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."

1
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 whenJudah 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 inNorth 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!"
2
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.

3
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]

4
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

5
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 ofGod, 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
6
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?

7
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.

8
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

9
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 whomJackson 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 Jacksonproffers.

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 inAthens, 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 Americajudged 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,

10
(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."

11