Get the entire Tekton site on CD or zipfile. Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

After spending some time defending my partial preterist views against roundabout exegetes like Skeptic X and relatives of Goofy like DOV it's nice to get in dealing with someone who actually knows more of their business, and in this case, that person is a Biblical scholar named Thomas Ice. Ice has done some debating with the preterist bigwigs on this subject (DeMar, Gentry) so this is assuredly a big step up from a DOV, though we do find some points of similarity in Ice's language ("exegetical voodoo," etc) that show he isn't beyond some of the worst tactics himself. That being the case we'll skip the usual preliminary entertainments (grin) and get right to the point of Ice's arguments.

Taking the Time Texts. Ice addresses three key passages in Matthew (10:23; 16:28; and 24:34) pointed to as support for a first century fulfillment.

Matthew 10:23 But whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes.

Preterists understand this verse to suggest that the disciples would not take forty years to deliver the gospel to all of Israel. Ice quotes Sproul on this point as saying that it surely didn't take more than 40 years to cover all of Palestine; Ice comments in reply that "Dr. Sproul merely asserts it as a supposition, taking J. Stuart Russell's word for it." Initially it is hard to see why this is being said. That all of Palestine was covered within the timefreame specified is hardly an unreasonable supposition, given the spread of the gospel to points much, much farther away, within 10-20 years. I don't think Ice would wish to argue that the evangelists made their way to Rome and Corinth and skipped areas of Palestine in the process. Given the designation of the Gospel "first for the Jew, then for the Gentile"; given the pattern in Acts of first visiting synagogues; given the missionary activity and Judean churches described in Acts, and given the mission priority of the region by Jesus himself (Acts 1:8); given Paul's own indications that the Gospel had reached these limits (i.e., Rom. 1:5-6, 16:25-6; Col. 1:5-6, 23), there is no reason to reject such a supposition at all, and it seems unreasonable rather to plant such doubts without solid evidence that the Palestinian mission was neglected. (A little further down Ice does try to argue this; we will get to that in a moment.)

With that said, Ice comments briefly to the effect that this passage contextually belongs to the Olivet Discourse, and withholds some comments therefore until discussing Matthew 24. However, after two points devoted to supporting this general argument, he writes:

Third, all agree that there is no indication in Scripture that the disciples experienced the kind of persecution mentioned in this passage before the crucifixion of Christ. J. Stuart Russell admits, "There is no evidence that the disciples met with such treatment on their evangelistic tour." Thus, this sustains the conclusion to which we are building: that our Lord has a future time in mind when He speaks the words of this passage.

In response we would note (as we have in many contexts) that lack of direct documentary evidence does not equate with non-evidence. But if anything we have every reason to suspect that such persecution did indeed take place, and supporting documentation to show it:

1. Matthew 23:31-36 prophesied that the then living generation of Jews would continue in murderous rampages against His followers
2. Paul confesses to have persecuted the churches in Judea. Is it to be supposed that he or others like him persecuted churches, while ignoring missionaries?
3. In Acts certain Jews even follow Paul to other cities to persecute him and is run out of town by Jews. Is there some reason why this pattern would not have taken place in the heart of Jewry as well? Acts also recorded sporadic persecution.
4. In Thessalonians Paul speaks of the church being persecuted.
5. Socially, as we have shown here, the message of Christianity was profoundly offensive, and to make matters worse, as strangers to the social group at every mission stop, the disciples would have been "checked out" and treated roughly if they did not pass approval. It is more likely than not that they would indeed encounter such persecution.
6. Whatever the case, Jesus' remark offers a condition and specifies a reaction, with no indication as to what percent of cities (20? 30?) would give the disciples such treatment. If 70-80% of the cities didn't persecute, there wouldn't be much to record, and whatever there was to record would have had to compete with other accounts to take a place in the record (in a time when there were serious constraints on writing things down).

We therefore regard Ice's appeal here as groundless and if anything contrary to available evidence.

Ice's fourth point is actually an assertion that he believes that Matt. 10:21-23 will be fulfilled in a future tribulation -- which is not an actual argument against the preterist view, though it does establish Ice's own view as is his right and prerogative. His fifth point argues:

Fifth, the use of the title "Son of Man" "'has a definite doctrinal signification-it always refers to the (Parousia) Second Coming.' The phrase, so expressive of His humanity, indicates a visible, personal Coming, which was not exhibited at the destruction of Jerusalem. Beside this, all expecting John were deceased before the city was overthrown."

We have addressed this matter in our items on Olivet Discourse and Daniel which show how this fits within the preterist paradigm. The irony here is that as we have also shown, "Son of Man" actually is not "expressive" of Jesus' humanity, but of his divinity.

We now get to where Ice argues, "The apostles never completed their kingdom ministry before they turned to the Gentiles." We would like some positive evidence for this, but Ice offers:

This was because Israel did not receive their message. This thought is developed throughout the remainder of chapter 10 and in chapter 11, in which Jesus finally castigates Israel, withdraws the message of national deliverance and turns to individuals with an offer of salvation in Mt. 11:28-30.

With due respect, this makes absolutely no sense at all. First off, if (as we are willing to agree) 10:23 is displaced from a proper place in the Olivet Discourse, then there is no way that 11:28-30 can be a further developed thought from it. Second, it is hard to see anyhting in Matt. 10-11 as commanding a ceasing of missions to all Jews, and it could hardly have been such and yet be compatible with the mission statement of Acts 1:8 and the church's later evangelism. Finally Matt. 11:28-30 alludes to a passage in the work of Sirach (6:19-31, 51:26), and refers to divine Wisdom. This was advice from a father to a son and is proverbial and universal. This would hardly suggest a context in which missions to Israel were abandoned, and we may note that immediately after this passage we see Jesus teaching in a synagogue (12:9). If the mission was over, what was he doing? Public service announcements?

Ice then re-asserts via a quote from Toussaint his own view, asserts that the Tribulation period did not come (but does not deal with preterist arguments identifying this period with 66-73 AD), and then moves on to Matthew 16:28:

Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

Ice responds to the preterist view by asserting that the fulfillment of this passage was with the Transfiguration several days later. This is a common view, but it has a certain problem which preterist commentators like DeMar have noted: If the fulfillment was only 6-8 days later, then what is the point of the "not taste death" delimiter? Who might have died in the next 6-8 days? Ice is aware of this objection, and in response quotes the words of commentator William Lane:

. . . it is not said that death will exclude some of those present from seeing the announced event. All that is required by Jesus' statement is that "some" will see a further irruption of the power and sovereignty of God before they experience the suffering foreseen in Ch. 8:34-35.

This is all quite sensible, but it still does not address the point that if the Transfiguration is the fulfillment, then that means that in the next 6-8 days people had to be suffering -- to the point of death -- what was foreseen on 8:34-5. Ice is insistent upon the lack of direct documentation for persecution in Judea, so he should certainly insist on some here for persecution unto death in that 6-8 day period! As it is we would say that the Transfiguaration was a precursor to that glory of 70, which is why it follows the prediction, but the attempt to force it out into a 6-8 day fulfillment only strains the hold further. Ice does not actually answer this argument with the appeal to the preceding context; if anything this highlights just how forced his interpretation is! (Moreover, if this is compared to Luke 21:32 - "So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place" -- the evidence is then very strong that the same event is being referred to and thus the definition of "this generation" is given to us: It is "some standing here.")

As corollary support he adds:

1. The "some" fits well with the three -- Peter, James, and John -- who saw the transfiguration. Perhaps so, but this is not exclusive evidence since it would also fit the likely number (based on lifespans of the time) who would still be around in 70. This is not a "problem with the preterist view" as Ice says -- it is merely a minor, non-exclusive support for the countering view. (He notes further that: "...Peters notes that 'John only survived' among the 12 disciples till the destruction of Jerusalem." Even if this tradition is fully accurate -- no support is given for it -- Peters is mixing up apostles with disciples, and Jesus had more than 12 of these; more than that, Peters fails to note that Jesus was also speaking to a larger group of people [Mark 8:34], not just his disciples.)
2. It is argued that the seeing of the Son of Man coming in His kingdom fits the Transfiguration; it might (we would actually argue that it would not), but as we have argued (links above) it fits 70 AD's events (which contrary to Ice, does not require that Jesus be physically present when Jerusalem was destroyed).
3. Finally Ice draws in the support of 2 Peter 1:16-18 and Rev. 1:7 -- to no apparent purpose against a preterist view. He says that Peter described the transfigured Jesus "in relation to His second advent" but what that relation was, is: "Peter follows Jesus' pattern of supporting the future Second Advent by citing the past transfiguration." This fits just fine with the preterist view and Ice offers no reason to think otherwise. (We deal with Rev. 1:7 here.)

Finally we get to Matthew 24, and here, after presenting the preterist view of the "generation" texts, Ice doesn't actually refute the preterist understanding -- he merely re-asserts the standard dispensational view:

I believe that the timing of "this generation" in Matthew 24:34 is governed by the related phrase "all these things." In other words, Christ is saying that the generation that sees "all these things" occur will not cease to exist until all the events of the future tribulation are literally fulfilled.

Preterists of course say that "all these things" WERE fulfilled in the first century, and Ice does not deal with this much, though we will see attempts shortly. As it remains this is merely the same dispensational "shell game" that conveniently moves the necessary "generation" around as needed, in spite of the parallel use of the phrase by Jesus elsewhere in which he clearly refers to his contemporaries. This last point Ice answers by creating an artificial dichotomy, saying that:

While it is true that other uses of "this generation" refer to Christ's contemporaries, that is because they are historical texts. The use of "this generation" in the Olivet Discourse in the fig tree passages are prophetic texts.

How this magically poofs Olivet references into a more ambiguous state is not explained. Nor is it explained how one designates texts as "historical" or "prophetic". Prophecy was more than just predicting the future; it was exhortation, and by that account all that Jesus said didactically was "prophetic". Perhaps Ice means, "it is a text that predicts the future," but that would not automatically make "this generation" mean anything different unless we beg the question yet again. Besides, isn't Matt. 12:41-2 ("The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here...") "prophetic"? What about Matt. 23:36, which is clearly against the present class of Pharisees (and which Ice elsewhere admits applies to the first century)? Ice's division of the texts is artificial and groundless, merely a prop to support the dispensational view.

Now we get to where Ice claims that some portion of the Discourse was not fulfilled in 70 -- but he only deals with a tiny portion:

When were the Jews, who were under siege, rescued by the Lord in A.D. 70? They were not rescued, they were judged, as noted in Luke 21:20­24. But Matthew 24 speaks of a Divine rescue of those who are under siege (24:29-31). This could not have been fulfilled by the first century. In fact, the Jewish Christian community fled Jerusalem before the final siege. Matthew 24 speaks about the deliverance of Jews who are under siege. This did not happen under the first century Roman siege.

Preterists have addressed these passages (see link above) and shown that this is not a "divine rescue" at all -- Ice does not deal with these interpretations in this commentary, and so his case (in terms of what we address here) is incomplete and we can comment no further. (It does appear that he is not quite "straight" on the preterist view, for he describes it thusly: "...preterists teach that 'all these things' refer to the non-bodily, non-personal, coming of Christ through the Roman army in the first century." No preterist (that I have seen!) teaches that the Romans were the vehicle of Christ's coming! They are thought to be Christ's vehicle of judgment.)

Ice proceeds with a rather strained effort to argue that Luke 21:20-24, which he admits was fulfilled in the first century, is not actually a parallel to the verses in the same places in Mark and Matthew. "I believe that Matthew and Mark only deal with the future questions," Ice tells us. This we see also as merely an attempt to prop up the sagging dispensational sail. Ice would have us accept the contorted explanation that in Luke 21:7 ("And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?") the two instances of "these things" refer to two separate times and sets of events, the first "these things" in 70, and the second "these things" to signs before the yet-to-occur Second Advent. It is only by such creative and unwarranted gerrymandering that the dispensational view can be maintained.

Revealing Revelation. Next Ice tackles the preterist view of Revelation, focusing here as well on "time texts" that speak of the events taking place "shortly" or "quickly". Ice here opts for a view that is not surprise, and which is not entirely unreasonable, that is, that the words imply a "sudden" or surprising coming, not a "soon" one. As noted above, we deal with Rev. 1:7 in the link above, and shown that the context alludes back to the "tribes of the 'earth'" in the Discourse, meaning Israel only, and this contextually limits the "every eye" to those in Judea. All of this is accompanied of course by the understandings reached in our Olivet item about what it means for Jesus to have "come on the clouds."

Does Ice offer ant reply to these interpretations? The first key is the geographic limiter, which we see as determined by the reference to the "tribes of the earth." Ice tries to get around this by claiming that the group of "even those who pierced Him" refers to the Jews as a nation, so that the "tribes of the earth" must be a larger group. Ice does not explain how he decides that the "pierced" group is all of Israel, but this is patently a misinterpretation. At most this would only refer to the political establishment which ordered and carried out the execution of Jesus -- a sub-group of the "tribes of the earth." But since Ice offers no further explanation of how he gets all of Israel out of the "pierced" statement (I have some guesses, but will not presume) we cannot comment further.

Ice also tries to "universalize" the phrase "tribes of the earth" by arguing that in the OT it "always has a universal nuance (Gen. 12:3; 28:14; Ps. 72:17; Zech. 14:17)." It's not actually that simple. Ps. 72:17 contains no parallel phrase and does not use the word "earth." The other three passages refer to "families of the earth" but one can only get a "universal" nuance out of them by assuming one. There is no geographic delimiter laid out at all (the word, like most Hebrew words for the earth [like 'erets] is vague and flexible], and thus to call these passages "universal" begs the question. The phrase also uses a different Hebrew word than that used to refer to the "tribes" of Israel, so even if universal, it is not a parallel. Beyond that Ice does not deal with the exclusive and parallel use of "tribes" in the NT to refer to those of Israel -- nor does he deal with the most important geographical limiter, oikoumene.

Ice next renders a view on the meaning of "coming in a cloud." In this respect Ice fulfills the harsh judgment of Caird upon those who are "pedantic literalists" whose mindset is such that they regard preterist interpretations as "forced" because they continue to read the text as modern literalists rather than as ancients with a penchant for symbolic language. By this token Ice fails on the same points our Skeptic does (noted in the link above) and requires little further answer when he simply re-asserts the crass literalistic view of such passages.

Beyond this here are some points about Revelation made by Ice:

1. "Preterism nowhere explains the promised deliverance from persecution that is associated with the coming, for example, in 3:10-11." It doesn't? What is to explain? This says, "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown." "World" is that pesky oik- word which Ice has yet to deal with; the promise is then to the Philadelphia church, and we only have a problem if the church there wasn't spared troubles during this period. I have not found any evidence -- and Ice of course provides none otherwise -- that this church was not spared trouble, though the record is most likely far from complete. Ice claims, "the church did not escape persecution in A.D. 70, but continued to suffer for Christ's sake long after that," but he is not addressing the church in Philly specifically (seeming to assume that the advice is universal!) and the text says nothing about what may happen once the "hour" is over.
2. Following in the footsteps of MacArthur in our Olivet item, Ice explains away symbolic passages in the OT which were obviously not literally fulfilled by shifting them into being future predictions also!
3. Responding to a list of OT cites in which a cloud is a vehicle for God riding, Ice admits that these do "describe the Lord as 'riding' upon a cloud in judgment against the Lord's enemies," but objects that "there are too many differences" from these passages. But the only differences cited are the claim that Rev. 1:7 describes a rescue and not a judgment, which is simply false. There is no hint of a rescue (unless we beg the dispensational view) and the wailing of 1:7 fits a judgment paradigm. Ice also provides no answer to the points we developed in the Olivet article about the connection to Dan. 7 and the "ride" being in the heavenly realms and symbolizing victory. There is also no evidence for the arbitrary declaration of Hughes, quoted by Ice, that there is a dichotomy between "dark storm-clouds which presage divine judgment" and "the bright clouds of his transcendental glory." Does God lack His glory when He comes in judgment?
4. Ice also quotes a rather naive statement by Robert Thomas (he of the panic-button hermeneutic we have noted here):

   Another hermeneutical shortcoming of preterism relates to the limiting of the promised coming of Christ in 1:7 to Judea. What does a localized judgment hundreds of miles away have to do with the seven churches in Asia? John uses two long chapters in addressing those churches regarding the implications of the coming of Christ for them. For instance, the promise to shield the Philadelphian church from judgment (3:10-11) is meaningless if that judgment occurs far beyond the borders of that city.

   Actually the predictions also included trial on the oikoumene as a whole, and Judea in particular; but to ask "What does a localized judgment hundreds of miles away have to do with the seven churches in Asia?" is naive in the extreme (though it does fit with Thomas' outrageous error in arguing, in The Jesus Crisis, that "slow communications of the time" kept the Gospel authors from sharing their work). Asia had a large share of Jews in its population in this period; Sardis had the largest synagogue in the area, Paul was from Tarsus in Asia, and so on, and all of these Jews had interests in visiting Jerusalem during festivals (even as they became Christians); "what does this have to do" with them?? It is at the very least a travel advisory, if Thomas has any scintilla of imagination. But we may as well also ask what the crisis in Corinth has to do with any other church anywhere, or in Galatia, or Thessalonica. Obviously we draw lessons from these letters even if our situation is not the same, so it is hard to see why the same can't be said even of Revelation. The Judean crisis affected the body of Christ as a whole; it doesn't take much to suggest that the church in Rome would be just as interested (in spite of the seven Asian churches being primary recipients) in Revelation, and could draw just as much from the messages to them as we could, or as we could from the letters to Coronth and Galatia.

5. Ice also cites Acts 1:9-11, which we deal with in our Olivet item.
6. Ice quotes Thomas some more (I will refrain from deserved comment comparing this to quoting Dennis McKinsey) asking questions which have indeed been answered by preterists, but which Thomas seems unaware of. Preterists have shown no inconsistency in interpreting Rev. 1:7 and identifying the persons referenced therein, and Thomas does not cite any such inconsistency. Here is one amusing note: "They cannot limit 'the tribes of the earth [or land]' to Israel only, because in this case Zechariah 12:10ff. would require the mourning to be one of repentance, not of despair (as their interpretation holds)." Thomas does not cite these interpretations that are supposedly inconsistent, and also does not explain how one shows despair and the other repentance, and how this is a problem even if true. As it stands the comment is worthless.
7. Getting at last to the "time texts" -- as noted Ice favors the interpretation of key words to mean "by surprise" or "suddenly." The linguistic position is defensible, though of course even if translated "suddenly" and meaning manner this would not refute a preterist understanding; it would only offer an alternative amenable to futurists. That said, it remains that it seems somewhat counterintuitive to regard the entire package of events in Revelation as happening "quickly" and Ice does not deal at all with Rev. 1:3 and 22:10 and eggus -- which provides no such outlet (John 2:13, "And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem...") to interpret as "manner".

   ---

   We now move to the matter of Revelation's date. Ice considers pre-70 arguments for Revelation "weak" and deals with the following:

   1. The Temple in Revelation 11 -- the hint that the Temple was still standing is one of the key evidences that led John A. T. Robinson (Redating the New Testament) to date all of the NT, including Revelation, prior to 70. Ice tries to get around this with a parallel to Ezekiel, arguing that Revelation is a vision of "future things" so that the Temple of Rev. 11 is a future Temple. In itself this is simply yet another begged question favoring dispensationalism, and the measuring of a not-standing Temple by Ezekiel (which is only "similar" in a very small respect, in that both prophets go measuring, albeit John to a much lesser extent!) does not make the Rev. 11 Temple a future one, especially since the Ezekiel Temple is spoken of in explicitly "future" terms (43:7-18ff) whereas the Revelation Temple is not.
   2. Ironically, Ice then criticizes Gentry for "begging the question" by noting how well the Rev. 17 kings fit with the Roman emperors -- then proceeds to beg the dispensational question by merely replying by asserting that it is a vision of the future. (He then asserts an interpretation I have not yet seen, which sees the seven horns as a "landscape of biblical history" in which the horns are "Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and Greece. The sixth empire that was reigning at the time which John wrote was Rome. The seventh that is to come will be the future kingdom of the antichrist, known in Revelation as the Beast." I will not here evaluate this position as this is the only knowledge of it I posses.)
   3. Ice again uses Thomas, who says:

      The future leader and his empire will have a short life according to the words, . . . "when it comes, it is necessary for it to remain for a little [time]". The adjective . . . "little" has the idea of brevity as it does in Rev. 12:12. This is a limitation of God's will (Lenski) and indicates among other things that its time will be shorter than the six previous empires (Seiss). This factor alone would eliminate the possibility of the seven kings being first-century Roman emperors.

      We can only ask, why? Gentry matches the seventh leader with Galba, who did last for only a short time; Vespasian, whom we identify as the person in question, lasted as Emperor less than 10 years, and that is on the shorter end of the reigns of the Emperors (by comparison, Augustus lasted 45 years); by Ford's reckoning of excluding the three "hiccups" who never ruled Judea, only Caligula had a shorter reign (4 years). Thomas is merely asserting, not dealing with the data.

   In the next section Ice critiques the view of Gentry that "the church has forever replaced national Israel as an instrument through which God works." I do not regard this as necessarily the case and would hardly express it in such black and white terms; nor do I see it as necessary to suppose that the Deuteronomic contract is completely null and void. As I say in response to a Jewish anti-missionary site:

   ---

   I realize that AMs will have their own ideas about this passage, but I would answer with Deut. 18:15-18:

   The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

   Using this as a basis, I would reply that:

   • The "Prophet" like unto Moses is to be understood as Jesus, a mediator of a new covenant for all men.
   • The command given is to hearken unto this prophet.
   • It therefore stands to reason that disobedience of this command, to hearken unto this prophet, is a cause for punishment.

   Again, one may choose to dispute whether Jesus is indeed this prophet, but it is not arguable that if he was, and the Jewish adherents to the Deuteronomic covenant fail to hearken unto him, they are disobeying and breaking the covenant just as much as they would had they worshipped an idol, or murdered, or stolen. And thus, if they still today refuse to listen to his voice, they remain in rebellion to the commands of the Deuteronomic covenant and are subject to punishment. They have not been disowned, but they are still being punished.

   The AM site takes great pains to show that the covenant with the Jews was eternal. I see no reason to disagree. I take rather the tack that they are in rebellion to that covenant, and are breaking it, through their refusal to recognize Jesus as the foretold Prophet and Messiah...

   Beyond this the AM site addresses the question, "Has Israel been Replaced?" Obviously they say no, and in a sense we would, too. We say rather with Paul (Rom. 10-11) that the true Israel is not found in the flesh but in the heart. Israel has not been replaced but expanded, and those in rebellion as above are still subject to punishment. AMs should certainly not disagree with this, unless they are the sort who refuse proselytes!

   ---

   I would therefore not necessarily defend Gentry against Ice's charges on this one issue. However, I would add that my disagreement is not essential to a preterist view of Revelation.

   Ice next takes on the evidence of Irenaeus. Ice waves off Gentry's detailed arguments as a "complicated web of sophistry that fails in his attempt to explain away this testimony," but says nothing to refute Gentry's arguments, which suggests that he has nothing to actually refute them. This is further shown in that he resorts to the fallacious "most scholars say" argument (by itself) for a later date and accusing preterists of bias.

   ---

   A section follows on "preterist implications for the NT." This does not contain any actual arguments against the datum of preterism; if a Skeptic had offered such material I would refer to it as "crybaby" tactics. Boiled down, Ice's comments here amount to little more than Spargimino's whining complaint that preterism made him unable to see meaning in the newspapers to current events.

   Ice falsely states, "for the preterist...most of the NT does not refer directly to the Church today. Since so much of the NT is written to tell believers how to live between the two comings of Christ, it makes a huge difference if one interprets Christ's coming as a past or future event." Ice falsely collapses direct and indirect relevance into one pile of wreckage. We will never repeat the problem of the Judaizers demanding circumcision in Galatia, yet who stops reading Galatians? Under any view the NT is "dated" in terms of certain direct applications and it is up to use to interpret a meaning for today. At the same time, since partial preterists do believe that there is yet another "coming" of Christ -- the final resurrection and judgment -- the advice on how to live doesn't lose any of its relevance. Ice is significantly overstating the implications of preterism. (He also appears to understand Gentry as saying that Rev. 21-22's new heavens and earth are now -- I do not know what view Gentry holds, but the "partial" view holds that we are presently experiencing the millennium of Rev. 20:7 and what is thereafter is future.)

   Ice next pulls into the mix Titus 2:13:

   Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

   Ice retorts, "This would mean that it was a hope only for those Christians living between the time the Epistle was written and the destruction of Jerusalem-A.D. 65-66." That is true, but what of it? Ice points back to 2:12, which contains moral admonitions, and says, "The grammar of the next verse (2:13) relates the activities of 2:12 to the activity of 'looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.' If 2:13 is a reference to A.D. 70, as preterist generally believe, then the 'present age' in 2:12 would have ended when 2:13 was fulfilled. Therefore, the total admonition of 2:12 was temporary and applicable only to Christians up until A.D. 70. This would mean that the instruction 'to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age' would not directly apply to the current age, but to the past age which ended in A.D. 70 when 'the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus' occurred in the destruction of Jerusalem."

   Readers should look at this closely, for it is the sort of inane counter-argument I have come to expect from Skeptics, and I have a hard time believing that someone like Ice has resorted to it. To begin, again, partial preterism represented by Sproul and DeMar still sees in the future a final judgment and resurrection. We have as much reason to live soberly and uprightly as anyone before 70. Second, Ice is postulating an absurdity if he wishes to suggest that Paul's words mean our behavior is contingent upon Christ coming. That verges on an idea of salvation by works. I assume Ice agrees with the view that works are the result of our salvation, the product of our faith in Christ. The grammar of the verses may "relate" the activities, but for Ice's argument to work the "relation" must be one of cause and effect, otherwise the argument is pointless. As we understand the relation between faith and works, our behavior is the result of Christ's work, which will be verified by the events of 70. In any event it borders on absurdity to suggest that under any circumstance could Paul's words be taken as implying permission to go out and get drunk and misbehave after 70. If that's so then by Ice's understanding we can also misbehave and get drunk after the Tribulation ends.

   The next point Ice offers is against the idea that Satan is currently bound as in Rev. 20:2-3. Ice paints the preterist view as saying, "the spiritual road blocks of the world and the devil have been removed and only the enemy of the flesh remains that would obstruct believers from reigning and ruling now in the New Heavens and New Earth." Ice again paints the matter in excess; there is nothing in the partial view (though there may be in the "full" preterist view) that says that only the flesh blocks us from ruling and reigning. Ice is mixing the views illicitly and/or ignorantly. In contrast the partial view only holds that Satan is bound from deceiving the nations, and the New Heavens and Earth are yet to come. Beyond this Ice cites warnings to watch out for Satan's wiles in the NT, which do make sense before 70 even under a preterist view.

   In much of what follows Ice continues to address what is, for the partial preterist who does not adhere to the whole package of Reconstructionist thought, the straw man of saying that we are NOW experiencing the New Heavens and Earth and that the world will eventually be fully converted. Obviously I do not defend the former view, and I have no bones at present for the latter (though I think we should certainly do missions as though we believe it will happen!). Thus I have come to the conclusion of my response to "rebuttal" portions of Ice's essay.

   Ice closes out with a defense of the futurist view which lays a series of vague and unsubstantiated charges at the preterist door (i.e., "importing foreign concepts from other sources into a given passage" -- "other sources" being the Old Testament! -- and we place Ice's cite of Bullinger to the side and take Caird in favor anytime!) and then engages in a discussion of Deuteronomy 4 and 28-32. This is rather an interesting oddity as an appeal. We would argue that the scattering of the Jews after 70 fits perfectly as a Deuteronomic punishment, and would hypothesize that perhaps the 1948 regathering constitutes a a fulfillment of Deut. 30:3-10, in which Israel is "gathered from the nations and brought back to her divinely given land" (though with the note about Israel's continuing disobedience above). As such, Ice's comments on Deuteronomy are for my point of view mainly irrelevant.

   ---

   In conclusion: Ice closes by saying, "Those who believe that Christ came in A.D. 70 will certainly not be found looking for our Lord's any-moment return when He does rapture the church without any signs or warning before this blessed event." Ice is in error, for as a partial preterist I do look for an unexpected "return" which will mean final judgment and resurrection, simply without the complex of end-times nonsense, of rebuilt Temples and people with stamps of 666 on their foreheads that are scenes better suited for TV movies than for serious Bible study. In our view, Ice is on thin ice and is on the defensive against a thesis whose details he is unable to counter. (See more here.)

   ---

   Go Home!