A character named Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass said to Alice, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less." The more I read the articles of Robert Turkel, the more I think that he must be the Humpty Dumpty of biblical apologetics, because he continually asserts that this or that word or expression means thus and so instead of the usual meanings that are attached to them. In reading through his article above, one learns that clouds didn’t mean clouds, that stars didn’t mean stars, that tribes didn’t mean tribes, etc. It seems that in the text of his "Olivet Discourse" words like those just mentioned always had "symbolic" meanings, and these symbolic meanings, of course, always fit conveniently into the preterist scenario that Turkel espouses. He is at his best in assigning arbitrary meanings when he declares that certain Greek words didn’t mean what biblical translators said that they meant. When Jesus said that the "the gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world" before the end came (Matt. 24:14), Turkel said that the word for world here was oikoumene, which didn’t mean world but "only the Roman empire." Never mind that lexicographers like Arndt and Gingrich assigned "the inhabited earth, the world" as the primary meaning of this word (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1960, pp. 563-564), and never mind that it was obviously so used in many places in the New Testament, world in this particular passage is a meaning inconvenient to Turkel’s pet theory, and so he declares that the word didn’t mean world but only "the Roman empire."
Here are some passages that used oikoumene with the obvious intention of conveying its primary meaning, i.e., world.
Luke 4:5 Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world [oikoumenes] in a moment of time.
This, of course, is a verse from the story of Jesus’s temptation in the wilderness, which occurred after his baptism in the Jordan River. Most of the Roman empire lay to the west of this region, so if Jesus was able to see all the kingdoms of the world, how likely is it that Luke meant that the devil had shown to Jesus only the kingdoms that lay to the west of this mountain but not those that were east of it? Besides this, literal translations, such as Concordant Literal New Testament and Hendrickson’s Interlinear both translated oikoumenes in this verse as "the inhabited earth" and "the habitable world" respectively.
Hebrews 1:1-6 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has 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; who 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, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For to which of the angels did He ever say, "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You"? And again: "I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son"? But when He again brings the firstborn into the world [oikoumenen] , He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him."
I quoted the full context of the last verse so that readers could see that Jesus was obviously the subject of the passage, so how likely is it that the writer meant to say that God brought his firstborn into "the Roman empire" rather than the world? The literal translations cited above used the same terms here to translate oikoumenen, i. e., "inhabited earth" and "habitable world."
Revelation 3:10 Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world [oikoumenes], to test those who dwell on the earth [ges].
The writer's use of both oikoumenes and ges [earth] in this verse communicates very clearly that he intended oikoumenes to convey the whole world in the sense of the whole earth. Turkel, of course, argued in his article that ge [earth] didn’t mean earth either but only the sense of "land" within a particular region, so he may argue that the verse above meant that an hour of trial was coming on only the Roman empire to test the inhabitants of the "land" in the Roman empire, because we must remember that words mean to Humpty Dumpty whatever Humpty Dumpty wants them to mean. If standard meanings are inconvenient to the doctrine Turkel is defending, he solves that problem by arbitrarily declaring that they have "symbolic" meanings. Stars don’t mean stars, clouds don’t mean clouds, and "all the tribes of the earth" don’t mean all the tribes of the earth, because, in the first place, earth doesn’t mean earth. See how it works?
I'll return to Turkel’s semantics games later, but first let’s look at another passage where oikoumene was obviously used to convey the sense of the inhabited world. This is one that he cited as proof that the gospel had been preached to the whole Roman empire.
Romans 10:18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed: "Their sound has gone out to all the earth [gen], And their words to the ends of the world [oikoumenes]."
In this passage, the apostle Paul used the words earth and world interchangeable, so the two obviously had the same intended meaning. Turkel, of course, argued in his article that earth [ge] didn't mean earth but just "land" in the sense of a "limited area." I suppose, then, that he would argue that Paul was saying only that "their sound" had gone out to all the "land of the Roman empire" and to the "ends of the Roman empire."
If this is his intention, he has a big problem to tackle. The verse quoted above was not a statement original with Paul but was a quotation from Psalm 19:4. The quotation in its original context obviously was speaking of the whole world in the sense of the entire earth.
Psalm 19:1-4 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.
The full context gives an excellent example of how New Testament writers twisted and distorted the meanings of Old Testament scriptures to make them fit into whatever doctrinal views they were trying to prove, because the psalmist obviously wasn’t speaking of any verbal declarations that had gone out to all the earth and to the end of the world. He was speaking of the glory of God that had been declared by his handiwork in the heavenly bodies. He certainly didn’t mean that this "glory of God" had been declared only in a "limited area" or only within the land of Israel. The obvious meaning of the statement was that the "heavens" had declared the "glory of God" throughout the earth to the ends of the whole world, because there was "no speech or language" where the voice of the heavens had not been heard.
What about the Greek word ge? In Matthew 24:30, when Jesus said that "all the tribes of the earth" would see Jesus coming, did he mean only the "tribes" in the "limited area" of the land around Jerusalem? In "The Absence of Evidence"(TSR, March/April 2002, I addressed this ge-means-only-land-within-a-region quibble with reference to Luke’s claim that darkness fell over the "whole land [gen]" (Luke 23:44). I pointed out that the word ge could mean either "earth" or "land," just as the word earth in English and terre in French can be used in both senses. However, when English speakers hear the word earth and French speakers hear the word terre, they don’t scratch their heads wondering what is meant, because context enables the meanings to be determined.
In the article just mentioned, I pointed out that qualifiers were almost always used with ge to indicate when it was being used in its limited sense of land within a region. Thus, we read about "the land of Egypt" or "the land of Israel" as in the following examples.
Matthew 11:24 But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land [ge] of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.
John 3:22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land [gen] of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized.
Hebrew 8:8-9 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah--not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land [ges] of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD."
Matthew 14:34 When they had crossed over, they came to the land [gen] of Gennesaret.
Acts 13:17-19 The God of this people Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land [ge] of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm He brought them out of it. Now for a time of about forty years He put up with their ways in the wilderness. And when He had destroyed seven nations in the land [ge] of Canaan, He distributed their land [ge] to them by allotment.
In discussing this point in "The Absence of Evidence," I used Matthew 2:20, Matthew 10:15, Acts 7:3-5, and Jude 5 as examples to show that contextual qualifiers were used to convey the limited sense of ge. I intentionally used a different set of examples this time to emphasize the number of New Testament passages in which the limited meaning of ge was consistently signified in this way. In other words, I am saying no more than what I have had to say many times in my replies to Turkel’s articles in which he applied unlikely meanings to words in order to find support for his inerrancy belief: the meanings of homographs [words spelled and pronounced alike that have different meanings] are almost always easily determined by the contexts in which they are used.
Throughout the New Testament, contexts also determined when ge was being used in the sense of the entire earth, but since the meaning of ge as used by Matthew is in dispute, I'll quote only examples from his gospel.
Matthew 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth [ge] pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
Matthew 5:34-35 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth [ge], for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
Matthew 6:9-10 In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth [ges] as it is in heaven.
Matthew 6:19-20 Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth [ges], where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.
Matthew 9:4-6 But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth [ges] to forgive sins" then He said to the paralytic, "Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house."
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, "I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth [ges], that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes."
There are several other examples in Matthew, but these are sufficient to make the point. When ge was used, the context indicated whether it was being used to signify the entire earth or only a regional area of land or just ground or dirt. An example of the latter is Matthew 13:5, where one of the parables of Jesus referred to seed that fell upon rocky places where they had "not much earth [gen]," and so the plants withered and died from not having "depth of earth [ges]." Here the word ge, used twice, obviously meant neither the entire earth nor a regional area of land but ground or dirt.
I have developed this point at length, because the meaning of Matthew 24:29-30 is crucial to the preterist position.
"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. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth [ges] will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
Turkel, of course, claimed that ges in this verse meant only "the land" around the region of Jerusalem, but this is just a Humpty-Dumpty definition that he arbitrary imposed on the word in order to make the statement fit into his preconceived preterist mold. The word was not qualified in any way with "of Jerusalem" or "of Judea" to convey that only the people living in the "land" around Jerusalem would see the "son of man coming." Since it was Matthew’s style to so qualify ge when it was being used in this limited sense (2:6; 2:20-21; 4:15; 10:15; 11:24; 14:34), it seems that the Holy Spirit was rather careless to "inspire" such ambiguity in a passage so important to a central biblical doctrine. All that the Holy Spirit had to do was direct Matthew to write "ges of Jerusalem" or "ges of Judea," and Turkel and I wouldn’t be having this discussion.
To any reasonable person, the fact that this passage said that "all the tribes of the earth" would mourn upon seeing the sign of the son of Man in heaven should be clear contextual evidence that ges was being used here in its unrestricted sense to mean the entire earth, but when one has an emotional attachment to a religious belief, common sense will often take a back seat to a desire to cling to the doctrine. In order to make Matthew 24:29-30 consistent with his preterist belief, Turkel was required to make just about everything in this passage figurative or symbolic. The sun, moon, and stars weren't really the sun, moon, and stars; they were simply "apocalyptic imagery," and "all the tribes of the earth" weren’t really all the tribes of the earth but were only the tribes of Israel. I'll take these one at a time to show that they are entirely speculative.
The sun, moon, and stars: Turkel quoted several Old Testament passages that prophesied the destructions of Babylon, Egypt, and Edom, which would be accompanied by the darkening of the sun, moon, and stars, and then concluded that these all had to have been figurative prophecies, because "(n)one of these things literally happened to Babylon, etc." Because none of these events literally happened, Turkel arbitrarily declared that "Isaiah et al did not think that they would." Turkel is therefore playing a familiar inerrantist game. He is trying to prove biblical inerrancy by assuming inerrancy. In other words, he is arguing that if Isaiah et al prophesied that certain heavenly signs would accompany the destruction of Babylon, Edom, and Egypt, then these events had to have happened, because whatever the Bible says has to be true. Therefore, if the stars kept shining at these times and if the sun and moon continued to give their light, then these prophets didn’t mean that these signs would literally happen. They were just speaking in "apocalyptic imagery." What proof did Turkel offer for his "apocalyptic- imagery" theory? Exactly none! He just arbitrarily declared it to be what these prophecies meant, but he didn’t even attempt to explain what the "imagery" meant. If Isaiah didn’t mean that the stars would literally "not give their light," what did he mean? If he didn’t mean that the sun would be literally darkened, what did he mean? If he didn’t mean that the moon "shall not cause her light to shine," what did he mean? Turkel conveniently left these details unexplained, and that raises a question that he needs to answer. If such language as this was not literal, how did those who heard or read the prophecies know what to expect? How would they know that fulfillment was taking place?
This brings us to Jesus’s prophecy that the sun would be darkened, the moon would not give its light, and the stars would fall from heaven. As "proof" that the language wasn’t literal, Turkel quoted John MacArthur, who said that "(a)lmost no one expects stars to fall to earth," but what people today "expect" and what the writer of Matthew meant are two different things. People today understand that stars are hot luminous celestial bodies, like our sun, which are light years away from us, and so they could not "fall" to earth, because the earth would be completely incinerated before even one star collided with it. Matthew, however, probably didn’t know this, and so there is no reason to think that he did not believe that stars could fall to the earth. I grew up on a farm in a rural area of Missouri that was miles from the light pollution of cities, and so I can remember that meteorites streaking through the night sky were fairly common occurrences, and we called these "falling stars." The term no doubt originated in a time when people actually believed that meteorites were stars falling to the earth, so it isn’t at all unreasonable to think that when biblical writers prophesied that stars would fall to the earth, they thought that this would literally happen during the apocalyptic events that they predicted. Turkel cannot arbitrarily assign meanings to words on the grounds that the literal meanings of the words scientifically conflict with what is common knowledge today. Those who read Turkel’s website articles know that he frequently tries to resolve biblical discrepancies by talking about the Greek or Hebrew "mind" and insisting that the language of the Bible must be interpreted in the light of what the people of the time thought, so he can’t have it both ways. Consistency demands that he interpret "falling stars" in terms of what people in biblical times knew about astronomy and not in terms of what is known about it today.
Furthermore, if the darkening of the sun and moon was just "apocalyptic imagery," not intended to be taken literally, was the darkness that fell over "all the land" at the time of the crucifixion (Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44) also just apocalyptic imagery? If Jesus did not mean that the heavenly signs in his prophecy would literally happen, what did he mean? What exactly did those living in AD 70 see that enabled them to know that the prophecy had been fulfilled and that Jesus had returned?
These are important questions that must be answered by preterists if they expect reasonable people to take their theory seriously, but Turkel’s article was noticeably silent about these details. No one reading his article will have even a hint of what people supposedly saw in AD 70 when this prophecy of Jesus’s return was allegedly fulfilled.
All the tribes of the earth: As I will show later, the New Testament clearly taught that the return of Jesus would be a universally visible event, which would be followed by the destruction of the world, a general resurrection of the dead, and final judgment. Matthew 24:29-30 is one of the passages that teach the universal visibility of the second coming, but since there are obviously no supporting records of such a visible event in AD 70, preterists also have to explain why no records in China, India, Greece, etc. mentioned an event that "all the tribes of the earth" were supposed to have seen. Well, Turkel has an "explanation" for that too. "All the tribes of the earth" didn’t really mean all the tribes of the earth. It meant only the tribes of Israel in the general region of Jerusalem. What was Turkel’s proof that tribes had this limited meaning? He cited Matthew 19:18--but really meant Matthew 19:28--which has Jesus saying to the apostles, "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Here we know that tribes referred only to the 12 tribes of Israel, because the text says so, but there is no such qualification in Matthew 24:30, just as there is no qualification of the word ges [earth] with "of Judea" or "of Jerusalem" to show that Jesus meant for ges to refer only to the region around Jerusalem. Turkel, then, is indeed the Humpty Dumpty of biblical apologetics, who somehow feels entitled to make words mean what he wants them to mean so that they will support a cherished doctrine. His brand of apologetics, in effect, makes the Holy Spirit an incompetent buffoon, who couldn’t "inspire" writers to express themselves in language clear enough to be understood without readers needing a Robert Turkel to explain its meaning.
To accept the face-value language of Matthew 24:29-30 would make it consistent with other texts that clearly taught the universal visibility of the second coming.
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.
Turkel, of course, will argue that the writer here did not mean that every eye would behold the coming of Jesus but only those eyes in the general region of Jerusalem and that he didn't mean that all the tribes of the earth would mourn but only the tribes of Israel in the region of Jerusalem. In other words, the Holy Spirit botched the job here too and couldn’t inspire the author of Revelation to write with clarity either. The Holy One has to depend on apologists like Turkel to explain what he really meant.
A problem passage: There are many passages in the New Testament that present serious problems to the preterist theory. Because of space limitations, I can analyze only a few of them. The rest I will save for the on-line continuation of this debate with Turkel.
2 Peter 3:1-12 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 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.
But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?
Of all the New Testament passages that dispute the preterist theory that Jesus returned in AD 70, this one is the hardest one for them to explain away. They, of course, will contend that what Peter said here was merely symbolic or "spiritual," just as the prophecies of Jesus’s return in Matthew 24 were symbolic references to a "spiritual" return, but there are numerous problems for this interpretation of the passage.
The date: First of all, there is the date that responsible biblical scholarship has assigned to the second epistle of "Peter." Except for diehard fundamentalists, scholars recognize that (1) this epistle was not written by the apostle Peter and (2) it wasn’t written until the second century, well after Jesus had, according to the preterist theory returned in AD 70.
Space won’t permit an in-depth discussion of the dating of 2 Peter, but this is an issue that Turkel and I can debate on line if he should care to defend the authenticity of this epistle. For now, I will simply list the major reasons why scholars have assigned a late date to 2 Peter: (1) A primary purpose of this epistle was to reassure readers that Jesus would indeed come again, but Peter allegedly died around AD 64-67, a time too early for doubts about fulfillment of Jesus’s promise to return to have become the serious issue addressed in the passage quoted above. (2) References to this epistle in the writings of church fathers were not made until the second century, and it wasn’t mentioned in western writings until the fourth century. (3) The authenticity of this epistle was questioned by early writers like Origen and Jerome.
Because of these and other textual problems, this epistle has been dated from AD 100 to 150. Needless to say, this was well after AD 70, so Turkel needs to explain why the writer of this epistle was addressing concerns about a return of Jesus that had already happened. Perhaps the return in AD 70 had been so "spiritual" that it had come and gone without the writer of this epistle and his readers having recognized it.
A thousand years is as one day: No doubt Turkel will argue that this epistle is authentic and that its author was the apostle Peter, but as noted above, it is unlikely that scoffing and mockery about the return of Jesus as intense as the passage above described would have developed before Peter’s death. The first epistle of "Peter" had warned that "the end of all things is at hand" (4:7), so the use of "a thousand years is as one day" in the second epistle to explain the delay suggests that a considerable length of time had passed since the warning had been issued. The time description would hardly seem appropriate for concerns about delay in the second coming that had developed in Peter’s lifetime, after the warning in the first epistle, but would be a fitting description to use as late as AD 125-150 to allay concerns about the delay in Jesus’s return.
The end of all things: Earlier I said that the New Testament taught that the return of Jesus would be a universally visible event, which would be followed by the destruction of the world. In the first epistle of Peter, the writer warned his readers that "the end of all things is at hand," and the second epistle vividly described this ending, which would accompany "his coming" (v:4). "The heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up" (v:10). Turkel, of course, will argue that the language here is just "apocalyptic." When an inerrantist has cherished beliefs to defend, biblical passages that are damaging to those beliefs are always symbolic or figurative or metaphorical, and preterists are no different, but it seems strange that "Peter" not once but twice in this passage described the "coming" of Jesus as an event that would bring about a cataclysmic "dissolving" and "melting" not of Jerusalem alone but "all these things."
Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?
If Turkel is going to claim that the language here was also just "apocalyptic," I would like for him to tell us exactly what happened in AD 70 that could have been appropriately described with the language in 2 Peter 3. Matthew 24:30 said that all the tribes of the earth would see the son of man coming with power and great glory. A scene like the one "Peter" described would certainly be a coming in power and great glory, but an inconspicuous "spiritual" coming that escaped the notice of record keepers of that time would hardly qualify.
The flood analogy: 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 perished symbolically. Incidentally, the word for world in this text was kosmos, and Turkel made a big deal out of its being the word 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."
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. This part of my reply will be posted before the other part is finished, so if Turkel should undertake to paste together a quick reply to this article, he should try to address the rebuttal arguments and questions herein. In particular, we want to know (1) how Turkel knows that all of the New Testament references to cataclysmic events that would accompany the second coming were just symbolic "apocalyptic imagery," (2) how an event that "every eye" was supposed to see somehow passed unnoticed in historical records, and (3) exactly what happened in AD 70 that fulfilled the prophecies. We want specific answers, and we are not at all interested in what preterists like Gary DeMar may think.
