Till:
Turkel's eisegetical speculations continue.

Turkel:

Matthew 24:16-20 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day (Mark 13:14-18; Luke 21:21-23).

This passage is transitional and offers us some clues of a 70 AD intention. The coming down from the housetop is in line with the Ancient Near Eastern practice of living and working on a flat roof.

Till:
Turkel is so dense that he apparently doesn't recognize that someone writing in the first century would have reflected in his writing the architectural design with which he was familiar.  Turkel assumes that because houses in AD 70 had flat roofs on which people lived and worked, this somehow proves that the passage quoted above was predicting events that would happen in AD 70.  This seems to be his argument.

1.  Houses in AD 70 had flat roofs on which people lived and worked.

2.  The Olivet discourse made reference to people who would be on their housetops when the "end" came.

3.  Therefore, the Olivet discourse was predicting that the "end" would come in AD 70.

Turkel has apparently never heard of the logical axiom that says what proves too much proves nothing at all.  Since this type of architectural design was also prevalent in AD 90, one could apply the same argument to that date too.

1.  Houses in AD 90 had flat roofs on which people lived and worked.

2.  The Olivet discourse made reference to people who would be on their housetops when the "end" came.

3.  Therefore, the Olivet discourse was predicting that the "end" would come in AD 90.

The same architectural design was also in use in the time of  the rebellion of Bar Kohkba in AD 135, so we could use Turkel's logic to prove that the passage quoted above (Matthew 24:16-20) "offers us some clues of a 135 AD intention."

Didn't Turkel say something about my "poor methodology"?

Turkel:
Other aspects here are more flexible and may refer to any given time; though as N. T. Wright notes, quoting Caird, the advice here is "more useful to a refugee from military invasion than to a man caught unawares by the last trumpet" [Wr. JVG, 359].

Till:
Does everyone see Turkel's brilliant methodology.  He quotes a brief phrase from something that N. T. Wright said, sticks a bracketed reference after it, and calls that "proof."  This is flagrant argumentation by assertion, which gives us a pretty good idea of why Turkel, prior to the beginning of our "debates," refused to negotiate guidelines that would prohibit argumentation by assertions, question begging, and special pleading.  If Turkel couldn't assert without proof, he would be up that famous creek without a paddle.

Turkel:
The passage also alludes to Ezekiel's warning to flee from the destruction by Babylon (7:12-16) and to 1 Maccabees 2:28 and the warning to "flee to the hills."

Till:
Turkel likes to cite but not quote, so let's look at these passages to see if they shed any special light on Matthew 24:16-20.

Ezekiel 7:12 The time has come, the day draws near. 'Let not the buyer rejoice, nor the seller mourn, for wrath is on their whole multitude. ¹³ For the seller shall not return to what has been sold, though he may still be alive; for the vision concerns the whole multitude, and it shall not turn back;  no one will strengthen himself who lives in iniquity. ¹⁴ 'They have blown the trumpet and made everyone ready, but no one goes to battle; for My wrath is on all their multitude. ¹⁵ The sword is outside, and the pestilence and famine within. Whoever is in the field will die by the sword; and whoever is in the city, famine and pestilence will devour him. ¹⁶ 'Those who survive will escape and be on the mountains like doves of the valleys, all of them mourning, each for his iniquity.

1 Maccabees 2:26  So Mattathias showed his fervent zeal for the law, as Phinehas had done when he killed Zimri son of Salu.  ²⁷ He shouted for the whole town to hear, "Follow me, all who are zealous for the law and stand by the covenant!"  ²⁸  Then he and his sons took to the hills, leaving behind in the town all they possessed.   

Turkel could just as well have cited many other Old Testament texts, like Isaiah 30:16, or Jeremiah 4:27ff; 6:1ff and said that Matthew 24:16ff  "alluded" to these, because prophetic rantings that used the imagery of fleeing from invaders are as common as dirt in the Old Testament.  For the sake of argument, let's just assume that "Matthew" drew his imagery specifically from Ezekiel 7:12ff and 1 Maccabees 2:26.  So what?  What would it prove except that "Matthew" had used a familiar image of people under siege fleeing from the superior forces of their invaders.  What Turkel doesn't understand is that the synoptic accounts of the "Olivet discourse," which were written after the fact of Jerusalem's destruction, were not saying that the destruction of Jerusalem was the "end" that Jesus had prophesied but that it was just one of many signs that the end was at hand. The real "end" would come after the destruction of the city.  "Matthew," for example, first described the tribulation that would accompany the destruction of Jerusalem.

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. ¹⁵"Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), ¹⁶"then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. ¹⁷Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. ¹⁸And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. ¹⁹But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! ²⁰And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. ²¹For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. ²²And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened.

²³ "Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There!' do not believe it. ²⁴ For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. ²⁵See, I have told you beforehand. ²⁶ "Therefore if they say to you, 'Look, He is in the desert!' do not go out; or 'Look, He is in the inner rooms!' do not believe it. ²⁷For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. ²⁸ For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together.

That Matthew was describing the destruction of Jerusalem in this passage is not in serious dispute, and only biblical inerrantists with an emotionally important belief to defend would seriously deny that this was a retrospective description.  An interesting side note is in order here.  It is curious that this writer, presumably inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity, said that the tribulation of this time was "such as had not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be."  As horrible as the suffering of that time must have been for the victims of the Roman invasion and destruction of their city, I doubt that their tribulation was anything comparable to what was experienced by the victims of the atomic blasts over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in AD 1945.  It would seem, then, that "Matthew" made a little prophetic boo-boo here in his zeal to describe the fate that the people of Jerusalem had already suffered when he sat down with quill in hand to write his "gospel."  I'm sure, however, that Turkel will be able to point out Greek idioms or nuances or figures of speech that will show us that when "Matthew" said that there would be tribulation greater than anything that would ever be after this, he really didn't mean what he had clearly said.

At any rate, the passage quoted above is widely recognized as a retrospective description of the destruction of Jerusalem.  If Turkel wants to challenge the retrospective aspect of this description, I will gladly match him scholar for "scholar" if he should quote writers from Grand Rapids, Michigan, or Nashville, Tennessee, who think that "Matthew" was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Regardless, there is general agreement that the destruction of Jerusalem was under consideration in this passage.  However--and this is a big however--Matthew did not present the tribulation of Jerusalem's destruction as the "end" but only as a sign of the impending end. That is evident from what "Matthew" went on to say after having described Jerusalem's destruction.

Matthew 24:29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days [when Jerusalem was destroyed] the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. ³⁰ Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. ³¹ And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

The preterist position is that the destruction of Jerusalem was the "end," which in a figurative sense was the "coming of the son of man" that the apostles had inquired about  in verse 3.

Matthew 24:3  Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

The fact that Matthew's Jesus described the tribulation that would accompany the destruction of Jerusalem and then went on to say that immediately after the tribulation of those days signs of his coming would be seen in the heavens is sufficient evidence to convince anyone who doesn't have a pet belief to defend that the synoptic authors, writing retrospectively, thought that the destruction of Jerusalem was a sign that the return of Jesus was close at hand.  They thought it was so close that they depicted Jesus as saying that it would happen before the generation of their time had passed away.

Matthew 24:32  "Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. ³³ So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors! ³⁴ Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. ³⁵ Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

The same sequence was in Mark's version of the "Olivet discourse."  First, he described the destruction of Jerusalem.

Mark 13:14 ¹⁴"So when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not" (let the reader understand), "then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. ¹⁵Let him who is on the housetop not go down into the house, nor enter to take anything out of his house. ¹⁶And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. ¹⁷But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! ¹⁸And pray that your flight may not be in winter. ¹⁹For in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the creation which God created until this time, nor ever shall be. ²⁰And unless the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake, whom He chose, He shortened the days. ²¹"Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'Look, He is there!' do not believe it. ²²For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. ²³But take heed; see, I have told you all things beforehand.

Here Mark described the destruction of Jerusalem, which was like the siege and destruction of any other city in those days.  If one had the opportunity in such a time of crisis, he would take flight to try to save his life.  However, just as we saw in the analysis of "Matthew's" account of this "discourse," the destruction of the city was not the "coming" of the son of man but merely a sign that his coming was imminent.

Mark 13:24 "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; ²⁵the stars of heaven will fall, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. ²⁶Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. ²⁷And then He will send His angels, and gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest part of earth to the farthest part of heaven.

Mark was just as clear about this as "Matthew" was.  The tribulation of that time would not be the "coming" of the son of man but only a sign that his coming was near. As "Matthew" said, the actual coming of the son of Man would be something that the people would see after the tribulation of those days had occurred and before the people of that generation had passed away.

Mark 13:24 "Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender, and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. ²⁹So you also, when you see these things happening, know that it is near—at the doors! ³⁰Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. ³¹Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

This didn't happen, and so dispensationalists and preterists have both twisted themselves into verbal pretzels to try to make this prophecy not mean what it clearly said.  Dispensationalists claim that "this generation" didn't mean the generation of that time but the generation that would be living whenever it did happen.  Thus, they make Jesus's words mean that the generation living at the time that he returned would not pass away till he had returned, a meaning too silly to deserve serious consideration.  Preterists make everything figurative.  When Jesus said that the son of man would be seen coming on the clouds, he didn't mean that he would literally be seen coming on the clouds.  He didn't even mean that he would literally come.  No, he meant only that he would come figuratively.

Both interpretations are absurdly ridiculous efforts of biblical inerrantists to try to find harmony and unity in a book riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and absurdities.  They slice themselves to pieces on Occam's razor by postulating far-fetched explanations of this problem instead of recognizing the most likely explanation.  A religious cult of this time thought that their dead leader would come back a second time to spirit the righteous away to eternal bliss and to pronounce judgment on the unrighteous.  The promise failed to materialize, just as many religious dreams have failed to materialize through the centuries, but the wishful thinkers just can't accept the obvious.  Hence, we still have dispensationalists and preterists today trying to make this prophecy not mean what it clearly said.

Turkel:
The latter allusion is especially interesting. Wright [Wr.JVG, 511] notes that the Maccabees reference describes the flight of Matthias [sic] and his sons to the hills, "as the necessary prelude to their eventual victory... and the establishment of their royal house."

Till:
Well, heck, if Wright notes this, then is must be true, so there is no need for any kind of evidence to support Wright's assertion, is there?  It would cramp Turkel's style if he ever took the time to support the secondhanded assertions that he transmits through DeMar, Caird, Wright, et al.

I have no idea what Wright meant in his reference to the "eventual victory" of the Maccabees and "the establishment of their royal house."  The Maccabees engaged primarily in guerilla warfare, during which they notched some "victories," but they never "established" their "royal house," because their successes were short-lived.  Simon Maccabaeus, the last survivor of the sons of Mattathias secured a truce with Demetrius II that left him uncontested as the high priest.  However, Simon's son-in-law assassinated him in 135 BC, after which Simon's son John Hyrcanus was forced to submit to the Seleucid empire.  The Maccabean revolt began in 167 BC and was a series of on-again/off-again successes over a period of just three decades, which could hardly be considered the "establishment of their royal house."

Turkel:
We will argue that a "royal house" has already been established with the events and 70. We will see the relevance of this later in the discourse with our analysis of the "kingdom of heaven" phrase (Matt. 25:1).

Till:
Well, whenever Turkel argues this, I will reply to it.  I think everyone will see, however, that he argued no such thing; he simply asserted it.  Has Turkel ever argued anything? Kept in mind that proper argumentation entails stating a premise and then supporting it  with reasonable evidence.  One is not arguing when he simply makes an assertion and gives no supporting evidence.

Turkel:
As an added note, a skeptic once asked how one could flee from a city surrounded by armies. One might surrender to the Romans, of course--Josephus records examples of people doing this (War 5.10.1);

Till:
You know me.  I like to see the context of whatever sources Turkel cites but almost never explicates.  Here is the passage that he cited in Wars of the Jews.

1. As Josephus was speaking thus with a loud voice, the seditious would neither yield to what he said, nor did they deem it safe for them to alter their conduct; but as for the people, they had a great inclination to desert to the Romans; accordingly, some of them sold what they had, and even the most precious things that had been laid up as treasures by them, for every small matter, and swallowed down pieces of gold, that they might not be found out by the robbers; and when they had escaped to the Romans, went to stool, and had wherewithal to provide plentifully for themselves; for Titus let a great number of them go away into the country, whither they pleased. And the main reasons why they were so ready to desert were these: That now they should be freed from those miseries which they had endured in that city, and yet should not be in slavery to the Romans: however, John and Simon, with their factions, did more carefully watch these men's going out than they did the coming in of the Romans; and if any one did but afford the least shadow of suspicion of such an intention, his throat was cut immediately.

Does the fact that some were able to "flee" the city by deserting to the Romans prove the prophecy fulfillment that Turkel is looking for?  Not at all.  If anything, the fact that such fleeing from a city under siege took place would be just another indication that the author of Matthew was writing retrospectively from a position that enabled him to know that such flights had occurred.  As I discussed in detail in Part One of this series, references in a written work to events known to have happened is strong evidence that the work was written after those events had occurred.  The only alternative to this conclusion is the old "prophetic-insight" claim, so if Turkel wants to make this argument, let him present evidence that there is any such thing as prophetic insight.

Turkel:
but of more relevance, he records that early in the war the Roman commander Cestius withdrew his troops from around Jerusalem, "without any reason in the world" (War 2.19.7). The Jews took this chance to harry the Roman troops; alert Christians would use the time to flee from the city.

Till:
And, of course, the synoptic authors, writing after the fact, would have known that such as this had happened, so there is no example of amazing prophecy fulfillment in the flights that some took from Jerusalem during this lull in the siege. Turkel is arguing from the assumption that examples of real prophecies are in the "Olivet discourse," but I'm not going to let him beg a question that he needs to prove.  Let's see him establish that the book of Matthew was written before the destruction of Jerusalem.

Turkel:

Matthew 24:21  For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be (Mark 13:19).

Dispensationalists identify this as a tribulation with a capital T-associated with a seven-year period headed by an Antichrist figure.

Till:
As I have said several times now, what dispensationalists may say in their attempts to explain away an obvious prophecy failure is of no concern to me, because they, like the preterists, will go to any extreme to try to make the promises of an imminent return of Jesus not mean what they clearly say.

Turkel:
According to one leading proponent of this idea, this cannot have been a 70 AD fulfillment, because there have been greater tribulations; the 70 AD tribulation, while bad, "has been superseded by scores of far-worse calamities and holocausts" [Mac.SC, 78] such as the extermination of Jews in World War II.

Till:
To their credit, dispensationalists have recognized this problem, which I addressed briefly above and will discuss in more detail below.  As bad as they may have been, the "tribulations" that the inhabitants of Jerusalem may have suffered during the siege and destruction of their city were certainly not the worst that the world has seen since then.  The holocaust and atomic destructions of World War II made the destruction of Jerusalem look like a Sunday picnic.

Turkel:
Certainly no one would minimize those later tribulations- but a couple of clues work against such an argument. First of all, note Luke's "translation" of this verse:

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Our proponent offers no comment at all on this verse, which clearly shows that Luke anticipated a fulfillment in terms of Jerusalem only--the final Diaspora, and the trodding down of Jerusalem by the Gentiles.

Till:
Well, excuse me, but just how does Luke's statement quoted above negate what Matthew and Mark said?

Matthew 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Mark 13:19 For in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the creation which God created until this time, nor ever shall be.

Did Matthew and Mark state the truth here?  If so, then the destruction of Jerusalem was the greatest tribulation that had ever been and ever would be, so perhaps Turkel would care to confront the issue and tell us just how the destruction of a relatively small ancient Near Eastern city--small comparatively speaking--experienced a greater tribulation than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.  Was the "tribulation" that was experienced in Jerusalem in AD 70 greater than the mass incinerations and suffocations that the German people suffered during the fire bombings of Dresden, and as the unnamed "leading proponent" of dispensationalism asked, was the "tribulation" suffered in the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 greater than the tribulations that European Jews suffered during the holocaust?

Come on, Turkel, try once in your life to confront an argument and reply to it.  Matthew and Mark both said that the tribulation suffered in Jerusalem was greater than any that had ever been or ever would be.  If what they wrote was "inspired" by an omniscient, omnipotent deity, then surely what they said was correct, so explain to us just how that tribulation was greater than the ones I have mentioned.

I will warn readers to be prepared to see Turkel hop, skip, and jump over this one. We will see a lot of talk about "fluff" and "irrelevant diversions," but we won't see any serious attempt to address this problem.

I don't know who that "leading proponent" [of dispensationalism] was who "offered no comment" on Luke 21:24, but I'll comment on it.  Turkel said that this verse "clearly shows that Luke anticipated a fulfillment in terms of Jerusalem only--the final Diaspora, and the trodding down of Jerusalem by the Gentiles," but it shows no such thing.  I showed at the end of Part Three in this series that the synoptic authors, writing retrospectively, saw the destruction of Jerusalem as just one link in a chain of events that would happen before the "end" came, and the context of the verse that Turkel quoted above clearly shows this.  Turkel complains about repetition in my replies, but repetition is necessary because this guy won't ever answer anything.

Luke 21:20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. ²¹Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. ²²For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. ²³But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. ²⁴And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

These verses depicted the tribulations that happened in the destruction of Jerusalem, but Luke, writing retrospectively, referred to them as events that were yet to happen.  As the continuation of the text clearly shows, however, the fall of Jerusalem and dispersion of the Jews did not end the "signs" of the "Lord's coming."  Please notice the statements emphasized in bold print.

²⁵"And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; ²⁶ men's hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. ²⁷ Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. ²⁸ Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near."

"When these things begin to happen"--so Luke was obviously thinking in terms of a chain of events that would follow the destruction of Jerusalem.  As I noted at the end of Part Three, if Luke anticipated fulfillment in terms of Jerusalem only, then what did he mean in saying that there would be "distress of nations" on the earth [ges unrestricted]?  How could there be distress of nations [plural] if just the limited area of Judea would be all that was "distressed"? What did Luke mean by references to the sea and roaring waves?  Jerusalem is not located by any sea. Clearly, Luke was saying that the destruction of Jerusalem would be followed by other signs: the dispersion of the Jews, signs in the heavens, distress among the nations of the earth [ges unrestricted], turbulence in the seas, etc. In other words, Luke was saying that the destruction of Jerusalem would be followed by worldwide cataclysmic events.  To say that Luke anticipated fulfillment in Jerusalem only is to ignore what was clearly written in the text.

²⁹Then He spoke to them a parable: "Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. ³⁰When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near. ³¹So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. ³²Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place. ³³Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

When you see what things [plural] happening?  According to Turkel's preterist position, they would know that the kingdom of God was near when they saw the destruction of Jerusalem, but "these things" refer to the things just mentioned: the heavenly signs, distress among nations on the earth [ges unrestricted], turbulent seas, etc.  The destruction of Jerusalem was just one link in a chain of signs that the synoptic writers said would signal that the end was near.

Turkel:
This leads to the second clue--the warnings in Matthew and Mark hearken back to an OT precusror [sic]:

Ezekiel 5:9  And I will do in thee that which I have not done, and whereunto I will not do any more the like, because of all thine abominations.

Joel 2:2 A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.

Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

What's Zeke talking about here? This is a warning about the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians.

Till:
Turkel is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill of more prophetic rantings.  Prophets of this time could think only in terms of excess.  Every calamity that they ranted about was going to be the worst that had ever happened and ever would happen, but if the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem was such that Yahweh would not "do any more the like," then the tribulation that came with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 could not have been the worst that had ever been, because if Ezekiel's prophecy quoted above was fulfilled, the worst that would ever be had happened during the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem.  That anyone would give any kind of serious consideration to such prophetic rantings as these is a sad commentary on his critical thinking skills.

Turkel:
It is less clear who Joel is talking to, since he identifies no enemy, but he was speaking to people of his day, and that meant the enemy was either Assyria or Babylon.

Till:
Joel made reference to bringing back "the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem" (3:1), which would make him a postexilic writer.  Hence, the Babylonians had already destroyed Jerusalem, which according to Ezekiel quoted above would have been such that Yahweh had not done before and would not do afterwards, yet the context of the verse that Turkel quoted from Joel spoke in the same terms of a calamity unlike any that had ever happened before or would ever happen thereafter.

Joel 2:1 Blow the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in My holy mountain!  Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble; for the day of Yahweh is coming, for it is at hand: ² a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness, like the morning clouds spread over the mountains; a people come, great and strong, the like of whom has never been; nor will there ever be any such after them, even for many successive generations.

To Hebrew prophets, whatever wrath of God they were predicting was invariably the worst that had ever been or ever would be.  As I said above, anyone who would give serious credence to such rantings is sadly lacking in critical skills.

Turkel:
Daniel speaks in light of the crisis of Antiochus (Dan. 11). DeMar correctly recognizes that the language in both cases is "proverbial and hyperbolic" [Dem.LDM, 120]

Till:
Oh, well, if Turkel says that DeMar "correctly recognizes that the language in both cases is 'proverbial and hyperbolic,'" then that must be true, because DeMar is a preterist, and a preterist couldn't be wrong, could he?  I assume that everyone noticed that this is just another example of Turkel's penchant for the fallacies of argumentation by assertion and appeals to authority.  He quotes unsupported assertions and expects his readers to swallow them hook line and sinker. What was DeMar's evidence that the language in Daniel 11 was "proverbial and hyperbolic"?  If he gave any, Turkel didn't quote it.

Turkel:
and clearly alludes to the former passages.

Till:
Why does the passage in Daniel "clearly allude" to the former (Ezekiel and Joel)?  For Daniel to have alluded to a text in Joel, the former would have had to be a postexilic writer, but I doubt that Turkel wants to take that position.  Be that as it may, the fact that Daniel used a familiar prophetic ranting about extreme distress and trouble is no proof that he was alluding to other prophetic rantings that had used the same imagery, because the imagery itself was as common as dirt in prophetic tirades of that time.

Turkel:
(Keener adds that the reference to there being no similar tribulations after this one works against this being identified as a "final" tribulation, as is preferred by dispensationalists;

Till:
I must agree with Turkel on this point, but why can't he apply the same logic to the tribulation described in the synoptic accounts of the destruction of Jerusalem? Since there have been tribulations far worse than this (the holocaust, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the firebombing of Dresden, etc.), the destruction of Jerusalem could not have been tribulation such as would never be again.  Furthermore, if the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians had been, according to Ezekiel, the like of which Yahweh would never do again, then the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 could not have been tribulation such as had not been seen since the beginning of the world.

Turkel apparently can't see that his own argument against the dispensationalist position works against his own preterist belief.

Turkel:
and, Josephus used similar verbiage to describe the period from 66-73 AD [interestingly also, a seven year period--580; see our essay on Daniel].)

Till:
Again, Turkel cited no specific reference in Josephus, so there is nothing here for me to answer.  As for his "essay on Daniel," I will say what I have already said.  If he will agree to link his readers at the beginning of any replies he may post to my rebuttal of his "essay on Daniel," I will be glad to reply to it.  He isn't going to do this, of course, because he has been whining like Rodney Dangerfield on his website about the lack of respect that he gets from me, because I am so insulting to him that I actually use his real name when I refer to him.  He is using this as an excuse to expunge all references to me from his website.

Didn't I tell everyone when my debates with him started that he would not keep his promise to link his readers to my replies to his articles? 

Turkel:
Matthew 24:22-26 repeats earlier warnings and does not need to be analyzed in depth here. (See also Mark 13:20-23.)

Till:
If Turkel ever analyzes anything in depth, I'll probably die of a heart attack.  For the benefit of readers, however, I want to quote this passage and suggest a reason why Turkel doesn't want to analyze it "in depth."

Matthew 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. ²²And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened. ²³ "Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There!' do not believe it. ²⁴ For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

If Turkel had quoted this passage and analyzed it "in depth," he would have called attention to the fact that part of the prophecy was that "false christs" would arise, and we have already noticed in the middle third of Part Two of this series that Turkel, in commenting on the prophecy in 24:5 that "many"--not just some but many--would come saying, "I am the Christ," was unable to cite a single verifiable case of a person who came before AD 70 saying that he was the Christ.  If Turkel had quoted this passage and analyzed it "in depth," he would have reminded his readers of his utter failure to identify any verifiable examples that fulfilled this prophecy.

Those who go back to Part Two, linked above, and read that section of my reply to Turkel will see that he tried to claim Theudas and Judas, referred to by Gamaliel in Acts 5:36-37 as examples of those who claimed to be the Christ, but I showed in my rebuttal that both of these, if the New Testament is inerrant, would have necessarily been predecessors of Jesus and could therefore not have been examples of Messianic claimants who had arisen after Jesus made the prophecy in Matthew 24:5.  This, folks, is a typical example of the kind of evidence that you will find in the "apologetic" writings of Robert "No Links" Turkel, but there are likely other reasons why Turkel didn't want to quote and analyze "in depth" Matthew 4:22-26.  Just look at what verses 25-26 say. 

²⁵ See, I have told you beforehand. ²⁶ "Therefore if they say to you, 'Look, He is in the desert!' do not go out; or 'Look, He is in the inner rooms!' do not believe it.

Prior to this Jesus had warned his disciples that if anyone should say to them, "Look, here is the Christ," they should not believe it.  Now he told them that if anyone should say to them that he [Christ] is in the desert or in the inner rooms, they should not believe that either.  These statements both show that Jesus was telling his disciples that his return would be an actual physical coming and not this mystical, "figurative" coming that Turkel and his preterist cohorts talk about.  Otherwise, why would he have issued this warning that his disciples not be deceived by reports that he was "here" or "there" or "in the desert" or 'in the inner rooms"?  This would have been an excellent time for Jesus to have told his disciples that his "coming" was not going to be an actual physical event that they would be able to see, so if anyone told them to "look" here or there for the Christ, they would know that it was a false report, since his real "coming" would not be an event that they could "see" in a literal sense.  However, he told them no such thing; he simply warned them that false Christs would come, so if any said to "look" here or there before all the signs had been fulfilled, they could know that this was a false Messianic claim.

But the longer the passage that Turkel didn't want to analyze "in depth" goes, the worse it gets for Turkel's preterist position. He did quote the verse below and try to distort it into a meaning that would fit his preterist mold, but I want to consider the verse in the context of the ones that I quoted and analyzed above.

²⁷ For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Despite Turkel's strained interpretation of this verse further along, it contains a simile that is damaging to preterist claims, i. e.,  all of the references to astronomical signs in the heavens, distress among nations for all those who live on the face of the whole earth, visibility of the "coming" to all tribes of the earth, etc. were just "figurative" references to turmoil and tribulation that would be experienced only by those who live in Jerusalem and its environs.  Matthew had Jesus comparing his coming to the way that lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west.  The word translated "flashes" in the NKJV was phainetai from phaino, which meant to "shine, give light, appear, be or become visible" (Arndt & Gingrich, 1960, p. 859.  Many versions used "see" or equivalents to translate it.

KJV: For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

ASV: For as the lightning cometh forth from the east, and is seen even unto the west; so shall be the coming of the Son of man.

RSV: For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the son of man.

NIV: For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

REB: Like a lightning-flash, that lights the sky from east to west, will be the coming of the Son of Man.

CEV: The coming of the son of man will be like lightning that can be seen from east to west.

Amplified: For just as the lightning flashes from the east and shines and is seen as far as the west, so will be coming of the Son of Man be.

Tyndale's: For as lightning cometh out of the east and shineth unto the west, so shall the coming of the son of man be.

These translations all convey the idea of an event that will be highly visible worldwide.  Before Turkel quibbles that lightning flashing in the east, which can be seen by those who live in the west, would not be an event that could be seen universally because Earth is too large for lightning flashing in one location to be seen in all places in the world, let him apply the same standard that he constantly harps about when he tries to explain a discrepancy on the grounds that what was said in a disputed passage is consistent with what was known to the people of that time.  The simile that Matthew used in 24:27 was, of course, based on the geographical knowledge of the time when people had a limited understanding of world geography.  It would be comparable to the apostle Paul's claim that the gospel had been preached to every creature under heaven, a statement that could have been made at that time only by someone who had no concept of how large the world was.  His intended meaning was that the gospel had been preached extensively throughout the world as he knew it.  In the same way, Matthew's reference to lightning flashing in the east that could be seen in the west was a simile intended to convey the sense of universal visibility as he understood it. 

This simile is entirely consistent with other New Testament passages that taught the universal visibility of the "coming" of the Lord, which would be witnessed by "all tribes of the earth" (Rev. 1:7; 2 Thess. 1:10); however, it is not at all consistent with the preterist belief that the "coming" of Jesus was simply a figurative, localized event that was experienced only by those who lived in Jerusalem and its environs.  In what possible sense could the simile of the "coming of the son of man" being like lightning flashing in the east and being seen in the west have been an appropriate description of an event that would be witnessed only by people living in one geographically small city and its surroundings?  Watch Turkel hop, skip, and jump right over this problem with another of his attempts to make it all figurative.  We'll actually see him do this a little later on.

I realize that New Testament versions like the Good News Bible and the New Century Version are somewhat like the Living Bible, i. e., paraphrases more than translations, but I am prepared to defend their translations of Matthew 24:27 as accurate representations of what the simile of the lightning was intended to mean.

CEV: When the Son of Man comes, he will be seen by everyone.  It will be like lightning flashing in the sky that can be seen everywhere.

GNB: For the Son of Man will come like the lightning which flashes across the whole sky from the east to the west.

The obvious intention of this simile was to convey that the "coming" of the son of man would be a universally witnessed event as promised in the texts below.

Matthew 24:30  Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Revelation 1:1  The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place....  Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.

It didn't happen, and biblical inerrantists have been scrambling ever since to try to "explain" why these are not prophecy failures.  Dispensationalists have taken refuge in a quibble about "this generation" not meaning the generation of Jesus's time but whatever generation is living when the "coming" takes place, and preterists have quibbled that the language that refers to a "coming" that would be seen by everyone in all the tribes of the earth was really just figurative, "apocalyptic" language.  Both are desperate efforts to make the Bible not mean what it clearly says.

Turkel:
The only extra point is a misinterpretation offered by some Bible versions, which takes the statement of "no flesh" being saved to mean the entire human race. But this phrase hearkens to Jer. 12:12, "The spoilers are come upon all high places through the wilderness: for the sword of the LORD shall devour from the one end of the land even to the other end of the land: no flesh shall have peace." It is used within the context of the limited area of Judah in Jeremiah; thus in Olivet it is likewise restricted.

Till:
There is really nothing here for me to disagree with, because I too think that Matthew 24:4-26 was describing tribulation that happened during the destruction of Jerusalem.  Hence the statement that "no flesh" would have been saved if those days had not been shortened referred to "flesh" or inhabitants of the city of Jerusalem.  Turkel and I probably differ only on the perspective of the writer.  He thinks that "Matthew" was writing "prophetically" of events yet to happen; I think that he was writing retrospectively of events that had already happened.  Bear in mind, however, that Matthew 24 saw the destruction of Jerusalem not as the "end" but only as one link in a chain of events that would signal that the end was near.  I have already discussed this at length at the end of Part Three of this series, so there is no need to rehash it here.

Turkel:

Matthew 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

With this verse we return to the use of the key word parousia (coming).

Till:
But everyone should keep in mind that parousia had a primary meaning of "presence" (Arndt & Gingrich, 1960, p. 635).  In his literal translation, Robert Young so rendered the word in his translation of Matthew 24:27.

For as the lightning doth come forth from the east, and doth appear  unto the west, so shall also be the presence of the Son of Man.

Turkel, of course, will argue that this was only a figurative presence or coming, but he must present reasonable contextual support for this claim.  In a context where the writer spoke of "seeing" the lightning and "seeing" the son of man coming  on the clouds, Turkel needs to make his "figurative" position consistent with all of the references to seeing the "coming" or "presence" of the son of man.  Needless to say, he hasn't done that yet.  He hasn't even attempted to do it.

Turkel:
The comparison to lightning works under any scenario; it is a symbolic way of saying that the parousia will be quick and unexpected.

Till:
As I showed above, the lightning simile was more likely intended to convey the idea of visibility.  It would be something that would be seen worldwide by "all the tribes of the earth" [ge unrestricted by any delimiting modifier].  Besides, how could Turkel and his preterist cohorts claim that the destruction of Jerusalem was "quick and unexpected"?  The Jewish wars began in AD 66, so the actual destruction of Jerusalem was four years in the making.  That was hardly "quick and unexpected."  Furthermore, Luke warned his readers that when they saw "Jerusalem compassed with armies," they would "know that her desolation [was] at hand."  Where was the quickness and unexpectedness?

Turkel:
Lightning also signified the presence of the Lord (Ex. 20:18, Deut. 33:2, etc.).

Till:
Hmm, here is what Deuteronomy 33:2 says.

"Yahweh came from Sinai, and dawned on them from Seir; He shone forth from Mount Paran, and He came with ten thousands of saints; from His right hand came a fiery law for them."

Does anyone see anything about lightning here?  If so, would you point it out to me?  This should serve as another reminder of what I have said many times in my point-by-point replies to Turkel.  What he claims that sources say should be viewed with suspicion until it has been checked, because he routinely misrepresents, distorts, and twists to make citations mean what he wants them to mean.

Lightning did accompany the "presence of the Lord" in Exodus 20:18, but this "presence" was also accompanied by thunder, smoke, and trumpets.

Now all the people witnessed the thunderings, the lightning flashes, the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled and stood afar off.

Furthermore, this statement, considered in context, shows that this was a physical "presence" of Yahweh, because he came down on Mount Sinai and talked to Moses in person.

Exodus 19:16 Then it came to pass on the third day, in the morning, that there were thunderings and lightnings, and a thick cloud on the mountain; and the sound of the trumpet was very loud, so that all the people who were in the camp trembled. ¹⁷And Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. ¹⁸Now Mount Sinai was completely in smoke, because Yahweh descended upon it in fire. Its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked greatly. ¹⁹And when the blast of the trumpet sounded long and became louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him by voice. ²⁰Then Yahweh came down upon Mount Sinai, on the top of the mountain. And Yahweh called Moses to the top of the mountain, and Moses went up.

So this was not a "figurative" presence of Yahweh but an actual manifestation.  Later, Yahweh was seen face to face by Moses and the elders. 

Exodus 24:9 Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, ¹⁰and they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity. ¹¹But on the nobles of the children of Israel He did not lay His hand. So they saw God, and they ate and drank.

That Turkel would use these incidents, which obviously referred to a physical presence of God, to try to prove that Matthew's comparison of the "coming" of the Lord to lightning that flashed in the east and was visible in the west meant only that the "coming" would be figurative shows just how desperate he is to find support for his silly preterist beliefs.  The obvious intended meaning of Matthew 24:27 was that the "coming of the Lord" would be a highly visible event that would be seen all over the world.

On the basis of one text and another distorted one, Turkel is claiming that lightning "signified the presence of the Lord," but there are far more biblical examples of  lightning being used to convey the ideas of visibility and universality.

Psalm 77:18  The voice of Your thunder was in the whirlwind; the lightnings lit up the world.

Psalm 97:4  His lightnings light the world.

Job 38:35  Can you send out lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, 'Here we are!'?

Zechariah 9:14  Then Yahweh will be seen over them, and His arrow will go forth like lightning.

Ezekiel 1:13  As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like burning coals of fire, like the appearance of torches going back and forth among the living creatures. The fire was bright, and out of the fire went lightning. ¹⁴And the living creatures ran back and forth, in appearance like a flash of lightning.

So if the "coming of the Lord" was to be like lightning flashing in the east that was seen in the west, the most likely intention of the simile was to convey the idea of universal visibility, i. e., an event that would be seen all over the world.  Opposite compass directions, i. e., east and west, north and south, are often used to convey the idea of completeness and universality, and these were figures of speech used in biblical times too.

Psalm 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us.

Psalm 107:2  Let the redeemed of Yahweh say so, whom He has redeemed from the hand of the enemy, ³ and gathered out of the lands, from the east and from the west, from the north and from the south.

Zechariah 8:7  'Behold, I will save My people from the land of the east and from the land of the west; ⁸ I will bring them back, and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem.

Luke 13:29  They will come from the east and the west, from the north and the south, and sit down in the kingdom of God.

So if the "coming of the Lord" will be like lightning that flashes in the east and is seen in the west, then the coming of the Lord will be a universally visible event.  I have presented textual evidence to support my view of the lightning simile.  Now let's see if Turkel can do the same. Holding his breath, stamping his feet, and crying, "But I want the Bible to be inerrant," doesn't constitute textual evidence.

Turkel:
But now is the time to talk a bit further about this word parousia. As we have noted, this word is used in the Synoptics only by Matthew.

Till:
Which proves what?  As I have shown before, the word parousia was used just some 20 times in the New Testament, so the fact that a writer may have used the word only once doesn't within itself prove anything.  The writer of John didn't use the word at all.  Does that prove anything except that "John" didn't use the word parousia?

Turkel:
Where Matthew uses parousia, Mark and Luke use a different Greek word, erchomai.

Till:
So if all three of these writers were inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity as they wrote their "gospels," why would this not prove that parousia and erchomai were basically synonyms if they all three recorded the same event but two used erchomai and one used parousia in reporting that event?  The problem for Turkel here is the same as the kosmos/oikoumene problem, which I discussed earlier.  In recording the temptation of Jesus, for example, Matthew used kosmos but Luke used oikoumene in referring to all the kingdoms of the "world" that Satan showed Jesus from the top of a high mountain.

Matthew 4:8  Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world [tou kosmou] and their glory.

Luke 4:5  Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world [tes oikoumenes] in a moment of time.

Since one divinely inspired writer used kosmos and the other inspired writer used oikoumene to denote the area covered by the kingdoms that the devil showed Jesus on this occasion, the two words must have been used synonymously, and we saw earlier that this caused a huge problem for Turkel, because he claims that kosmos meant the entire world but oikoumene meant only the Roman empire.  That claim, however, is incompatible with what was said in the two "inspired" accounts of the same event.

Now Turkel faces the same problem  with parousia  and erchomai.  In Matthew 24:3, the writer used parousias in referring to the "coming" of Jesus, but in 24:30, he used erchomenon in referring to the "coming of the son of man."  Hence, the two words were used synonymously, and there would be no more "nuances" involved here than if an English writer used large in reference to an object but then later in the same context used big in describing the same object.  The words would have essentially the same meaning.

<>At the beginning of Part Two, I analyzed various New Testament passages that used parousia.  That analysis showed that the word did no more than convey the sense of "presence" or "coming" and was so used in reference to the "presence" of the apostle Paul and the "coming" of ordinary people like Paul, Titus, Stephanus, Fortunatus, and Achaicus.  The contexts of these passages clearly show that a physical presence or coming was intended each time, so why should we think that the few other times that parousia was used in reference to the "coming of the Lord," only figurative presence or coming was intended?

<>That is a question that Turkel has yet to answer. 

Turkel:
Matthew does use this word in other contexts, including one which refers to Christ's "return" (Matthew 24:48).

Till:
Yes, and as noted above, the writer of Matthew used a derivative of erchomai in 24:30 to refer to the "coming" of the Lord, so this is just more evidence that parousia and erchomai denoted essentially the same thing.  I will say more about this below.

Turkel:
What is the difference in nuance here? Erchomai is used over 600 times in the NT, and has a broader connotation of arrival or movement (Matt. 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.) It lacks the "advent" aspect of parousia, and can mean either "coming" or "going" [Wr.JVG, 361-for example, John 8:59, "Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by"; "going through" is dierchomai.].

Till
Isn't this just like Turkel?  The word dierchomai is a combination of the preposition dia and the root word erchomai.  The combination gave the word the sense of passing through or going through.  The discussion of this word by Arndt & Gingrich covers almost half a page (193) and shows that it was used to denote primarily the action of passing through or going through a city or region or country.  It was used, for example, in Romans 5:12 to refer to death "passing" to all men through the sin of the one man Adam.

The duplicity of Turkel lies in the obvious fact that the blending of dia with erchomai made dierchomai an entirely different word from just erchomai.  What Turkel is trying to do would be somewhat as if he should argue that the English words understand and stand mean the same thing.  Obviously, understand was derived by combining the preposition under and the root word stand, but once they were blended together, they became different words.  The same is true of dierchomai.  This word originated by combining dia and erchomai, but dierchomai and erchomai were not the same words.

Arndt & Gingrich's discussion of erchomai covers almost two pages (310-311).  One of those definitions covers the sense of making an appearance.

Freq[uently] the coming has rather the sense appear, make an appearance, come before the public.  So esp[ecially] of the Messiah Lk 3:16; J 4:25; 7:27, 31....

The passage is much too long to quote, but those who bother to consult it will see that these lexicographers give erchomai, when used in reference to the appearance of the Messiah, essentially the same meaning that they give for parousia when it was used in reference to the coming or presence of Jesus (p. 635).  In defining erchomai, A & G said that this word "in John, in whose writings the idea of Jesus' having come fr[om] heaven to the earth, sent by the Father, is of considerable importance."  They cited three examples (John 6:14; 16:28; and 11:27) where erchomai was used to describe this "coming."  John, by the way, never used the word parousia, although, as A & G pointed out, he did make frequent references to the "son" having come into the world.

John 3:1  There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. ²This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come [eleluthas] from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."

John 3:19  And this is the condemnation, that the light has come [eleluthen] into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

John 3:31  He who comes [erchomenos] from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes [erchomenos] from heaven is above all.

John 4:25  The woman said to Him, "I know that Messiah is coming [erchetai]" (who is called Christ). "When He comes [elthe], He will tell us all things."

I will point out here that although eleluthas, eleluthen, and elthe don't so appear to the English speaking eye, they were derivatives of erchomai.  An English comparison may help readers understand this.  Although went bears no orthographic resemblance to go, English speakers know that went is a derivative of go.

John 5:43 I have come [elelutha] in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive.

John 7:27  However, we know where this Man is from; but when the Christ comes [erchetai], no one knows where He is from."  ²⁸ Then Jesus cried out, as He taught in the temple, saying, "You both know Me, and you know where I am from; and I have not come [elelutha] of Myself, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know."

John 7:31 And many of the people believed in Him, and said, "When the Christ comes [elthe], will He do more signs than these which this Man has done?"

John 7:42  But some said, "Will the Christ come [erchetai] out of Galilee? ⁴²Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes [erchetai] from the seed of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where David was?"

John 9:39  And Jesus said, "For judgment I have come [elthon]  into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind."

John 10:10  I have come [elthon] that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

John 11:25  Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. ²⁶And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" ²⁷ She said to Him, "Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come [erchomenos] into the world."

John 12:14  Then Jesus, when He had found a young donkey, sat on it; as it is written: ¹⁵ "Fear not, daughter of Zion; Behold, your King is coming [erchetai], Sitting on a donkey's colt."

John 12:46  I have come [elelutha] as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness.

John 14:3  And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come [erchomai] again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.

John 14:16  And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever—¹⁷the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. ¹⁸I will not leave you orphans; I will come [erchomai] to you.

John 14:28  You have heard Me say to you, 'I am going away and coming [erchomai] back to you.'

John 16:28  I came forth from the Father and have come [elelutha] into the world.

John 21:13  Jesus then came [erchetai] and took the bread and gave it to them, and likewise the fish.

John 21:20  Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?" ²¹ Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, "But Lord, what about this man?" ²² Jesus said to him, "If I will that he remain till I come [erchomai], what is that to you? You follow Me."

The writer of John, more than any other gospel writer, emphasized the divinity of Jesus, yet in all of his references to the "coming" of Jesus, he never once used the word parousia.  Instead, he used erchomai or a derivative.  Turkel and his preterist cohorts will no doubt quibble parousia was used to signify the coming of an "advent" and that none of the passages quoted above from John had reference to the coming of Jesus to begin his advent, but that is not so.  The last passage quoted, for example, had obvious reference to the promised return of Jesus, and according to Turkel the return of Jesus was when his "advent" was to begin.  "John" used erchomai in reference to that return.  In John 14:28, quoted above, Jesus made reference to going away and "coming back."   Verse 3 in the same chapter spoke of Jesus's "coming again" to receive his disciples so that they could be with him where he was.  In all of these cases, "John" used erchomai or a derivative to refer to the return of Jesus.

This parousia quibble is flawed in that it assumes that because some New Testament writers used parousia when referring to the return of Jesus, the word therefore meant "coming to begin an advent"; however, one could just as easily argue that because some writers--as noted in the quotations from John--used erchomai in reference to the coming and/or return of Jesus, this word therefore meant "coming to begin an advent."  Even Turkel noted above that Jesus used erchomai in his Olivet "discourse" to refer to his coming again (Matt. 24:48), but he could also have cited other places where Matthew used erchomai to refer to the "coming" or return of Jesus.

Matthew 16:27  For the Son of Man will come [erchesthai] in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

Matthew 24:42  Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming [erchetai].

Matthew 25:31  "When the Son of Man comes [elthe] in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.

Matthew and John were not the only New Testament writers to use erchomai in reference to the return of Jesus.

Luke 12:40  Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming [erchetai] at an hour you do not expect."

Luke 18:8  Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes [elthon], will He really find faith on the earth?"

1 Corinthians 4:5  Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes [elthe], who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one's praise will come from God.

1 Corinthians 11:26  For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes [elthe].

2 Thessalonians 1:10  These [who know not God] shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, ¹⁰when He comes [elthe], in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.

Revelation 1:7  Behold, He is coming [erchetai] with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.

There are far more references in the New Testament to the erchomai [coming] of the Lord than to his perousia, so the two words were clearly used synonymously to refer to the return of Jesus.  Turkel's attempt to give special significance to the fact that one synoptic writer used parousia in the Olivet "discourse" in reference to the return of Jesus is about as far-fetched as if someone interpreting a document written in English should claim significance in the use of small instead of little.  I have more to say about Turkel's parousia claims, but I will save them for my reply to his comment immediately below.

Turkel
The point here: The words themselves say nothing about the means or process of "arrival" or of the direction, the destination, or whether from the sky or however--only parousia hints that it involves an accession of power; but the nature of the "coming" is to be determined by further context--which we will get to shortly.

Till:
There is no need for extensive comment here, because I  analyzed at the beginning of Part Two various New Testament passages that used the word parousia.  That analysis showed that parousia was frequently used in referring to the "presence" or "coming" of ordinary people like the apostle Paul, Titus, Stephanus, etc.  Furthermore, the interchangeable use of the words parousia and erchomai in the New Testament shows that they were considered to be synonyms.  Even in Matthew's account of the Olivet "discourse," on which Turkel's preterist position is primarily based, the writer used the two words interchangeably.  To show this, I will substitute below parousia and erchomai where references were made in the Olivet "discourse" to the "coming" of Jesus.  I will use the roots rather than the actual derivatives used in the different texts.

Matthew 24:3  Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your parousia, and of the end of the age?"

Matthew 24:27  For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the parousia of the Son of Man be.

Matthew 24:30  Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man erchomai on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 24:37  But as the days of Noah were, so also will the parousia of the Son of Man be.

Matthew 24:38  For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, ³⁹ and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the parousia of the Son of Man be.

Matthew 24:42  Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is erchomai.

Matthew 24:44  Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is erchomai at an hour you do not expect.

Matthew 25:31  When the Son of Man erchomai in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.

So eight times "Matthew" referred to the "coming" of the son of man in his version of the Olivet "discourse," and he was evenly split on his choice of what Greek word to use in reference to it.  Four times he used parousia, and four times he used erchomai.  Turkel has tried to find some special significance in the fact that "Matthew" used parousia in this narrative to refer to the "coming" of the Lord, but he conveniently failed to mention that he used erchomai just as many times to refer to this event.  So much for Turkel's quibble that Matthew's use of parousia "hinted" that the "nature" of the "coming" was to be an "accession of power." 

All of this talk about a "coming" that will begin an "advent" shows an incredible ignorance of the Bible, for if Turkel knew the Bible a tenth as well as he wants his choir members to believe, he would know that the New Testament teaches that Jesus's "accession of power" had happened long before AD 70.  Has Turkel, for example, never read Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost?

Acts 2:29  "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. ³⁰ Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, ³¹ he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. ³² This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. ³³ Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.

Throughout the New Testament writers spoke of Jesus's reign at the right hand of "the father."

Ephesians 1:15 Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, ¹⁶do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers: ¹⁷that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, ¹⁸the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, ¹⁹and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power ²⁰which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, ²¹far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.  ²²And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, ²³which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

Hebrews 1:1  God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, ²has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; ³who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, ⁴having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Hebrew 8:1  Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, ² a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.

One of the most explicit references to the reign of Christ was made by the apostle Paul in his famous defense of the resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. ²¹For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. ²²For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. ²³But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. ²⁴Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. ²⁵For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. ²⁶The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

Many scholars would claim that some of the passages quoted above were written after AD 70, but Turkel won't have the luxury of so arguing; hence, he is stuck with the problem caused by these references to the reign of Christ, which was spoken of as a fait accompli in epistles that he believes were written prior to AD 70.  If Christ was reigning prior to AD 70, then his so-called "advent" had already begun before the destruction of Jerusalem, the event that preterists claims ushered in the advent of Jesus.

I have already quoted and analyzed 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, which remains a passage irreconcilable with the preterist claim that the parousia, when applied to the "coming" of Jesus, was a word that denoted a coming to begin his "advent."

¹³But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. ¹⁴ For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. ¹⁵ For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming [parousian] of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. ¹⁶ For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. ¹⁷ Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. ¹⁸ Therefore comfort one another with these words.

In referring to "we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord," Paul indicated his belief that the "coming" [parousia] would occur in his lifetime.  Be that as it may, this text clearly states that when the "coming" [parousia] did occur, the dead in Christ [would] rise first, and then those who were alive would be caught up with them [the dead in Christ] to meet the Lord in the air.  Let Turkel and his preterist cohorts keep in mind that Paul was saying that all this would happen with the "coming [parousia] of the Lord," so if the "parousia" occurred in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem, as Turkel and his preterist cohorts claim, they must say either that the resurrection of the dead and the gathering of the living saints in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air happened in AD 70 or else admit that Paul's prophecy quoted above failed.

Turkel, of course, will claim that what the apostle Paul said above was all figurative.  You see, when a preterist has no explanation for passages as clear as the one above, they will resort to the old it-was-all-figurative dodge.  If that is going to be Turkel's explanation of 1 Thessalonians 4:13ff, let him post an explication of the passage that gives linguistic reasons why readers should think that Paul was speaking figuratively here.

Don't hold your breath until he does that.

Turkel:
Note: One verse that often is seen as causing a problem for preterism, and which is of relevance here, is Acts 1:11: "Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."

Till:
You bet this passage is "of relevance here."

Turkel
This is connected to the "Son of Man in the clouds" passages because it is said of Jesus, "a cloud received him out of their sight." (1:9) Thus the argument is, Jesus will return quite literally on a cloud, as he left on one.

Till:
Well, let's notice how many times the New Testament said that the "coming of the son of man" would take place in the clouds.  First, let's scroll back up to the passage just quoted in 1 Thessalonians 4:13ff.  Here the apostle Paul said that those who were alive at the "coming [parousia] of the Lord" would be "caught up together with them [the dead in Christ who had been raised] in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." Perhaps Turkel will explain to us how there was a figurative resurrection of the dead in Christ and a gathering into the clouds of the living saints when Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70.  At any rate, here are other texts that associated the "coming of the Lord" with clouds.

Matthew 24:30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 26:64  Jesus said to him, "It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Luke 21:27  Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

Revelation 1:7  Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.

In addition to these passages, there is the one in Acts 1:11, which Turkel quoted and tried to wave aside with his ridiculous comment below.

Turkel:
But once again, "come" is erchomai, a word that can mean "coming" or "going." The angelic messengers therefore refer to the "going" of Jesus to the throne of God as the ascended Son of Man in Daniel 7.

Till:
Here is another classic example of the extremes that biblicists will go to in clinging to pet doctrinal beliefs.  If Turkel's spin on Acts 1:11 is correct, then that would make the passage mean that the disciples, who were watching Jesus go into heaven on a cloud would someday see him go into heaven in like manner as they had just seen him go into heaven.  If that strained interpretation of the verse is correct, then the passage would read like this.

And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so go in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven."

The interpretation is absurd, because it makes the angel's statement mean that the disciples, who had seen Jesus go into heaven, would at sometime see him go into heaven as they had just seen him go into heaven.  How could that be unless the Jesus they had just seen go into heaven returned to earth again someday and then went back into heaven?

The problem with Turkel's spin, however, is that there is no passage in the New Testament that indicates that Jesus will ever actually return to earth.  In the passage quoted above in 1 Thessalonians 4:13ff, the apostle Paul said that at the "coming [parousia] of the Lord," those who were alive at the time would be caught up to meet the Lord in the air and would thus always be with the Lord.  Hence, the New Testament teaches that Jesus would come again in the clouds but would not come back to earth, because the dead in Christ would be raised and those who were alive at the time would be caught up with "them" [the dead in Christ] to meet the Lord in the air, after which they would forever be with the Lord.

How, then, would the disciples see Jesus going back in a cloud as they had seen him going in Acts 1:11?  Such an interpretation makes no sense, but it is very plausible to understand the angel's statement to mean that just as the disciples had seen Jesus going up into heaven in a cloud, they would someday see him coming back in a cloud.

As for Turkel's claim that erchomai could mean either "coming" or "going," he is once again straining to explain away a problem text.  Arndt & Gingrich (1960) devoted almost two entire pages (310-311) to defining erchomai.  Every example of its meaning illustrated some sense of "coming" except for the final seven-line paragraph, which gave some examples of scriptures where erchomai has been rendered go in some translations. In most of these passages, however, erchomai was translated come in the most popular versions.  I will emphasize in bold print the word that was some derivative of erchomai in the Greek text.

Matthew 16:24  Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.

Mark 8:34  When He had called the people to Himself, with His disciples also, He said to them, "Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.

Luke 9:23  Then He said to them all, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me.

Luke 14:27  And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.

Matthew 21:19  And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, "Let no fruit grow on you ever again." Immediately the fig tree withered away.

In some translations, erchomai in these verses has been translated went [a derivative of go].  The last verse quoted above, for example, reads like this in the Revised English Bible: "[A]nd seeing a fig tree at the roadside he went up to it." The NKJV parallel account in Mark 11:13 also used went, but then used came when erchomai was used a second time in the passage.

Mark 11:13  And seeing from afar a fig tree having leaves, He went to see if perhaps He would find something on it. When He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.

Came, went--this is actually a matter of perspective, because whether Jesus went to the tree or came to the tree would depend on whether the writer was speaking from a perspective of what Jesus had done before he approached the tree or whether he was speaking from the perspective of what Jesus had done after he had arrived at the tree.  If the former, went would be the word an English speaker would use, but if the latter, then came would be the word to use.

Turkel, of course, would never bother to examine lexicographic evidence, because to do so would let his readers see just how flimsy his evidence is.  That the writer of Acts obviously intended erchomai to convey the sense of "coming" is rather obvious in that he used two different words to denote the actions of going and coming in this passage.

Acts 1:10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went [poreuomenou] up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, ¹¹ who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come [eleusetai] in like manner as you saw Him go [poreuomenon] into heaven."

Twice the writer used derivatives of the word poreuomai to denote the past action "went" and the present action "go," but eleusetai, a derivative of erchomai to tell the disciples that they would see Jesus "come in like manner" as they had seen him "going into heaven."  If the writer meant for the "com[ing] in like manner" to mean "going in like manner," then why didn't he use poreuomai here too?

The answer is simple.  The writer used two different words, because he intended to convey two different actions, going first and then coming.  Only someone desperate to cling to a silly belief would quibble like this to find a way around a passage that is incompatible with the belief.

As for the "son of man" in Daniel 7, if Turkel wants to debate whether "Daniel" meant for his readers to understand that this was Jesus, I will gladly oppose him on this issue if he will agree to link his readers, at the beginning of his "replies," to whatever article of mine he is answering. 

In Part Five, I will continue dismantling Turkel's "Olivet Discourse."