Customer Reviews

The Great Tribulation--Past or Future?: Two Evangelicals Debate the Question

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Regardless of your current thoughts on the subject, this book will help you tie together any loose ends. It represents a very clear and easily-readable presentation of two opposite views of eschatology: futurism (dispensationalism) and preterism.

Like most evangelical Christians today, I grew up learning and teaching dispensationalism. Many studies in Daniel meant I had the images and calculations down pat. However, there was a nagging doubt involved in stretching the 70th week out for over two thousand years. Suddenly -- and recently -- everything is falling into place.

If you are unfamiliar with any other view of the end times, do yourself a favour and get a copy of this book. Both sides are very clearly presented. Read them and make up your own mind.

This book allows the common view (futurism) and the emerging view (preterism) to present their eschatological case, specifically concerning the timing of the "Tribulation." Both authors are given two chapters each in order to outline their respective views. Each author is then given one chapter to rebut the other's presentation.

Where this book falls short is that the authors are not given an additional opportunity to respond to each other's rebuttals. A couple rounds of additional responce, in my mind, is where great benefit could have been given the reader, but wasn't. Even so, this book serves as a springboard for your own study, which is the stated objective. Each author gives a two page list of favorable books for his position.

Evangelical Christianity's fascination with eschatology shows no signs of waning in the near future. Major political and social events continue to fuel the interest in "end-times" speculation, whether the Persian Gulf War, 9/11, or the war in Iraq. A significant indicator of evangelicalism's interest in eschatology is the infamous "Left Behind" series of books by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. This series of books has become something of a phenomenon in the publishing industry, and their popularity has not been limited to the evangelical world.

Through this series LaHaye and Jenkins have helped popularize an interpretive theological system known as Dispensational, and an eschatology of Pretribulationism. This eschatological framework undergirds the fictional story of the books, and may represent the "end-times" views of a majority of conservative evangelicals. Indeed, many of them have never heard of any other option, and those that have may likely consider other eschatological options as heresy!

_The Tribulation: Past or Future?_ provides a helpful introduction to another view of eschatology known as preterism or moderate preterism. Kenneth Gentry presents and defends the view that the events described by Christ in Matthew 24 are an example of fulfilled prophecy through the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Gentry looks carefully at the internal evidence of this text (and others) in an attempt to practice genuine hermeneutics rather than forcing a particular interpretive scheme upon the text. Ice presents and defends the futurist view, particularly Dispensational Pretribulationism, arguing that the events described in the Olivet Discourse are yet future and unfulfilled. The format of the book is a back and forth presentation and response by the authors that allows them to both build the strongest case for their views, and to respond to common criticisms.

Written on a popular level, the reader need not have any formal theological training prior to engaging the text. Even so, this book can also serve as an introductory textbook in systematic theology at Bible colleges. Readers will find this book a helpful resource that provides food for thought in today's popular "end-times" speculation. Those who enjoy this volume will also benefit from a review of Gary DeMar's _Last Day's Madness_ (American Vision, 1997), as well as R.C. Sproul's _The Last Days According to Jesus_ (Baker, 1998).

The recent flurry of books containing debates in print is welcome, and refreshing. Nothing gives the reader a better introduction to a controversial subject than two scholars hashing it out under one cover. With the phenomenal success of the Jerry Jenkins/ Tim LaHaye prophecy novels, a layman-friendly defense of preterism is long overdue. (Preterism is the belief that much--NOT ALL--of Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation was fulfilled in AD 70.) Dr. Kenneth Gentry is one of the most eloquent and intelligent proponents of preterism currently publishing. Dr. Tommy Ice is a well-known dispensational author and speaker. Dr. Gentry carefully and persuasively makes a water tight case for preterism, leaving Dr. Ice to melt in a puddle of twisted Scripture, illogic, and unfounded supposition. Dispensational theology, with its harmful hermenutic and execrable eschatology, has dominated the thinking of the church for far too long. If you want to see why Hal Lindsey and company are constantly scrambling for credibility, read the first half of this book (Dr. Gentry's contribution.) If you still aren't convinced that LaHaye and Jenkins are publishing gross error, you weren't paying attention.

I hope this review is helpful to those who read this review. The book is very intelligently written from both authors. They both state their cases (futurism and preterism) very clear. They then each of them have a rebuttal to the other ones stated case. I would have rated this book higher if it had a rebuttal to the rebuttal. For instance, I would have like to seen Ice's rebuttal of Gentry rebuttal to Ice's stated case, and Gentry's rebuttal to Ice's rebuttal of Gentry's stated case. I believe that would have answered even more questions that inquirer's have.

With that being said, I will attempt to review the book. Ice seems to make many claims that just do not seem to be answering anything. He will seemingly make a claim about one of Gentry's assertions, but then never really answers why he believes it is wrong. He will make a claim that really never is in contradiction with what a preterist believes.

Ice seems to spiritualize the time text, (Matthew 24:34 which is what really should be taken literally) and because he does this he must take everything else literal (the sign of the son of man, coming on great clouds of glory, sun moon and stars,trumpet sound, angels gathering together) and not symbolically. This seems to be the driving force behind this Medicine Bottle Eschatology (push down and turn). You either have to take the time text and spitiualize it and take everything else (at least between Matthew 24:1 and verse 34) literally, or you take the time text Matthew 24:34 and the second person plural of the YOU's (who is hHe speaking to) all through this text, literally and spitualize those events that need to be symbolized. You cannot have the time text, and the events themselves both be literal at the same time, nor can you have them both be spiritualized (or taken symbolically) at the same time. One has to be literal (i.e. time text), then that commands the other to be spiritualized (or taken symbolically, i.e. those events between Matthew 24:1-34 that would not make sense if we take the time text literally).

To take literal these events and to spiritualize the time text is to force the text to read unnatural. It is natural to read it with the time text being taken literal. This is where Ice fails miserably. He must hold to his view until he takes the time text seriously, then and only then will he see that he must abolish his futuristic view of this passage. As long as he does not take the time text literally he is NOT forced to change his view of a futuristic tribulation.

I once read a book titled "The Destruction of Jerusalem; an absolute and irresistable proof of the divine orgin of Christianity" Ice has stated that there is no meaningful purpose if the all this is past. I beg to differ, this little book the destruction of Jerusalem is proof positive that it has meaningful purpose.

I will state one meaningful purpose, I will not have to go through "The great tribulation" according to Gentry's position and I will according to Ice's position. Gentry's position does not to say that we won't have certain tribulations come our way. We do indeed. But that the GREAT TRIBULATION is past. I take great comfort in that.

One last thing. I could never make sense out of the futurist view when I was a futurist, now I can make sense out of many passages of Scripture concerning this debate being a (partial)
preterist.

May God bless all of you!

Soli Deo Gloria

This was a very insightful book. Thomas Ice and Kenneth Gentry debate the question: "Was the Great Tribulation in the first century? Or is it still in our future?"

Gentry argues that Jesus said it would be in "this generation" in which he lived (Matt. 24:34). Ice argues (somehow) that Jesus was saying: "It will occur in the future and that Jesus' statement 'this generation' really refers to a generation 2000 or more years away."

I really believe Thomas Ice should have stayed in bed the day he engaged this debate. Gentry points out numerous problems with Ice's wandering approach to Scripture. He notes that Ice deals very little with the text which actually has the phrase "the great tribulation" in it! Why does he wander off into other texts rather than focus on Matthew 24?

Gentry keeps a keen focus on Matthew 24, noting its historical setting in the first century (while the temple and Jerusalem were still standing) and its literary setting in Matthew itself (Matthew frequently warns about coming judgment on the first century people who reject and crucify Christ). There is no reason to project this prophecy way into the future (Matt. 23:36 and 24:34).

Gentry wins the debate hands down.

As a believer in Christ for nearly 30 years, I had read the Olivet Discourse countless times and through the guidance (or perhaps misguidance) of Hal Lindsey and several study bibles always believed that it was a future event. It wasn't until I recently read R.C. Sproul's "Last Days According to Jesus" that some scholars interpreted Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 as past, fullfilled events. Since then I read Gary DeMar's "Last Days Madness" and he too adds a lot of compelling evidence to the "partial preterist" position (meaning that much, but not all New Testament prophecy has been fullfilled).

But before solidifying my thinking as a partial preterist, I wanted to be sure I hadn't overlooked something since it is a minority position in Christian circles today and many believers are actually hostile towards this viewpoint.

In this book Dr. Kenneth Gentry takes the past position and does a great job putting the Olivet Discourse in its proper context, but his arguments regarding the tough passages (Matthew 24:29-34) are not as strong as Sproul's nor DeMar's in my opinion.

Dr. Thomas Ice, who is associated with best selling author Tim LaHaye and the Pre-Trib Research Center in Dallas presents the future position. Ice devotes quite a bit of material trying to use the Old Testament as a foundation for the future position. Finally he does address the Olivet Discourse itself and to my surprise states the following on page 96: "[The gospels of] Matthew and Mark focus exclusively upon future events of the Tribulation while Luke's version includes past and future elements". This to me was a bombshell because reading the three accounts side-by-side it's very hard to believe that these are separate accounts of different events since they do have alot more in common than not - which is also true for other accounts in the three synoptic gospels such as the cruxification and resurrection. Neither of those two events are word-for-word the same, but clearly the same event.

The coup de grace however for Ice is when he interprets the meaning of "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" on page 103. He writes, "Our position is that this generation is not the generation to whom Christ is speaking, but the generation to the signs will become evident". The huge problem here is that the Luke account uses the same exact statement about "this generation" as do Matthew and Mark (see Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32). If the Luke account is past and future, it couldn't possibly fit Ice's definition of "this generation" unless these first century A.D. people were still alive today! I also wasn't sold on Ice's interpretation of Daniel's 70 weeks because of the major discontinuity in the time span.

Overall, I liked the book, but wasn't blown away by it. I would recommend R.C. Sproul's "Last Days According to Jesus" and Gary DeMar's "Last Days Madness" together since both complement each other's strengths and weakenesses. The two books combined will give the best insight on how to interpret the Olivet Discourse.

My wife (a futurist) and I (a [partial] preterist) have been reading this book together, and have found it to be only effectively presented by Gentry. My wife's own observations have been that Ice's arguments are often obscure and without a logical thread (e.g. he often begs the question about whether certain passages ought to be read as he does when presenting them to support his position). It has been disappointing for both of us. We both found Gentry's arguments to be lucid, logical, and reasonable; and we both found Ice not to be up to the task. Perhaps someone other than Ice would have been a better choice.

Some of the reviews make it seem as if Kenneth L. Gentry won this debate hands-down. Not so fast. Gentry was superb, to be sure. And I thought Ice could have done better than he did; parts of Gentry's rebuttal pointed out inconsistencies in Ice's argument, or areas where he seemed not to have thought everything through, or where he used a naive, un-nuanced argument. However, Gentry's rebuttal seemed more concerned with pointing out Ice's faults than the faults of futurism itself; I believe that a more nuanced debater, such as one of the progressive dispensationalists like Robert Saucy, could have avoided the Ice's inconsistencies.

However, overall Ice did a good job. I was a teenager when I read this book for the first time, several years ago. Although I was a futurist, my views were still developing, and this book further strengthened my belief in the futurist position: Even with an imperfect argument, I thought Ice came out ahead of Gentry in the end.

Ice started with a good foundation, at the Abrahamic Covenant. Later, he did a good job hammering home the fact that both the curses and blessing belong to literal Israel. His analysis of Daniel's 70 weeks was decent. Then on Zechariah 12-14, he did a great job showing how those passages must be future. Gentry failed to rebut these points, except for his analysis of Daniel's 70 weeks.

Ice's examination of the New Testament was okay, but not too special. What finally tilted the scales in his favor, though, was his rebuttal to Gentry. Again and again, he showed how preterism cannot be made to fit the prophecy of Matthew 24. A significant part of it, however, was through quotes from previous futurist authors. His quotes from the Rev. Richard C. Shimeall (a 19th century writer) were golden. With advocates like Shimeall, no wonder futurism became dominant!

I think that part of Ice's problem was that dispensationalism has grown rather lazy in its thinking due to its dominance, and so Gentry was able to exploit some of that laziness. However, a return to careful, nuanced analysis of Scripture (which I believe is being well done by the Progressive Dispensationalists and others such as John Feinberg and Paul Feinberg) will result in a continued strong future for dispensationalism.

Immediately when I glanced at the two interlocutors in this debate-book, I knew it would be one sided. Thomas Ice (with all due respect) is just not up to par with Gentry's scholarship. Ice's comparison to Zechariah 14, would have to be his strongest argument in this book. There really is not much else to Ice's contribution. For Matthew 24:34, Ice simply gives alternative ways this "unambiguous, non-apocalyptic, non-poetic didactic assertion" may be interpreted but does not deal with the obvious (Gentry's) interpretation. By circumventing the semantic feildery of the phrase "this generation shall not pass away..." Ice really believes he has accomplished something. In Ice's initial argument, Matthew 24 is not even dealt with (the topic of debate). Ice, jumps to the OT (which is not wrong as a backdrop, but when the subject is the "great tribulation" you should focus on the great tribulation). Thomas Ice is a bit better, in criticizing Gentry's exposition on "The Great Tribulation" in his rebuttal; however it is not nearly strong enough to over turn Kenneth Gentry's precision. The ridiculous gap that Thomas Ice argues for between Matthew/Mark and Luke is quite pathetic. He argues that Luke's account of the Olivet discourse was fulfilled in A.D. 70 while Matthew and Mark are still future. Ice does this by appealing at a couple of differences in word usages by the three gospel accounts. It is quite sad that Thomas Ice zeros in on trivialities and deems this scholarship, there is another name for it; pedantry. Just visit your local Christian bookstore and grab a copy of any harmonious gospels, and Ice's argument immediately becomes moot! So then, my question is why was Thomas Ice chosen to represent the futurist view? There are many other notable scholars that would have made an formidable debatee for Dr. Gentry: G.K. Beale, Robert Thomas, David Turner, Robert Saucy, Richard Gaffin, Robert Strimple, etc...

Kenneth Gentry on the other hand is at his best... As usual Gentry is well presented and easily comprehended. Gentry, lays down some preliminary guidelines, before he tramples into Matthew 24. Really impressive is the historical context in which Gentry places the entire discourse. I will tell you, I have yet to see anyone as persuasive as this man in eschatology. Gentry is defiantly championed as the pinnacle of eschatological scholars. After reading this and the strength of Dr. Gentry's argument, you will be amazed and wish to further read the rest of Dr. Gentry's work. Unfortunately Dr. Gentry's rebuttal in this book is not too informative due to Thomas Ice's inadequacy to effectively present his case. Dr. Gentry is forced to way through much of the futurist jargon, that Ice disperses in his opening argument. Furthermore, Gentry is forced to begin analyzing childish objections like discontinuity between the 3 accounts of the Olivet discourse in the gospels (although Luke contains the same time delimiter "this generation" (v.32) Ice still presses this issue of a futuristic Matthew and past Luke). Gentry literally takes Thomas Ice to town on every aspect of the discourse, it was unfortunate to watch a fellow Christian take such a pounding. However Gentry does this respectfully and lovingly (see Gentry's conclusion at the end of the book). I would recommended this for every student who has developed a keen interest in eschatology; for the Futurist be upset with Thomas Ice, however listen to Kenneth Gentry.