Highly Recommended

Gentry presented his case first and does something that I found extremely informative. He limits (due to the relative shortness of space for such a complex topic) himself mostly to the Olivet Discourse as recorded in Matthew 24, but first, does what very few people do, realizes that Matthew 24 does not happen in a vacuum but rather appears where and when it does in Matthew for reason. And in so doing, showing the building "impending judgment on the Jews" context of the entirety of Matthew, makes great sense of Matthew 24. All of this background is done before one verse of the Discourse is exegeted, and to me, it was a wise move. However, (and I wish that Gentry did not do this), he mentions his peculiar belief (peculiar in that almost every preterist author disagrees with him on this point) that Matthew 24:35 and forward refer to the Second Coming of Christ. Since he was there to be representative of the preterist view, and most preterists disagree with him on this, I really wish he hadn't made that an issue or a topic of discussion. After the foundational piece on the theme and context of Matthew, he does a verse by verse exposition of the Discourse up through verse 34, where he places that much-disputed break. This part of his work is very similar to what DeMar does in "Last Days Madness" .

Out of order with the book, I read Ice's rebuttal to Gentry. The amount of begged questions and assumptions were astounding. In all fairness though, length was limited to both authors, and not every point could be defended in depth by either. However, Ice put forth some bad arguments and spun one argument in such a way to claim that Gentry actually concedes on a point that he most certainly does not. Specifically, he tries to defuse the force of Matthew 24:34 by denying that there is validity to the preterist contention that since Jesus said "this" generation instead of "that" generation, the first century audience was in view. First, he tries to claim that timing verses must be interpreted within context, which obviously is true. However, he determines the "context" in many cases (though inconsistent on this point) by deciding whether or not the things spoken of have come to pass yet, and if not, then the timing verse(s) must be interpreted in a way that makes it future. This is really putting the cart before the horse, and the skeptics would have a field day with that one.

Second, he makes a great deal of hay out of Gentry's belief of a change in topic at Matthew 24:36. He shows (at least in his view and most preterists would agree with Ice against Gentry) that Gentry is inconsistent on this point because the "that" in "that day" (Matthew 24:36) refers back to the events preceding Matthew 24:34. Good enough so far, but he then surprisingly claims that the fact that Gentry holds to this change (and that Gentry contrasts "this generation' with "that day") that Gentry concedes that the fact that Jesus says "this generation" and not "that generation" does not mean anything towards demanding a first century context. What? What Ice has done is shown that in his opinion "that day" cannot refer to different events than already spoken of, however, Gentry disagrees with assessment. To then take his own assertion that Gentry is wrong on "that day" as an agreed fact between the two and conclude that Gentry would then agree that there is no significance to the fact that Jesus said "this generation" rather than "that generation" is blatantly misrepresenting Gentry and a naked bait and switch.

Third, Ice does in some ways (though different in one very important way) the same thing as Gentry with flip-flopping between the first century and thousands of years (so far) into the future. He also tries to use this fact to show that Gentry cannot fault him for that since Gentry himself does the same thing. Specifically, Ice claims that only Luke records Jesus' answer to the disciples' question about the destruction of the Herodian temple, and this is found in Luke 21:20-24. Though there are numerous problems with this assertion, let me just point on out, in relation to his trying to claim that this is no different then Gentry positing that Matthew 24:36 and forward deal with the Second Coming. Gentry at least, finds the events that he believes are future AFTER the declaration that "this generation will not pass away until all these things are fulfilled," thus, giving him some opportunity to exempt the Second Coming from "all these things." Luke 21:20-24 occurs BEFORE the timing verse mentioning "all these things," and if any of "all these things," can be found as happening in the first century, then "all" of the rest of them must as well, especially since Ice does concede that "this generation" means the generation that will see "all these things." Also Ice tries to "force preterism's hand" per se by trying to state that a move to "full preterism" is almost inevitable, and that preterism renders most of the New Testament's exhortations obsolete. This may be good for drama, but it is not exactly accurate. He closes his rebuttal with the very dramatic, "If the tribulation is past, we have no future." Huh? Didn't Paul say that if the resurrection is not true, we have no future?

Ice in his main argument surprisingly hardly mentioned Matthew 24 at all, but preferred to spend most of his time in the Old Testament, basing his proof on a future Tribulation by stating that the Old Testament predicts a tribulation followed by the deliverance of Israel, not their judgment. Of course, this does beg the question of exactly who "Israel" is in the first place, and Ice does a great disservice by not pointing out to his readers that Gentry does believe that Israel was delivered in the AD70 event, he just has a different view of who is actually the true Israel. So Ice sets up a straw man, the issue between Gentry and Ice is not whether or not "Israel" or the "elect" are delivered, but who the identity of those designates are, which is a different issue entirely (to which I would also add the identity of "Jerusalem"). Ice, however, does not deal with the context of Matthew, nor rebut Gentry's characterization of such a context which speaks not of the deliverance of ethnic Israel, but rather her judgment. He also very unbelievably (and Gentry points out) admits that Matthew 23:36 is a direct reference to AD70, but that the same phrase "this generation," in Matthew 24:34 should not be taken in the same manner because Matthew 23:36 is historical and Matthew 24:34 is prophetic! What! They were both prophetic at the time they were spoken!

Gentry in his rebuttal pointed out many obfuscations and spin doctoring by Ice that may easily go by unnoticed. He shows that although the topic is the Great Tribulation, Ice rarely touched that passage in his main argument (though he did do so in rebuttal much more extensively), and showed that Ice relies upon some Old Testament passages (namely Deut. 4 and 28) as a prophetic "roadmap" for Israel's future that are not even prophetic passages, but rather passages concerning covenantal warnings. He also demonstrated that Ice engages in multiple selective quotations from Darrell Bock and seemed to contradict himself several times on the chronology of Israel's regathering in relation to the Tribulation (is she regathered first or afterwards??). I, however, was disappointed that Gentry did not bring up Ice's judicious use of Zechariah 12-14, a treatment of which has been neglected by preterists. The section dealing with the obfuscation of the time passages was very helpful.

All the criticisms noted above being valid, Ice did do a commendable job. He found some of the admitted difficulties, even chronological ones, in the preterist understanding of particularly Matthew 24. He ably brought in some Old Testament passages in the same way that preterists do in order to back up his contentions. Obviously, I am not convinced, but I do want to give credit and praise where it is do. I hope that this work will prompt preterists to give stronger answers to some of the areas of weakness exposed by Ice.

This may sound really odd to say, but I am glad that I did not know about this book when I went through the painful struggle from dispensational futurism to postmillennial preterism (try saying that ten times fast). Why? Thomas Ice provides a very capable-sounding defense of futurism, and does it with the air of a knowledgeable scholar. I am not suggesting he is not a knowledgeable scholar, I am just noting the mood that is projected on his answer. While Gentry certainly gives the impression of the same level of scholarship, he is admittedly in the minority, and the deck is stacked against him. If I, as a committed futurist, came to this book, happy in my presuppositions and comfortable in my views, I would not even hear Gentry enough to examine my presuppositions. Why? Ice just seems so convinced, and obviously more educated than I, in my comfort I would just automatically side with him. This may not be true for everyone, but it would definitely have been true for me. Old ideas and strong presuppositions die hard, and at least for me, it was only when I had to examine them for myself without a "champion" like Ice to do the examining in my stead, that I saw them for what they were: not Biblical.

On a final note, Ice was scheduled to debate Gary DeMar at Biola University on February 26, 2002. It is my understanding that tapes of this debate will be available in late March. I am planning on obtaining them, and comparing that debate with the one contained in this book. Ice will not be able to make any hay out of an alleged change in topic beginning at Matthew 24:36 (though he did so poorly here anyway) because DeMar does not hold to such a thing.