 10, is used by Peter to say "the end of all
things has come near," (1 Peter 4:7), and by James to say, "the Parousia
has come near" (James 5:8). Yet, Jackson says Peter and James
could not have been saying that the Parousia was literally at hand.
Jackson has not seen, or perhaps
refuses to see, that while the "times and seasons" i.e. the "day
and hour" for the establishing of the kingdom was not revealed to the
disciples, what was revealed was that it had "drawn near." Brother
Jackson, did the disciples declare the literally imminent establishment of the
kingdom without knowing the times and seasons of its establishment? And, when
was the "times and seasons" for the establishing of the kingdom
revealed to the disciples? Was it not after the ascension, and after the
sending of the revelatory Spirit? Yes, indeed. Well, if the "times and
seasons" for the kingdom could, and was revealed to the disciples after
Pentecost, what, in the name of reason, prevents us from concluding that the
"day and hour" of the Parousia was not likewise revealed, after
Pentecost and the sending of the revelatory Spirit? After all, this is what
Revelation 1:1-3 teaches.
The NT writers said
"the coming of the Lord has drawn near." Jackson argues that they could
not have predicted the literally imminent coming of the Lord because "that
knowledge was not given to them." He says this is true because Jesus, at
least while on earth, did not know the "day and hour" of his Parousia.
It is significant however, that Jackson, perhaps inadvertently,
does admit that "There are passages which seem to speak of the nearness of
the Lord's coming--from a first century perspective." He says this in
reference to James 5:8. One can only wonder, if the Lord intended for the first
century disciples to believe that the Parousia actually was near, would the
words "the coming (Parousia, dkp) of the Lord has drawn near"
have been sufficient to convey that message? The words do more than seem to
convey the idea of nearness; they express nearness quite well, except to those
whose minds are already made up.
The NT said "the
kingdom of heaven has drawn near." Jackson argues that the disciples did
predict the literally imminent coming of the kingdom, and this in spite of the
fact that the knowledge of the "times and seasons" for the establishment
of the kingdom, was not given to them.
If the disciples could
not "truthfully declare the literally imminent return of the Lord,"
"for such knowledge was not given to them," then, for the exact same
reason they could not "truthfully declare the literally imminent
establishment of the kingdom, for such knowledge was not given to them."
Jackson is emphatic that the disciples did declare the literally imminent
establishment of the kingdom without knowing the day and hour of its
establishment. Yet, he declares that the disciples could not declare the
literally imminent coming of the Lord because they did not know the day and
hour.
To put it another way,
if the disciples could declare the literally imminent establishment of the
kingdom without knowing "the times and the seasons" then it is
irrefutably true that they could likewise declare the literally imminent Parousia
without knowing the "day and hour" of its occurrence. Jackson's
inconsistency is truly lamentable.
The Components Explained
and Refuted
Jackson
Let us give brief consideration to the four eschatological events that are
supposed to have occurred in A.D. 70 — the Lord's Second Coming, the
resurrection of the dead, the day of judgment, and the
end of the world.
Was there a sense in
which Christ "came" to folks at various times and places? Yes and no
serious student of the Bible denies this. Jesus "came" on the day of
Pentecost via the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (see John 14:18). The coming was representative, not literal. The Lord
warned the brethren in Ephesus that if they did not
repent, he would "come" to them in judgment, and they would forfeit
their identity as a faithful congregation (Rev. 2:5). In describing the
horrible judgment to be inflicted upon rebellious Jerusalem, Jesus, employing
imagery from the Old Testament, spoke of his "coming" in power and
glory (Mt. 24:30). Again, this was a representative "coming" by means
of the Roman forces (cf. Mt. 22:7). Verse 34 of Matthew 24 clearly indicates
that this event was to occur before that first-century generation passed away.
For further consideration of this point, see the essay on "Matthew
24" in our archives.
The Lord's "second
coming," however, will be as visibly apparent as his ascension back into
heaven was (Acts 1:11). Indeed, he will be "revealed" (2 Thessalonians
1:7), or "appear" to all (2 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 9:28).
It is a mistake of
horrible proportions to confuse the symbolic "comings" of Christ with
the "second" (cf. Heb. 9:28) coming. And this is what the Preterists
do.
Response
Jackson's problem(s) is that the texts he cites
posit the Parousia as imminent! Hebrews 9:28 must be seen in the context of
Hebrews 10:37, "Now in a very, very little while, the one who is coming,
will come and will not tarry!" Question: Do you suppose for one moment
that if scripture had said, "Now in a very, very little while, the kingdom
will come, and will not tarry!" that Jackson would argue that prophetic
time statements are elastic?
Further, what
hermeneutical key does Jackson use to delineate between the "figurative"
coming of Christ, and what he calls the literal? An example: Jackson posits the
Lord's coming against Ephesus (Revelation 2:5), as a non-literal coming. And
yet, in the letters to the seven churches, every blessing promised or threatened
to the churches are related to what are normally associated with "Second
Coming" blessings. In other words, Jackson says that the Lord's coming
against Ephesus was not literal. Yet, the coming against Ephesus is the coming that
Revelation posits as "at hand," and the time of judgment and
Jackson says that coming is
literal. Quite a conundrum here.
Another major problem
for Jackson is his utter inconsistency. On the one
hand he tells us that prophetic time statements are extremely elastic, and on
the other hand he tells us that one way to tell for sure that the coming of
Matthew 24:29-31 was spiritual is because of the time statement (i.e.
"This generation shall not pass" v. 34).
He tells us that we can
know that the kingdom was established in the first century is because,
"John the Baptizer, Jesus himself, and the twelve disciples, all preached
that the kingdom of heaven is 'at hand,' literally meaning 'has come near.'
(Compare Luke 21:30 for the meaning of 'at
hand.') Thus, they preached the nearness of the
kingdom of
God, and such can scarcely
be harmonized with the notion that it hasn't come!" So, per Jackson, time
statements of imminence predicting the establishing of the kingdom must be
taken literally, but time statements about the imminence of the coming of
Christ are to be seen as elastic and without objective meaning![13] I smell a
very messy cat box here, and it is not the Preterist position.
Jackson
It is utterly incredible that the Preterists should deny the eventual
resurrection of the human body — just as the Sadducees did twenty centuries ago
(Acts 23:8). The entire 15th chapter of 1st Corinthians was written to counter
this error: "How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the
dead [ones - plural]?" (15:12).
Response
Actually, 1 Corinthians 15 is not written to counter the error of denying the
resurrection of the physical body. This is the most egregious claim!
Jackson knows that Paul, in 1
Corinthians 15 presented part of his argument through presenting a series of
implications. That is, he took what the false teachers were saying and turned
it on them by showing that if they were right, then other doctrines, that they
did not believe, must also be true. What were some of those implications?
Implication #1 — If the dead (dead
ones, as Jackson admits) are not raised
then Christ is not raised. Now those who were denying the "resurrection of
the dead ones" did not deny the resurrection of Christ. Thus, they were
not opposed to the idea of resurrection.
Implication #2 — If the dead (dead
ones) do not rise, those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
The false teachers did not teach that Christians were denied resurrection life!
Thus, they did not deny resurrection. They simply denied resurrection life to
some class of "the dead ones." Who was that?
It was that class of
"dead ones" of which Christ by his resurrection was the first fruit. It
was that class of people that had died before Christ died (1 Corinthians 15:20)! Now if the false teachers did not deny the resurrection
of Christ, and did not deny resurrection life to Christians, but Paul said that
Christ was the first fruit of those who were being denied resurrection, who was
it? It was the OT saints of Israel. Those in
Corinth were denying the
salvation of OT Israel (see Romans 11). Jackson is guilty of very
serious error to claim that those in Corinth were denying
resurrection as a fact.
Further, for
Jackson to lay the charge of
Sadduceism on proponents of Covenant Eschatology is a gross misrepresentation. The
Sadducees did not believe in life after death. They did not believe in the
human spirit (Acts 23). I personally do not know of any Preterists that espouse
such views. I personally affirm that after physical death, man has a sentient
existence in the presence of God. Perhaps Jackson can explain how that is
Sadduceeism.
Finally, what is
"utterly incredible" is that Jackson willingly aligns
himself with those who tried to kill Paul for his doctrine of resurrection.
Jackson claims that the
Pharisees and Paul both believed in the resurrection of the human body out of
the ground. Well, if Paul and the Pharisees agreed on this doctrine, why did
the Pharisees want to kill Paul for preaching the resurrection?
The record of Paul's
trial before the Sanhedrin is very revealing, and somewhat misleading if one
does not follow up on that trial as Paul goes from there to be tried before
Felix. While on trial before the Sanhedrin, Paul perceived the division between
the Sadducees and Pharisees. He claimed belief in the resurrection, saying that
he was on trial for his belief in the resurrection. As a result, the Pharisees
wanted to release him, just to spite the Sadducees. Thus, ostensibly, Paul and
the Pharisees believed the same thing! It looks at first blush like
Jackson has a point. However,
looks are often deceiving, as they say.
Just seven few days
later, Paul is now before Felix. But something has changed. Now, the Pharisees,
who just a few days before said "We can find no fault with this man!"
are now crying for his blood! Incidentally, we know that it was not the
Sadducees that wanted him killed because Paul said his accusers also had the
hope of the resurrection (Acts 24:15).
Now if the Pharisees
believed in the resurrection, and if Paul taught the same thing about the
resurrection that the Pharisees believed, why were the Pharisees now wanting to
kill him, especially after declaring him a fine fellow just a few days before?
[14] And isn't it strange, and sad indeed, that Jackson continues to align
himself with the Pharisees, claiming that they and Paul taught the same thing?
Paul and the Pharisees clearly did not teach the same thing about the
resurrection, or the Pharisees would never have tried to kill him.
Jackson affirms that the
Pharisees taught the resurrection of the physical body, just like he does. He
also claims that Paul taught the same thing. This is patently wrong! Just who
is it that Jackson will continue to align
himself with, Paul, or the Pharisees who wanted to kill Paul?
I suggest that just as
the Jews wanted a kingdom, but rejected Jesus when they discovered the kind of
kingdom he was offering, likewise, the Pharisees, who desired the resurrection,
and initially welcomed Paul, rejected him when they discovered the kind of
resurrection he was preaching.
Jackson's doctrine simply has
no proper explanation for the trial of Paul.
Jackson
But those who subscribe to the notion of "realized eschatology"
spiritualize the concept of the resurrection, alleging that such references are
merely to the emergence of the church from an era of anti-Christian
persecution. In other words, it is the "resurrection" of a cause, not
a resurrection of people.
Response
Jackson has set up another straw man. He knows,
or should, that those who espouse Covenant Eschatology do not limit the
resurrection concept to the resurrection of the body of Christ, the church, out
of Israel. [15] Jackson wants to deny that the
church was in any state of "death" from which it needed to be raised.
Yet he cannot explain with his literalistic paradigm the death and resurrection
motifs in Romans 6, Colossians 3:1-4; 1 Timothy 2:10f, and other texts.
We could turn
Jackson's words around:
"Those who subscribe to the notion of the "established kingdom"
spiritualize the concept of the kingdom, alleging that the Biblical language
that describes the kingdom is merely metaphoric and figurative."
The fact is that the
resurrection is of the same nature as the kingdom, the two concepts cannot be
divorced from one another. The kingdom was to come at the time of the
resurrection (Matthew 25:31f; 2 Timothy 4:1; Revelation 15, etc).
Further, the kingdom was
to come without observation (Luke 17:20f), and the resurrection was not to be a
physically discernable event either (2 Corinthians 4:16-5:6)! Speaking of the
resurrection change Paul emphatically said, "We do not look on the things
that are seen, but that are unseen." Jackson must demonstrate why
the kingdom was/is spiritual in nature, and yet demands a physical Parousia and
resurrection.
Jackson
The theory is flawed in several particulars, but considers: The Scriptures
speak of the "resurrection" as involving both the good and the evil,
the just and the unjust (Dan. 12:2; John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15). Where, in the Preterist
scheme of things, is the resurrection of "evil"? Was the
"cause" of evil to emerge at the same time as the "cause"
of truth?
Response
As a friend of mine is wont to say, "What's the problem?" Does
Jackson not know that most Preterists
believe that all the wicked that were in Hades were raised from there and
sentenced to Gehenna? What Jackson sets forth as a serious
flaw in Covenant Eschatology is no problem, except to Jackson.
In debating, what
Jackson has done is called
creating a Straw Man. You create a fictional problem and ascribe it to your
opponent. You show, or claim, that the problem is insurmountable. It matters
not that your opponent does not believe what you are saying he does. Likewise,
Jackson says that Preterists
have no explanation for the resurrection of the wicked. His straw man is no
problem.
Further, note that
Jackson cites Daniel 12:2 as a
prediction of a yet future resurrection of the dead. Jackson has completely ignored
the context. It certainly is true that verse 2 predicted the resurrection.
However, Jackson has refused to
acknowledge the "when" of the text. Before turning to an examination
of Daniel, it is important to note that Jackson sees Daniel 12, John 5, Acts
24, and of course, 1 Corinthians 15, as all parallel texts. This is
significant, because if it can be shown that one or more of these texts contain
a definite time indicator for when the resurrection was/is to occur, then that
time statement is the controlling factor for all of the texts cited.
In verses 6-7 of his
vision, Daniel saw two angels. The one asked the other, "How long shall
the fulfillment of these wonders be?" The wonder to which he refers
definitely includes the resurrection of v. 2. The other angel responded by
saying, "When the power of the holy people has been completely shattered,
all these things shall be fulfilled." There is no other event in history
that qualifies as the destruction of the power of the holy people as does the
fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Jackson, therefore, cannot
extrapolate the resurrection beyond that event. The very passage that he offers
as proof for a future resurrection contains an irrefutable time statement that
is not vague, ambiguous, elastic or plastic! It refers to a definite known
juncture in history, and that juncture is the very one emphasized by those whom
Jackson calls a "menace." Perhaps
Jackson can explain how a
doctrine can be a menace when it accepts as divinely authoritative the very
passage (s) that Jackson proffers.
Jackson
The Bible speaks of a coming "day of judgment" (Mt. 11:22). Preterists limit this to the destruction of
Jerusalem by the Romans. But the
theory simply does not fit the facts. The devastation of A.D. 70 involved only
the Jews. The final day of judgment will embrace the entire human family— past,
present, and future (Acts 17:31). The citizens of ancient Nineveh will be present on the Day
of Judgment (see Mt. 12:41), as will other pagan peoples. But these folks were not in
Jerusalem in A.D. 70. How can
clear passages of this nature be ignored?
Here is an interesting
thought. When Paul defended his case before the Roman governor, Felix, he spoke
of "the judgment to come," and the ruler was "terrified"
(Acts 24:25). Why would a Roman be "terrified" with reference to the
impending destruction of Judaism — when he would be on the winning side, not
the losing one?
Response
Jackson likes to make the point that the
judgment of A.D. 70 was a localized judgment that would hardly have been of any
interest or significance to those outside Judea. He likes to ask,
"Were the people in South America judged in A.D. 70? By
the way, what would the destruction of Jerusalem have meant to those
people who were living in Athens, Greece? Paul says, 'Gentlemen,
you had better repent.' Why? 'Because Jerusalem, hundreds of miles away
is going to be destroyed in A.D. 70' they likely would have said, 'So what!
What does that have to do with us?"[16]
The folly of
Jackson's logic should be
apparent. Let's just change one or two words in his argument that he considers
so devastating: "Are the people in South America judged by the death of
Jew in A.D. 33? By the way, what would the death of a Jew in Jerusalem have meant to those
people who were living in Athens, Greece? Paul says, 'Gentlemen,
you had better repent.' Why? 'Because this Jew was crucified in
Jerusalem.' They likely would
have said, 'So what! What does that have to do with us?" Jackson's argument is that
unless something was universally apparent then it had no universal significance
and meaning. This is pure foolishness.
Further, this argument
overlooks the fact that Jesus himself said that the judgment of A.D. 70 was a
universal event. Read Luke 21:25f:
"And there will be
signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth (Greek ge,
DKP) distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; men's
hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are
coming on the earth, (Greek, oikoumene, DKP) for the powers of heaven
will be shaken. Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power
and great glory. Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up
your heads, because your redemption draws near."