Ice's profile on Gentry

[Guest]

Greeting all,

I am a new member and this is my first post. I have been a lurker here at the forum for awhile. This forum has been a good way for me to learn how the preterist arguments play out when questioned. I have appreciated many of your posts and argumentation. For around a year I have been fully engrossed in the study of Eschatology. It has been a interesting time of learning and surprise. I never thought that I would ever identify my views on eschatology as Partial Preterism! Recently, I have found myself describing my views that way. I am not fully comfortable with it yet, but the more I learn, the more it feels right. I said all that to say thanks for helping me understand the view better and see that what I have been taught all my life was possibly error.

Now to the main subject of this post. Today I was Googling Kenneth Gentry to see if he had website when I stumbled upon a webpage from a website called Rapture Ready (http://www.raptureready.com/who/Kenneth_Gentry.html). The page is written by futurist Thomas Ice (excuse me, Dr. Thomas Ice) where he describes Dr. Gentry's views followed by a rebuttal of each view.

I've heard the arguments before but some of the supporting material is new to me.

I have the following questions:

1. What is your overall impression of the piece?

2. In an attempt to place most of the Olivet Discourse in the future Ice focuses on Matt 24:34. The argument in the following quote is new to me. What do you think of it?

Let’s think about pronouns like “this/these” and “that/those”, especially as used in eschatological texts. Pronouns substitute for object-nouns previously mentioned or implied in the context. Demonstrative pronouns help locate where the object is within the speaker’s perspective. “This” points out an object that is visualized as nearby to the speaker; “that” points out an object that is visualized as further away from the speaker. By carefully observing which demonstrative a speaker uses, the listener can learn where the speaker locates himself relative to the objects that are spoken of. Everyday speech as well as the objects that are spoken of. Eschatological texts are no exception.
Experienced readers of OT prophecy know that such a shifting back-and-forth between a present-centered perspective and a future-centered one is common in eschatological passages. Readers repeatedly observe shifts in temporal viewpoint from the present to the future then back to the present as in Psalm 2 and many other places. In Isaiah 12, for another example, the text speaks of a future time as “that day” (12:4), a day located further away from the speaker. It shows that the speaker visualizes himself as in the present looking into the future. The text then, however, shows that the speaker has moved into the future and now speaks about saving works of the Lord as nearby in his perspective (“Let this be known . . .”).

Preterists think that Jesus throughout all of His discourse in Matthew 24 never moves away from a present-centered perspective. In such a perspective “this” and “these” would refer to things present and “that” and “those” would refer to things in the future. Indeed, Jesus has this present-centered perspective when speaking of the future time of his coming. He uses “that” and “those” in such expressions as “those days” and “that hour” (24:19, 22, 29, 36). He also speaks of the past flood of Noah as “those days” (24:38). The objects Jesus speaks about are remote to His vantage point in the present.

However, when He speaks of specific events in that future time (wars, famines, earthquakes, astronomical catastrophism), He uses the demonstrative pronoun “these” (24:8, 33) indicating that in His perspective the prophesied phenomena are now in the foreground. No longer is He standing in the present looking into the future. Now He stands in the future looking at its feature “close up”. He focuses upon these future works of God as though He and his audience are there in that future time looking at them as they occur. And it is while He has this future-centered perspective looking at these feature close up, that He utters the sentence “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (24:34). In this context it is clear that “this generation” belongs in the same visualized foreground as the events themselves. The generation Jesus has in mind is the generation who get to see these Tribulation judgments. Thus He uses the near demonstrative pronouns “this” and “these” that tie both the objects viewed and the viewers together in that same future time. If He had meant to say what the preterists think He is saying, He would have remained in the present-centered perspective, looking into the future and uttering something like this: “This generation will not pass away until all those things take place.” (Notes from a Bible class by Charles Clough of Bel Air, MD, privately printed.)

[/url]

3. With regard to the dating of Revelation, Ice lists a string of quotes that support his contention that the Greek word 'tachos' refers to *how* Jesus will come rather that *when*. Specifically, his proofs are in the way the word is used lexically, grammatically, and in the Old Testament. Could someone please give a preterist answer to each of these points?

These types of arguments are the unanswered ones that have been lingering for me. I must put them to rest before I can fully clothe myself with the Preterist view.

Thanks[/i][/b]

[Guest]

I haven't the time just now to read all that is at Ice's website, but I read the piece that you posted and can easily give my impression of it. I assume that most of Ice's argumentation elsewhere is of a similar quality--which is why don't have much respect for him as a scholar.

Everything Ice claims in the cited piece is mere speculation. It is desperation, and represents the rhetorical fallacy of begging the question. He first assumes that the events described in the Olivet Discourse belong to the end of the world (which is the point under dispute), and then tries to claim that, when Jesus said, "This generation," shall see "these things," He was speaking from the standpoint of one viewing it up close from that future position. This is not scholarship. This is pure agenda-driven guesswork. It rests upon the strength of a mere assertion, not anything like exegetical evidence. Besides, it is counterintuitive, and thus bears the burden of proof--which it obviously is unable to successfully carry.

First, the expression "this generation" (or its equivalent) is found in numerous other passages in Christ's teaching (e.g., Matt.11:16-19; 12:39-45; 23:31-36). In each case, the expression clearly refers to His own contempory generation. Why not here as well?

Second, the use of the term "these things" in the disputed verse most likely finds its referent in the disciples' question: "When shall these things be?" (Matt.24:3 and parallels). Jesus' answer is, "This generation shall not pass until all these things are fulfilled" (Matt.24:34 and parallels). Why should the "these things" in one passage be different than the "these things" in the other--especially, since the second statement is answering the question posed in the first? Also, why would Jesus tell the disciples, Peter, James, John and Andrew, with whom He was having a private conversation (Mark 13:3), that they should pray that they would personally escape these things (Luke 21:36)? If they were not things that would happen in their own time, this would seem a ridiculous command.

Third, we have the parallel statement in Matt.16:28, where Jesus says, "Some of you standing here shall not taste death before you see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Essentially the same prediction, but in words that clarify the meaning of "this generation" beyond the possibility of mistaking its meaning.

As for the matter of the meaning of the word "tachos," it is not controversial to suggest that the meaning of the word often speaks of swiftness, as Ice asserts. It is also clear that the word speaks of "soon-ness" in certain contexts (e.g., Acts 25:4/ 1 Tim.3:14). It certainly might mean either in its occurrences in the Book of Revelation. However, it is not quite so easy to dismiss the synonymous expressions in the book, which speak of soon-ness--e.g., "the time is at hand" (1:3; 22:10), "things about to take place" (1:19 Gr).

Regardless what claims Ice and others may be able to make about the questionable meaning of a single word (which could go either way), the repeated assertions in Revelation of the same concept in less ambiguous terms leaves little room for doubt that the original readers were encouraged to see the fulfillment of the book in their near future.

[Guest]

First, the expression "this generation" (or its equivalent) is found in numerous other passages in Christ's teaching (e.g., Matt.11:16-19; 12:39-45; 23:31-36). In each case, the expression clearly refers to His own contempory generation. Why not here as well?

In my opinion, Steve, Jesus did not use the word in this way. Here is an example, one of the verses in the list you gave above:

Matthew 12:41 "The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.

Surely Jesus was not speaking of all the people who happened to be alive onl the earth at that time. Rather, was He not talking about the Jewish nation, the Pharisees, most of whom were not part of the remnant that were serving the true God?

The primary meaning of "genea" is given in any good lexicon, namely
"that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family" and by extension "nation".

Matthew 24:34 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Is it not possible that Jesus was saying that the Jewish family would not pass away until all of these events would take place?

[Guest]

First, the expression "this generation" (or its equivalent) is found in numerous other passages in Christ's teaching (e.g., Matt.11:16-19; 12:39-45; 23:31-36). In each case, the expression clearly refers to His own contempory generation. Why not here as well?

In my opinion, Steve, Jesus did not use the word in this way. Here is an example, one of the verses in the list you gave above:

Matthew 12:41 "The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.

Surely Jesus was not speaking of all the people who happened to be alive onl the earth at that time. Rather, was He not talking about the Jewish nation, the Pharisees, most of whom were not part of the remnant that were serving the true God?

The primary meaning of "genea" is given in any good lexicon, namely
"that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family" and by extension "nation".

Matthew 24:34 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Is it not possible that Jesus was saying that the Jewish family would not pass away until all of these events would take place?

I don't think that the word genea is the point as much as "this" genea is. Why not state "That" or "a" genea?

In the passage you quote Jesus said "one greater than Jonah is here" Where? In every generation Jesus is there? Only that generation had that privilege. And I mean in the way He suggested not to go after those who said "out in the wilderness, or there He is".

Most who apply this passage (Matt 24) to the future apply it to the Jewish race (hence the temple, sabbath, abomination of desolation, etc.).

So would this mean that the statement could be: "The race of the Jews will not pass away until all this things happen to the Jewish race".

??

[Guest]

First, I failed to mention that this particular quote was Ice quoting an individual named Charles Clough, so this was his supporting material.

Secondly, when I read the Olivet Discourse I don't get the impression that he is speaking from a future position at all. To me, it reads in a way that we would expect. That is, Jesus talking to His disciples, in a private conversation, about future events in a present tense method. He uses the 2nd person plural form of the word "you" all the way through it. This indicates His message was intended for the ones in His immediate vicinity.

Futurist Tim Lahaye tries to explain this away by saying that the 'you' is a general 'you' referring to the nation of Israel. This is a stretch since Jesus isn't speaking to anyone but a specific audience of four disciples. Plus, no where in the text does Jesus indicate that He is referring to the whole nation in general. *Isn't this presuppositionally reading something into the text that isn't there at all.* The message wouldn't make much sense at all to His disciples using this form of language usage without specifically indicating within the discourse itself that the nation of Israel was in view

Steve, you made some excellent points with regard to the word 'tachos'. It seems convenient to leave out the synonymous phrases within the same book that don't have such an easy explanation. Ice doesn't mention or even trying to give an answer for these phrases-- so some Christians unaware of them or just not willing to do further study will feel satisfied with his answer. Therefore, they will reject the possibility that Revelation was mostly about an event that has already taken place.

Thanks Steve for your insights.

[Guest]

Therefore, they will reject the possibility that Revelation was mostly about an event that has already taken place.


It's one thing to say that most of the Olivet is about Jerusalem 70AD, it's another to say the entire book of Rev is almost all about Jerusalem 70AD. 70AD while very important is not a universal event, it's actually more of a jewish event then christian and why repeat judgements three times about the same event? Granted Rev was written before 70AD and granted Jerusalem is the harlot but why not an historical view centering around Jerusalem at different times in history. Jerusalem is back in business and is again a burdensome stone to the world. Coincidence?