Turkel:
The problem as well again is that
McTill still thinks that preterism argues that the "coming"
in 70 was "inconspicuous." It argues no such thing;
Till:
No, I realize that
preterists claim that the "coming" in AD 70 was
conspicuous, but I also know that they have no evidence at all to
support this view. All they have to offer is an assertion that
the New Testament passages that spoke of a universally visible return
of Jesus, accompanied by signs and wonders and worldwide destruction
and catastrophe, were "figurative" allusions to the "end
of the age of law," which would come with the destruction of
Jerusalem. Their contention is that the destruction of
Jerusalem was "conspicuous," so therefore the "coming"
was conspicuous. Their problem, however, is that they have no
evidence that the destruction of Jerusalem was the "coming"
that had been prophesied. Their only evidence that this event
was the "coming of the son of man" prophesied in Matthew
24:29ff is the unsupported assertions of those who have an
emotionally important preterist position to defend. Here, for
example, are some of the passages that predicted the imminent return
of Jesus in terms described above.
Matthew 24:29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days 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. 30Then 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. 31And 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."
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."
Luke 21:25 "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; 26men'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. 27Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near."
There are more, but I want to interrupt here to comment on these three parallel accounts quoted from the synoptic gospels. These say essentially the same thing except for Luke's account. He omitted the reference to the "angels"--which, of course, preterists will say were not heavenly beings but only preachers going out after the destruction of Jerusalem to preach the gospel--but added a significant statement that I have emphasized in bold print. He told his readers that when they saw "these things," i. e., signs in the sun, moon, and stars and distress of the nations on earth, the roaring of the sea (as if there were a sea around Jerusalem where this could happen), they should look up and lift up their heads, because their redemption was drawing near. Now why should they look up to see their redemption drawing near, unless the writer intended for the signs in the heavens and the son of man coming in the clouds to be understood literally?
When Jesus ascended into heaven on a cloud <snicker, snicker>, two men in white apparel told the disciples who were "looking steadfastly into heaven" that Jesus, who had been received up from them into heaven, would come "in like manner" as they had seen him going into heaven (Acts 1:10-11). The synoptic accounts of the "Olivet discourse" prophesied that astronomical signs would appear shortly after "the tribulation of those days" and that "the sign of the son of man" would appear in heaven. Then "all the tribes of the earth" [unmodified by any qualifier] would mourn as they saw the "son of man" coming on the clouds of heaven. To all of this talk about astronomical signs, Luke added an admonition for the people to "look up and lift up their heads" because their redemption was drawing near. Why look up to see their redemption drawing near if all of this talk of astronomical signs meant nothing more than that the "age of the law" would be ending with the destruction of Jerusalem during a battle on the ground?
I have no doubt at all that the three synoptic writers were referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in their descriptions of the tribulation of "those days," but they--as almost all but fundamentalist "scholars" believe--were writing retrospectively, i.e., after AD 70, but as if they were writing before the destruction of Jerusalem had happened. The idea intended for their readers was that Jerusalem had been destroyed, as all of their readers at that time would have known, and that Jesus had predicted before his death that this would happen. The destruction of Jerusalem, having recently happened when the synoptics were written, this retrospectively written "prophecy" would be seen as a sign that the return of Jesus was imminent. As Matthew's account told them, "immediately after the tribulation of those days," i. e., the destruction of Jerusalem, the astronomical signs would be seen and "all the tribes of the earth" would see the son of man coming on the clouds. Luke was telling his readers that when these astronomical signs appeared, the people should "look up and lift up their heads" in order to see their redemption drawing near in a cloud.
Turkel, of course, won't buy this, so I'll ask him to tell us why Luke told his readers to look up and lift up their heads. Why didn't he tell them instead to run like hell to try to escape the battle raging around them, just as prior to this, in the part of the discourse that related to the destruction of Jerusalem, he had told them to flee to the mountains (v:21)? The most likely interpretation of the discourse is that it [retrospectively] told about the destruction of Jerusalem, at which warnings were given to flee into the mountains for safety, and then "after the tribulation of those days," or after the destruction of the city, signs of the coming of the "son of Man" would appear in the heavens, at which time the people were to "look up and lift up their heads" to see their redemption drawing near.
This didn't happen, and so dispensationalists and preterists alike have resorted to all sorts of verbal gymnastics to try to explain why the prophecy didn't fail.
Luke made another significant statement just a few verses later.
<Luke 21:34 "But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly. 35For it will come as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth."
There are two things to notice here. Luke said that (1) "that day" would come on his readers unexpectedly and (2) it would come as a snare on all those who dwell on [epi] the face of the whole earth [tes ges]. Earth [ges], of course, didn't really mean earth but only the limited land area around Jerusalem [just ask Turkel]. I'll have more to say about this later, but first I want to comment on the first point. If all of this talk about astronomical chaos and upheaval was just an "apocalyptic" way of saying that Jerusalem would be destroyed to bring about an end of "the age of law," then how could that day have possibly come on Luke's readers "unexpectedly." Were they so dumb that they wouldn't be able to see the might of the Roman army surrounding their city? How could they have been so dumb that they would have found anything that happened to them and their city after that to be "unexpected"?
Acts 13:16 Then Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said, "Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen: 17The God of this people Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm He brought them out of it. 18Now for a time of about forty years He put up with their ways in the wilderness. 19And when He had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He distributed their land to them by allotment.
The first two times that Paul used ge in this text he indicated its limited meaning by the qualifiers "of Egypt" and "of Canaan." The third time he used ge was in a contextual reference to the distribution of the land of Canaan to the Israelites, which his audience gathered in a Jewish synagogue (vs:14-15) would have been familiar with. This contextual information signaled that the word meant not the entire earth [ge] but just that part of the earth that had been distributed to the Israelites after the conquest of Canaan.
This is a matter of context, a principle of literary interpretation that Turkel is still having trouble with. If Luke had meant that the "day" that he spoke about in the "Olivet discourse" would come as a snare only on those who lived in the land of Judah, then why did he leave ge unqualified? A simple qualifier (of Judah) would have settled the question of what he meant. And why did Luke make the statement so emphatic by saying that this snare would come upon all those who dwell upon the face of the whole earth? That's a rather peculiar way to refer to a relatively small population occupying the tiny parcel of ground called Judah. Nevertheless, Turkel expects us to believe that a writer presumably inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity could not communicate his meaning more clearly by the simple use of the qualifier "of Judah."
I keep having to show Turkel how simple it would have been for an "inspired" writer to say what Turkel claims controversial texts really mean, so I guess I'll have to do it again with Luke 21:34-35.
<1 Till 21:34-35 But take heed to yourselves, you people of Jerusalem, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day of the Lord's return come on you unexpectedly. 35For it will come as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole land of Judah."
Things have reached a sorry state of affairs when an uninspired, very fallible person can write more clearly than someone who was inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity to write a book so vitally important to the eternal welfare of humanity, but that is exactly what Turkel and his preterist cohorts expect us to believe. Divinely inspired writers like Luke just couldn't communicate clearly, and so we need experts like Robert Turkel to tell us what they really meant to say.
You people who seem to admire Turkel's apologetic work enough to send him your money, go ahead and believe that if you want to.
Now let's look at other New Testament references to the coming of Jesus, which described it as an event that will be accompanied by judgment of all people.
Matthew 16:26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 27For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. 28Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
Matthew 13:24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27So the servants of the owner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?' 28He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Do you want us then to go and gather them up?' 29But he said, 'No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn."'"
The disciples of Jesus, not understanding the meaning of the parable of the tares, asked him to explain it, upon which request, Jesus explained to them "all things."
Matthew 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field." 37He answered and said to them: "He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. 39The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. 40Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
An interruption is necessary here. Turkel will try to argue that this passage was not referring to the end of the world, because the Greek word for age in the double references to the "end of the [this] age" was aion and not kosmos, and so this passage was actually referring to the end of the age of Jewish law, which happened in AD 70. I have already shown in Part One that the New Testament teaches that the end of the law came with the death of Jesus on the cross, but there is an additional point to make about this. If the end of the law did not occur until AD 70, then Jesus failed in his purpose for coming into the world.
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
Jesus allegedly said here that he had come to fulfill the law, but if he did not do that, then he failed to do what he had come to do. In Part One, I quoted a whole string of passages that clearly taught that Jesus fulfilled the law through his death on the cross, at which time it was abolished and taken out of the way. There is an incident recorded in the synoptic gospels that shows the belief of these writers that the death of Jesus brought an end to the law.
Matthew 27:51 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. 51Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom....
Parallel accounts of this are recorded in Mark 15:38 and Luke 23:45. The synoptic writers saw special significance in the moment when Jesus died, and that significance was explained by the Hebrew writer, whose writings figured prominently in Part One when I explicated passages that taught that the end of the law had come with the death of Jesus.
Hebrew 9:1 Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary. 2For a tabernacle was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, the table, and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary; 3and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All, 4which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant; 5and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail. 6Now when these things had been thus prepared, the priests always went into the first part of the tabernacle, performing the services.
I'll interrupt momentarily here to point out that in the next chapter, the writer explained that a primary part of the priests' duties under the first covenant was the offering of sacrifices, which were unable to take away the sins of those who offered them.
Hebrew 10:1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. 2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 3But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.
After quoting a couple of Old Testament passages (from the Septuagint version) that had presumably prophesied of the coming of Jesus, the writer then went on to say that Jesus, with the offering of himself as a permanent, one-time sacrifice, had taken away the first covenant, under which there was only temporary forgiveness, and established the second.
Verse 8 8Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), 9then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
Clearly, the New Testament teaches that the death of Jesus fulfilled the law and instituted a new covenant under which all people could be "saved" by the one sacrifice of Jesus, so now we can return to the text in chapter 9, which I interrupted momentarily to point out to Turkel what is rather elementary New Testament doctrine.
Hebrew 9:6 Now when these things had been thus prepared, the priests always went into the first part of the tabernacle, performing the services. 7But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people's sins committed in ignorance; 8the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. 9It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience—10concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
These and other New Testament texts that speak of the abolition of the law should make it clear what the synoptic writers intended to covey with the scene about the tearing of the veil from top to bottom when Jesus died. It was an act that symbolized the end of the old sacrificial system by the death of Jesus, which made the way into the "Holy Place" possible. It is just more superstitious nonsense, of course, but this debate must necessarily focus on what the New Testament taught about the end of the law and the next coming of Jesus. The preterist idea that the destruction of Jerusalem somehow ended "the age of law" is in flagrant conflict with various New Testament passages that teach the end of the law came with the death of Jesus. If there was an end of an "age," then, that end came with the death of Jesus.
Now we can return to the parable of the tares, which preterists claim was simply referring to the end of the Jewish age, which happened in AD 70. This argument has its foundation on the fact that the primary meaning of the Greek word aion was "age," but I will show later that it was also used to convey the sense of world. First, I want to notice indications in the parable of the tares that Jesus was actually referring to the end of the world when final judgment will take place and the wicked will be punished, or as the text in Matthew 16:26 said, "The son of man would come with his angels to reward 'every man' according to his works." This meaning is indicating by the following points in the parable.
1. The "tares" were the sons of the wicked one, who would be gathered and burned in fire "at the end of the age" [world].
2. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth when this burning in the furnace of fire takes place.
3. The righteous at that time will shine forth as the sun.
Consider these passages that associated final judgment with punishment in fire, and notice that some of them associated this punishment with the coming of Jesus with his angels.
Matthew 13:47 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet that was cast into the sea and gathered some of every kind, 48which, when it was full, they drew to shore; and they sat down and gathered the good into vessels, but threw the bad away. 49So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just, 50and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
2 Thessalonians 1:6 (I)t is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10when He comes, 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.
Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the LORD. And again, "The LORD will judge His people." 31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Jude 14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, 15to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."
The execution of judgment on the wicked was clearly associated with the coming of "the Lord," so if this judgment occurred in AD 70, Turkel needs to tell us specifically what happened that fulfilled the prophecies that Jesus would bring with him "angels" or "holy ones" when this judgment occurred and that it would be finalized by punishment in an "eternal fire" (Matt. 25:41), which I will be talking about immediately below. No doubt people suffered many agonies in the destruction of Jerusalem, but in what sense could this appropriately be called a punishment in eternal fire?
Furthermore, if this "judgment" was simply the destruction of Jerusalem, then what about all of those "ungodly men" who had crept secretly into churches outside Jerusalem (Jude 4)? Did Jesus come to execute judgment on them too or just on those in Jerusalem? When he came did he just let the troublemakers in other places go without punishment? What about those who were "troubling" the church in Thessalonica referred to above (1 Thess. 1:6)? They were all the way across the Mediterranean Sea from Judah, so did Jesus take vengeance on them in flaming fire when he was "revealed from heaven with his mighty angels," which language, of course, was just an "apocalyptic" way of describing the destruction of Jerusalem and the "end of the law"? So in what sense did those Thessalonian troublemakers suffer "eternal destruction from the face of the Lord"? Common sense will tell all who don't have a pet doctrine to defend that such texts as these were referring to a final judgment that would take place when Jesus returned at the end of the world.
Matthew 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.
37"Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' 40And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'
41"Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.'
44"Then they also will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?' 45Then He will answer them, saying, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' 46And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Those who have followed this debate from its beginning may have forgotten the spin that Turkel put on this passage in his/DeMar's "Olivet Discourse," so I will refresh their memories. It is typical Turkel vintage.
But surely this has not happened? Actually it has, and still does. All agree that the Bible teaches that judgment is entered upon death (Heb. 9:27). We cannot assume that what we are being offered here is a literal picture of events--no more so than people are actually sheep or goats, or that the millions of blessed and wicked will respond with exactly the same words at once as though they were some sort of Greek tragedy chorus. As DeMar rightly says, this depicts a "judgment over time" [DeM.LDM, 200]. Jesus is now exalted to his throne and is passing this sort of judgment as more and more pass on. His remarks to the sheep and goats, and their responses, are typified and stereotyped; this should also be obvious since they cannot be a complete catalog of virtuous and wicked acts. Matthew 25:31-46 is taking place even now--it is not a future judgment (exclusively), but it is a final one (The Skeptical Review, September/October 2002, p. 11).
I'll begin dismantling this paragraph with the third sentence. All do not agree that the Bible teaches that judgment is entered upon death, and Turkel's proof text doesn't say this.
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.
This text does not say that "judgment is entered upon death"; it says that judgment will come after death. According to the New Testament, those who die await a final judgment that will come when Jesus returns. In Romans 14:10, the apostle Paul said that we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ at which time "each one of us shall give account of himself to God" (v:11), but nothing in the New Testament indicates a belief that this judgment takes place upon each person's death. Instead, the New Testament speaks of a "day of judgment" (Matt. 10:15; 11:24). As the apostle Paul said in his speech on Mar's Hill, God has "appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has ordained" (Acts 17:31). That "day of judgment," incidentally, was mentioned in 2 Peter 3:7, which describes a final conflagration that will destroy the world.
2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Prior to this, "Peter" had referred to angels, who had sinned and been cast into pits of darkness to be reserved for the "day of judgment" (2 Peter 2:9). The New Testament indicates that in the same way, those who die are reserved for a "day of judgment" that will occur when Jesus comes again. Hence, Turkel is very wrong in saying that "all agree" that judgment takes place upon death. According to the New Testament, judgment will not occur until the day of judgment.
Turkel tried to justify his spin on the judgment scene described in Matthew 25:31ff by quibbling that the reference to the sheep and goats in the passage shows that it was all figurative. The text, however, says that the people of all nations will be gathered before "the son of Man" after he comes in all of his glory, at which time a separation will take place. The text makes use of the simile of a shepherd dividing sheep and goats to put the sheep in one place and the goats in another. In the same way, the text is saying, the "son of Man" will divide the people of all nations who are gathered before him. Some will be put on his left and some on his right. No reasonable person can claim that the entire text must be interpreted figuratively just because one simile was used. Let's suppose we had the following text.
After the battle, the prisoners were taken into the courtyard of the village and lined against a wall. They were then shot like pigs in a slaughterhouse.
What person reading this would think that the use of the simile "like pigs in a slaughterhouse" made the entire text figurative and that no actual massacre of soldiers actually occurred? Turkel seems to have a hard time understanding that the use of some figurative language in a text doesn't necessarily make all language in the text figurative. The scene in Matthew 25:31ff was obviously describing a final judgment scene that will take place on the "day" that the "son of Man" comes in his glory with his angels. At that time, judgment will take place, and those on the left will go away "into everlasting punishment," which was earlier described in the text as "everlasting fire" (v:41), and those on the right will go away "into eternal life." The view of a final judgment day in which both the "wicked" and the righteous will be judged "according to their works," whether they be good or bad (2 Cor. 5:10) is explicitly taught in the New Testament. This explication of Matthew 25:31 is consistent with all New Testament passages that describe this "day of judgment," but Turkel's interpretation can be made consistent with the others only by stretching imagination like a rubber band to make all of the text figurative because of the use of a simile.
Turkel based another quibble on the part of the text that said "the righteous," on the right, and the "wicked," on the left were presented as speaking in unison "with exactly the same words at once as though they were some sort of Greek tragedy chorus." He was referring, of course, to verses 37-44, which depicted the righteous and the wicked saying, respectively, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?" and "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?" Of course, it would not be possible that millions would say in unison exactly the same thing, but this is just one of many examples in the Bible of a literary device where speech by proxy or agency was depicted. Because there are so many cases of this, I'll confine my examples to just the book of Matthew.
Matthew 8:28 When He had come to the other side, to the country of the Gergesenes, there met Him two demon-possessed men, coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no one could pass that way. 29And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?"
Is it Turkel's position that because this text depicted two men saying exactly the same thing in unison, this incident therefore did not happen as recorded here? Is it his position that because the two characters spoke in unison, the scene was just figurative?
Matthew 9:10 Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. 11And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, "Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?"
Since this text depicted the Pharisees [plural] saying in unison the same thing to Jesus's disciples, this incident must not have happened. It must have had some figurative meaning. Perhaps Turkel the Hyperfigurativist can tell us what it meant.
Matthew 9:14 Then the disciples of John came to Him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but Your disciples do not fast?"
This text depicted John's disciples [plural] speaking the same thing in unison to Jesus, so it must have had some hidden figurative meaning. The point has been made, so now I will just quote the examples without comment to show how common it was in the Bible to have characters speaking the same thing in unison.
Matthew 9:27 When Jesus departed from there, two blind men followed Him, crying out and saying, "Son of David, have mercy on us!" 28And when He had come into the house, the blind men came to Him. And Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" They said to Him, "Yes, Lord."
Matthew 12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, "Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!"
Matthew 12:9 Now when He had departed from there, He went into their synagogue. 10And behold, there was a man who had a withered hand. And they asked Him, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"—that they might accuse Him.
Matthew 12:22 Then one was brought to Him who was demon-possessed, blind and mute; and He healed him, so that the blind and mute man both spoke and saw. 23And all the multitudes were amazed and said, "Could this be the Son of David?" 24Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, "This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons."
Matthew 26:6 And when Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, 7a woman came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and she poured it on His head as He sat at the table. 8But when His disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, "Why this waste? 9For this fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to the poor."
Matthew 26:17 Now on the first day of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying to Him, "Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?"
Matthew 27:19 While he [Pilate] was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, "Have nothing to do with that just Man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of Him." 20But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21The governor answered and said to them, "Which of the two do you want me to release to you?" They said, "Barabbas!" 22Pilate said to them, "What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all said to him, "Let Him be crucified!" 23Then the governor said, "Why, what evil has He done?" But they cried out all the more, saying, "Let Him be crucified!"
This literary device was even used at the beginning of Jesus's "Olivet discourse," which is the center of this debate.
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?"
Because the disciples were all depicted as speaking in unison, does this mean that Jesus was never questioned about when these things would be and what would be the sign of his coming and of the end of the age?
These are more than enough examples to show that speaking in unison was a literary device that was common in biblical times. Turkel identified one popular form of the time, i. e., the Greek tragedy, but the examples quoted above show that it was used in biblical writing too. We use dialogue by proxy or agency today. If one was reading a history of World War II in which the author said, "Patton's men said to him, 'We don't want to retreat anymore,'" no one would think that the writer was actually suggesting that an entire division of soldiers spoke up and said at the same time, "We don't want to retreat anymore," but when a biblicist has a pet doctrine to defend, he is willing to grab any straw. That is what Turkel is doing here.
To maintain continuity without requiring readers to scroll up to review the statement quoted from Turkel, I'll requote the last half of the paragraph here.
As DeMar rightly says, this depicts a "judgment over time" [DeM.LDM, 200]. Jesus is now exalted to his throne and is passing this sort of judgment as more and more pass on. His remarks to the sheep and goats, and their responses, are typified and stereotyped; this should also be obvious since they cannot be a complete catalog of virtuous and wicked acts. Matthew 25:31-46 is taking place even now--it is not a future judgment (exclusively), but it is a final one.
So DeMar "rightly said" this, did he? I assume everyone noticed that Turkel gave none of DeMar's reasons for saying this; hence, it amounts to nothing but an unsupported assertion. If I can quote a scholar who "rightly" says that this scene depicts a final judgment that will take place after the end of the world, will I tie Turkel? If I quote two or more, will I win? The passages I have quoted and explicated above show that the New Testament depicts a final cataclysmic day in which Jesus will return, the world will be destroyed by fire, and all people will stand before the judgment seat of God to give an account of the deeds they have done. The scene above is consistent with all of those passages. Turkel's strained figurative interpretation isn't.
Of course, no one would think that Matthew 25:33-45 was intended as a complete catalog of every possible righteous and unrighteous act. I'm sure that the apostle Paul didn't intend for his "works of the flesh" in Galatians 5:19-21 to be a complete catalog of sins that would keep people out of the kingdom of God, but they served to remind his readers of the need to do virtuous acts. In the same way, the judgment scene depicted in Matthew 25:31ff served to communicate the idea that righteous acts would be rewarded with eternal life, and unrighteous ones would be rewarded with eternal damnation.
Finally, Turkel argued above--er, excuse me--Turkel asserted above that Jesus is now sitting on his throne passing this judgment "as more and more pass on," but the scene obviously was not depicting a continuous, day-by-day judgment but one that would happen at a specific time when the "son of Man" came in his glory with his angels, which according to other texts would be a time when he would render punishment to everyone according to his works. The text is consistent with that New Testament theme, because it depicts Jesus rewarding the righteous collectively and the wicked collectively. "And these [the unrighteous] will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." This is not a depiction of the piecemeal judgment that Turkel asserts but doesn't support with any kind of explication of the text.
Furthermore, to say that Jesus is now on his throne passing judgment as "more and more pass on" runs contrary to the scene in the parable of the tares [also quoted above] where the servants of the owner of the field ask if they should go pull up the tares and burn them. The owner's answer was, "'No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them" (Matt. 13:29). The owner then told them to let both [the tares and the wheat] grow together until the harvest and at the time of harvest he would tell the reapers to pluck up the tares and burn them. Again, this scene is very consistent with the other New Testament passages that teach a final judgment at the end of the world, at which time the world and the wicked will be destroyed with fire. It is not consistent with Turkel's claim that Jesus is now passing out judgment on a day-to-day basis. Turkel's view would have the tares being plucked up on a day-to-day basis, but the parable said that the tares should be left to grow with the wheat until the harvest, which would be a specific time compatible with the idea of a "day of judgment."
There are more end-of-time [age] passages to be analyzed, but I will get to them as I continue dismantling Turkel's preterist position. Then after I have rebutted all of his figurative quibbles, I will explicate 2 Peter 3:1ff.
Turkel:
McTill is confused,
most likely with a heretical form of preterism that argues that the
resurrection of the dead only also happened in 70 but
was inconspicuous. Both forms of preterism actually say that the
advent (not "return", which is not what parousia
means) of the kingdom of God was visibly and with painful obviousness
shown with the destruction of the religious and political framework
of the Jewish nation. If McTill can't even get the position right,
why is he worth listening to when he critiques it?
Till:
Turkel doesn't
need to lecture me on preterism. I am familiar with the
divisions in the preterist camp. The fact that such division
exists should tell reasonable readers that this issue is not quite as
cut and dried as Turkel thinks it is. He speaks of the "advent
of the kingdom of God," but this is a term that cannot be found
in the Bible. The failure of Jesus to return as promised
created a serious problem for the credibility of the New Testament,
and so various attempts have been made to reconcile the promises of
an imminent return with the reality that no such return happened.
These attempts resulted in the formulation of doctrinal explanations
that gave rise to terms like dispensationalism, premillennialism,
amillennialism, preterism, etc. These movements have broken
into different splinter groups, and full- and partial-preterism are
the two main divisions of the preterist "explanation" of
the promises that Jesus would return soon. All groups are
smugly confident that their spins on the "real" meaning
of these promises are the right one, and we see that smugness
reflected in Turkel's references to full-preterism as a
"heretical form" of the doctrine. The
full-preterists, of course, would say that he and his partial cohorts
are the real heretics. All such doctrinal controversy as this
is testimony to the fact that the Bible is simply a collection of the
uninspired religious opinions of those who lived when these books
were being written. Establish a religion, and doctrinal strife
and controversy will be inevitable. Surely, this would not
happen in a religion established by an omniscient, omnipotent deity
who gave the adherents of that religion a guidebook whose authorship
was guided by his inspiration.
Advent is just another of many theological terms that have arisen to pigeon hole different points of doctrinal dispute. As for the so-called "advent of the kingdom of God," I have already shown [particularly in Part One of this series] that the "advent" of Jesus began with his death on the cross, which according to various New Testament passages abolished the first covenant and instituted a new. As I have shown, New Testament writings that antedated AD 70 clearly taught that the age of the law of Moses ended with the death of Jesus. There are just as many passages that speak of Jesus's reigning on his throne well before AD 70. The first such reference was made in Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost, just 50 days after the alleged resurrection.
Acts 2:33 "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. 30Therefore, 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, 31he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33Therefore 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.
Ephesians 5:15 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.
Hebrews 8:1 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.
If we are to believe Peter, the so-called "kingdom of God" began with the establishment of the church on the day of Pentecost, because he plainly said that God had raised Jesus from the dead to sit on David's throne, so it would have been at that time that the so-called "advent" of Christ began and not some 40 years later. After Pentecost, New Testament writers spoke of the kingdom not as something yet to come but something that was already here.
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.
Acts 14:21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, 22strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, "We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God."
Acts 19:8 And he [Paul] went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God.
Colossians 4:10 Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, with Mark the cousin of Barnabas (about whom you received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him), 11and Jesus who is called Justus. These are my only fellow workers for the kingdom of God who are of the circumcision; they have proved to be a comfort to me.
There are too many passages like this to quote them all. I don't know Turkel's position--who can ever know what oddball position he may take--but some preterists would quibble that the kingdom of God existed before AD 70 but its "advent" just hadn't come yet. If that is Turkel's position, it is an assertion that I will expect him to prove. In support of my position that the "kingdom of God" began with the establishment of the church, well before AD 70, I will quote a text from the book of Hebrews.
Hebrew 12:18 For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire, and to blackness and darkness and tempest, 19and the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words, so that those who heard it begged that the word should not be spoken to them anymore. 20(For they could not endure what was commanded: "And if so much as a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned or shot with an arrow." 21And so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, "I am exceedingly afraid and trembling.") 22But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. 25See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven, 26whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, "Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven." 27Now this, "Yet once more," indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. 29For our God is a consuming fire.
The writer's rather strained analogy was that the first covenant was a "shakable" covenant but that the second one is unshakable. By using "church of the firstborn" and "kingdom which cannot be shaken" interchangeably, the writer showed his belief that the church and the kingdom were the same. The "advent" of this kingdom began when the church was established, and it was established well before AD 70.
Turkel said that the advent of the kingdom of God "was visibly and with painful obviousness shown with the destruction of the religious and political framework of the Jewish nation," but has he studied history or looked around lately? The religious and political framework of the "Jewish nation" was not destroyed in AD 70. Judaism has existed ever since, and there is even now a Jewish nation. Dispensationalists, in fact, wet their pants every time there is some kind of turmoil in the Near East, because they see this as a sign that the "rapture" is at hand.
It is all a bunch of nonsense that can be believed only by very gullible people who just can't bring themselves to admit that the New Testament prophecies of an imminent return of Jesus failed. If the New Testament taught that the "advent of the kingdom of God" would begin only when Jerusalem was destroyed, Turkel should be able to point us to passages that unequivocally say this. We will look forward to seeing him do this.
We will also look forward to seeing pigs fly.
Turkel:
Finally McTill thinks
he has a quick-draw card from 2 Peter because Peter draws an analogy
to the Flood, which, he blubbers, he supposes we think was a literal
event, so how can we say the melting mountains aren't?
Till:
I "blubbered"
it, so therefore I must be wrong. Is that the idea?
I want to quote here exactly what I said in my rebuttal article that Turkel is presumably answering so that everyone can see just how little he answers.
The fact is that the language in 2 Peter 3 clearly supports a literal interpretation of the end described in this passage. "Peter," just as Jesus had done in Matthew 24, compared the coming of Jesus to the coming of Noah's flood, and I am sure Turkel believes that this flood was real and not just "spiritual." The writer said that "the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water," and he didn't just mean that the world that existed then perish symbolically. Incidentally, the word for world in this text was kosmos, and Turkel made a big deal out of its being the world in Greek that meant the whole world. Hence, by Turkel's own definition of kosmos, "Peter" was claiming that the entire world was once destroyed by water but that the earth [ge] by "the same word" [of God] was "reserved" for destruction by fire (vs:5,7). If the first destruction in the analogy was a literal destruction of the whole world, why wouldn't the second one also be a literal destruction of the whole world? If Turkel disputes this, he needs to explain to us explicitly what happened in AD 70 that constituted a coming "with power and great glory" ("The Humpty Dumpty of Biblical Apologetics," The Skeptical Review, September/October 2002, p. 16).
Readers can now judge for themselves if Turkel presented satisfactory answers to everything in this rebuttal argument. His idea of replying to an opponent is to make a sweeping generalization about a delineated argument, which he then calls a rebuttal. I reply point by point in detail; he answers in sweeping generalizations that skip over most of what I say. Anyone who has followed this and the other debates can see the difference in our styles.
Turkel:
This is actually just
another case of McTill being analogically impaired. Peter's analogy
draws solely upon the human reaction to the Flood; it says zip
about how they compare in terms of expression.
Till:
Peter's analogy
drew on the human reaction to the flood? How they compared in
"terms of expression"? These are unexplained
abstractions. What do they mean?
Turkel:
Keep in mind that the
Flood was not the "end of an age"
Till:
The destruction of all
the world in a catastrophe in which only eight people survived was
not the end of an age? What was it then? Just a big
flood, after which the world continued as it had been? The
flood didn't end the age of the giants caused by the
intermarriage of human women with the "sons of God"?
Turkel:
and was not ever
described using apocalyptic imagery as the destruction of Babylon,
etc. was,
Turkel:
Turkel is engaging in
question begging again. Whether the destruction of Babylon was
described in what Turkel calls "apocalyptic imagery" or
whether the description of its fall was intended in literal
astronomical terms is a matter of dispute. Turkel certainly
hasn't made his case yet, but he will have ample opportunity to
do so if he answers my request for textual analyses that will give
unequivocal linguistic evidence that Isaiah et al were just
speaking figuratively. He is probably too used to
choir-preaching to know any better, but I'm not going to let
him just assert his way to a figurative interpretation of those
texts.
Turkel:
and that again, these
OT oracles freely mixed literal and figurative images,
Till:
Yes, indeed, they did,
and I was the one who took the time to show that (1) extended
figurative texts will always have some literal language and (2) the
contexts will always determine what language is literal and what
language is figurative. Turkel explained nothing about
this.
He has simply asserted that the astronomical signs in Isaiah's
prophecy were figurative. He will now have the opportunity to
reply to my detailed analysis of Isaiah 13 and show linguistic
reasons in this text to understand that the astronomical signs were
figurative. Will he do it?
Will pigs ever fly?
Turkel:
so that one can't
merely argue "guilt by association" to make the fire part
out as literal as the Flood part.
Till:
No, I make the fire
part as literal as the flood part, because the context of the passage
demands it, as I will show later in my explication of 2 Peter 3:1ff.
Turkel:
Fire was regularly
used in imagery in the Bible (i.e., Matt. 3:10-12) even when used in
illustrations that could reflect literal happenings.
Till:
I just love it when
Turkel puts his foot into his mouth, so in keeping with my character
weakness, I will now shove it in deeper.
Fire was indeed used figuratively in the Bible, although I am not so sure that Turkel's example is a case where it was so used.
Matthew 3:10-12 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 11I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
A case for literalism can be made in all three cases where fire was used here. The burning of the trees that bore no fruit and the chaff that was separated from the wheat is figurative, but its meaning was closely allied to eternal punishment in fire, which is spoken of elsewhere in the New Testament, as I have already shown above. There is nothing to indicate that this concept of eternal punishment was not intended to be understood literally. On the day of Pentecost, the apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit <snicker, snicker>, at which time there appeared fiery tongues that sat upon them (Acts 2:1ff). However, there is no need to waste time on this point, because I readily admit that fire was used figuratively in the Bible. I just think there are better examples, such as the passages below.
Romans 12:20 If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him to drink; for in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.
James 3:5 Even so the tongue is a little member and boasts great things. See how great a forest a little fire kindles! 6And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity. The tongue is so set among our members that it defiles the whole body, and sets on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire by hell.
James 5:3 Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire.
What Turkel apparently doesn't realize is that any word can be used figuratively, so the fact that fire was sometimes used figuratively in the Bible does not mean that it was used figuratively in 2 Peter 3:1ff. His argument seems to be that fire was sometimes used figuratively in the Bible; therefore, it was used figuratively in 2 Peter 3:1ff. I wonder if he knows what non sequitur means. This is the same kind of argument I have referred to before in reference to those who try to argue that because father and son were sometimes used in the secondary senses of ancestor and descendant, they were therefore so used in Daniel 5 when the writer referred to Nebuchadnezzar (several times) as the "father" of Belshazzar and Belshazzar as the "son" of Nebuchadnezzar, but language just doesn't work that way. The meanings of words must be determined by the contexts in which they are used. In one context a word may mean X, but in another context, it may mean Y. Is Turkel ever going to learn that?
I will show in my explication later that the context indicates a literal meaning for fire in 2 Peter 3, but first I want to show how Turkel put his foot in his mouth by arguing that since fire was sometimes used figuratively in the Bible, we can know that it was so used in 2 Peter 3, even though the flood, which was analogized with the destruction of the world by fire, was a literal flood. Turkel apparently doesn't know that water was sometimes used figuratively in the Bible.
John 3:5 Jesus answered [Nicodemus], "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
John 4:10 Jesus answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." 11The woman said to Him, "Sir, You have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where then do You get that living water?" 12Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?" 13Jesus answered and said to her, "Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, 14but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life." 15The woman said to Him, "Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw."
John 7:37 On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. 38He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."
1 John 5:6 This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
Is Turkel still not convinced that water was sometimes used figuratively in the Bible? Well, I'll just let none other than "the apostle Peter" settle it for him.
1 Peter 3:17 It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. 18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also....
This relegates Turkel's argument to the trash heap where it belongs, because if the figurative use of fire in some biblical passages proves that fire was used figuratively in 2 Peter 3, then the figurative use of water in some biblical passages, including even one that referred to the flood, would prove that the flood in 2 Peter 3 was just a figurative flood.
If not, why not?
Don't look now, but Humpty Dumpty just took another fall.
Turkel:
As
he often does, McTill compares apples with oranges and ends up with
both stuck in his ears.
Till:
I'll let the
readers decide who is presenting the better defense of his
position.
At any rate, I think I'd rather have apples and oranges stuck
in my ears than my foot rammed down my throat.
Turkel:
The language is no
more literal than when we speak of events as "earth-shattering".
Till:
If the language isn't
literal, then Turkel should explicate the text for us to show why it
should be understood figuratively. He keeps forgetting the
primary literary principle that says the language of a text should be
understood literally unless there are compelling reasons to assign
figurative meaning, so if the fire in 2 Peter was intended
figuratively, he should be able to point out the compelling reasons
to so understand it. He should keep in mind that his desire for
the text to support preterism would not be a compelling reason to
assign figurative meaning. After all, he himself has pointed
out that one's biases don't count in deciding the meaning
of a text. A little later, I will post my explication in
support of the view that the fire was intended to be understood as a
literal fire that would destroy the earth. Meanwhile, I trust
everyone has noticed that Turkel has not yet explicated the text.
He has simply asserted that it is figurative and "supported"
the assertion with some "DeMar says."
Turkel:
McTill closes his
"hard copy" response with the remark that he wants
"specific answers" as to what happened in 70 to fulfill
these prophecies, and snorts, "we are not at all interested in
what preterists like Gary DeMar may think."
Till:
Turkel thinks that if
he says that I "snorted" this, it will somehow prove that
my "snort" is wrong. Perhaps he would care to tell
us why Gary DeMar's opinion should count for more than the many
scholars who think that this text was describing a literal
destruction of the world by fire. Whatever he says, let him
keep in mind his own standard, which he set some time ago on the CCBE
internet list in the matter of Philo Judaeus.
That's nice, but Philo is simply reading into the text what is not there. So if I find a Jewish commentator of equal worth that says the opposite, is it a draw? If I find two, do I win? Remember that Philo is trying to promote Moses and Aaron here and would maximize their feat to the greatest extent possible.
So it is question time again. I may as well give Turkel something else to ignore.
1. Does Gary DeMar try to promote preterism?
2. If so, would his opinions on 2 Peter 3 and related texts not be, by your own standards, unreliable?
3. What does the text of 2 Peter 3 say, within the context of that passage, that indicates the fire and destruction of the world by fire were figurative?
4. If you can cite no linguistic reasons for assigning figurative meaning to the fire, are you [and DeMar] not reading into the text what is not there?
Before I go on, may I snort here that I would like to have some specific answers to these questions. If you don't give specific answers, I'll just ask them again.
Turkel:
Well, that's just too
bad. We gave specific answers,
Till:
"We" did?
And just where did "we" do that? Please be specific
and quote where you told us exactly what happened in AD 70 that
fulfilled the prophecy of what "every eye" was to see.
Be specific and relate the exact events that happened to enable those
familiar with the prophecy in Matthew 24:29ff to say, "Oh,
yeah, this is what Jesus said would happen."
Turkel:
and McTill ignored
them;
Till:
As I have explained
several times now, I had only five pages for my "hardcopy"
reply to Turkel's 11-page rehashing of DeMar's "Olivet
Discourse," so I made no claim that I was replying to
everything Turkel said. In fact, I specifically pointed out in
my concluding paragraph that I had not been able to address
everything in Turkel's article.
As I said on the front page of this issue, five pages are not nearly enough space to reply to an article twice as long, so I will continue my reply to Turkel on the new TSR website ("The Humpty Dumpty of Biblical Apologetics, The Skeptical Review, October/ November 2002, p. 16).
That was then, and this is now, so Turkel can no longer say--I resisted saying whine--that I have ignored any of his arguments. I have gone through his so-called rebuttal of my argument point-by-point, as I always do--and I have skipped nothing. Altogether, this series of my replies to Turkel contains over 110,000 words, and after I have finished it, I intend to go through his original article point-by-point to answer anything that I may not have yet answered. Preterism is an idiotic attempt to gloss over an obvious prophecy failure, so I have no fear that Turkel will present any kind of argument for this doctrine that I cannot answer. If he thinks that I have "ignored" something, let him point it out, and I will reply to it, but I will expect him to reciprocate. And do I have a list of rebuttals for him to answer, which he has so far skipped! I will, in fact, post another article besides the one just mentioned above in which I will list my rebuttal points that Turkel has hopped, skipped, and jumped over.
Turkel:
and I may as well say
I am "not at all interested in what atheists like McTill may
think" in reply.
Till:
And, of course, he
shouldn't be. Have I not pointed out several times that
Turkel's tactic of quoting "scholars" who agree
with him is as ridiculous as if I would quote Dan Barker or Dennis
McKinsey as "proof" to him that my position is correct?
I would never do that, because I know that doing so would be like
quoting the Bible to prove the Bible or quoting the Book of Mormon to
prove the Book of Mormon. This is an approach to debating that
Turkel has yet to learn is fallacious.
Turkel:
It would be nice if I
could end all "arguments" that irresponsibly,
Till:
Well, Turkel, you do
end almost all of your "arguments" that irresponsibly, as
I will show when I go through your original article and point out how
often you tried to settle a matter by saying, "As Caird says,"
or some such.
Turkel:
but McTill has now
got himself locked in, pressed and with nowhere to hide.
Till:
No, since I have never
depended on this type of argumentation, I don't have myself
locked into anything, and I'm not at all pressed with nowhere
to hide. In fact, I have no need to hide, because I am rather
enjoying nailing your "shimmying hiney" to the wall.
Does this series of rebuttals look as if I am pressed or looking for
a place to hide?
Now it is time to show that aion in Greek was sometimes used to mean the world so that "the end of the age [aion]" could convey the sense of "the end of the world." This would be somewhat like the way an English speaker might refer to the "end of time." Time in English does not mean world, but one speaking about the end of time would be speaking about the end of the world.
First, let's notice that lexicons give "the world" as one meaning of aion (Arndt & Gingrich, 1960, p. 27).
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 [aionas].
Aionas is the plural of aion, but Arndt & Gingrich noted in their definition 3 that aion in both the singular and plural could covey the sense of "world." In the text just quoted, aionas was translated as "worlds," to indicate a meaning more probable than "ages." The latter would indicate that the writer was saying that God created the "ages" through his son, but it is rather difficult to conceive of why the writer would claim that the son of God had created the ages. Some translations rendered the word as "universe" (NIV, NAB, GNB); others simply rendered it as "world" (RSV, NASV, TYNDALE), whereas some, like the Jerusalem Bible, translated it "everything there is." Hence, there is a broad consensus that aionas as used by the Hebrew writer was intended to convey the sense of a material creation rather than just a creation of time periods. The statement in Hebrews, then is reminiscent of John 1:3, which said that "all things were made through him [the word, i. e., Jesus] and without him was not anything made that has been made." It's hard to imagine that these writers were simply saying that Jesus had created ages or time periods.
In the KJV, which is the version that Turkel uses, aion was translated as world 40 times, and a look at some of the examples should suffice to explain why.
2 Timothy 4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, [aiona] and is departed unto Thessalonica....
If the apostle Paul meant here that Demas loved the present "age," then exactly what was he saying? Was he saying that Demas loved the Jewish age, which according to Turkel had not yet ended, or was he saying that Demas loved the new covenant age, which, as various scriptures already quoted show, Paul believed Demas and he were living in at that time? Obviously, the word world connotes the most probable meaning that the writer had in mind. Demas loved the world in the sense of the pleasures that he could find in "this present world."
1 Timothy 6:17 Charge them that are rich in this world [aioni], that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy...
Did "Paul" mean that Timothy should charge them that are rich in this "age" not to trust in the uncertainty of riches? If so, then did he mean this charge should be given to those in "this age" until that age ended in AD 70 but after that, this charge would not be necessary because "this age" would be over? That is a very unlikely interpretation. That aioni was being used here in the sense of the world seems evident from the fact that the writer used this word interchangeable with kosmov, which, as previously noted, Turkel has said conveyed the sense of the whole world. In the seventh verse of this passage, "Paul" said, "(W)e brought nothing into this world [kosmon], and it is certain we can carry nothing out." From there, he proceeded to warn Timothy of the hazards of riches, which led into his famous statement about the love of money being the root of all kinds of evil. He wrote of those who had been led astray from the faith and had pierced themselves through with many sorrows by because of their passion for money. He then warned Timothy to "flee these things" and pursue "righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, and meekness" (v:11).
A theme about the perils of riches was extended throughout this passage, which "Paul" concluded by telling Timothy to charge them who are "rich in this present world" not to be highminded or to have their hopes on riches. He began the theme by saying that we brought nothing into this world [kosmon] and concluded it with an admonition to those who are rich in this world [aioni], an interchangeable use of the words that indicates aioni was being used not in the sense of a time period but the world.
2 Corinthians 4:4 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4In whom the god of this world [aionos] hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
I'm sure that even Turkel would admit that the "god of this world" that Paul referred to here was Satan <snicker, snicker>, so did he mean that Satan was just the god of an "age" or the god of the world regardless of what "age" the world may be going through? If he was saying that Satan was the god of an age, did he mean that Satan was just the god of the Jewish age, which Turkel says had not yet ended, and that when AD 70 came, Satan would no longer be the god of whatever "age" followed the end of the "age of the law"? These are just a few of the questions that are raised by the silly spin that preterists put on words in order to make them fit into their preconceived mold.
1 Corinthians 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world [aiona] standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
Did Paul mean that if meat caused his brother to offend, he would refrain from eating meat just as long as an "age" lasted? A final set of examples should show that aion was used to convey the concept of "world," and so examples like the one above were probably cases where aion was used to mean world.
Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world [kosmou], that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will...
Ephesians 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world [aionon] hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11According to the eternal [aionon] purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: 12In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.
At the beginning of this epistle, "Paul" used kosmou, which Turkel claims meant the whole world, in reference to the mystery of the gospel that had been revealed. He said that God had preordained "before the foundation of the world [kosmou] those who would be chosen as adopted children. I'll repeat for emphasis that "Paul" said that this had taken place before the foundation of the world [kosmou], but later in this epistle he said that this selection had been hidden before the beginning of the world [aionon]. Clearly this writer was using the words kosmos and aion interchangeably to convey the same meaning, i. e., world. In Romans 16:25, Paul also used aion in reference to the mystery of the gospel, which had been hidden "since the world [aioniois] began." The Hebrew writer also referred to the "foundation of the world" in 4:3 and used the world kosmou, so it is rather evident that New Testament writers used kosmos and aion interchangeably in reference not to a time period but the world.
If I juxtapose two passages in which "Matthew" used aion, those who don't have a pet doctrine to defend should have no trouble seeing that "Matthew" at times did use aion to mean the world.
Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world [sunteleias tou aionos]?
Matthew 28:16 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world [sunteleias tou aionos].
Even those who have not studied Greek should be able to look at the transliteration of the final three words in each passage to see that they are the same. Now Turkel claims that sunteleias tou aionos in the question the disciples asked Jesus in the first passage above meant not the end of the world but just the end of the "age of law." If that is so, then does Turkel think that the same three words in "Matthew's" version of the so-called "Great Commission" meant that Jesus would be with his disciples, who were to go to all nations to preach the gospel, only until the end of the age in AD 70? If so, does that mean that after AD 70, the disciples who went about preaching the gospel to all nations were on their own? If sunteleias tou aionos in Matthew 28:16 meant the end of the world, the end of time, the end of an age in which the gospel would be preached to all nations, then why did it mean just till the end of the "age of the law" in Matthew 24:3? What is there in the context--c-o-n-t-e-x-t--of Matthew 24:3 that enables Turkel to know that it had this meaning that the same expression obviously didn't have four chapters later in a document written by the same person?
We need an explanation, and Turkel should remember that his biases are not justifiable reasons for saying that these three words had a different meaning in 24:3.
Lexicographers say that aion sometimes conveyed the sense of "the world," and translation committees have rendered aion as world in various New Testament texts. I don't know about others reading this, but I would prefer to put my trust in what the translators have said rather than in the opinion of a biblical inerrantist trying frantically to make the Bible not contradict itself. If there is scholarly consensus that aion did at times convey the sense of "the world," Turkel must offer more than his mere biased opinion that the disciples did not mean world when they asked Jesus what would be the signs of his coming and of the end of the world (Matt. 24:3).
These questions were asked in response to Jesus's prediction that not one stone in the temple would be left upon another that would not be thrown down. In the minds of the disciples, such destruction would be associated with the cataclysmic end that was expected at that time.
The passage in
2 Peter 3
is the most obvious example of this expectation, but because of the
length of this eighth part, I will begin my point-by-point reply to
Turkel's/DeMar's "Olivet Discourse" with my
explication of 2 Peter 3.
