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

by Thomas Ice

This engaging book brings together the opposing viewpoints of two respected evangelicals on whether the Great Tribulation is a past, present, or future event. This material is especially helpful in gaining an understanding of end times as the arguments are presented in a friendly debate format with responses by each author to the other's position.

Genres: Theology, Christianity, Christian

224 pages, Paperback

First published May 13, 1999

Reviews

[Benjamin Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great discussion between two exegetes on the issue of the Great Tribulation. Dr. Thomas Ice argues for a more mainstream dispensationalist approach to the G.T. while Kenneth Gentry argues for a preterist position on the topic. Personally I found Gentry's arguments more compelling. Dr. Ice clumsily tries to make a broad approach to scripture while Gentry focuses on only the relevant passages and argues compellingly that they support a preterist position. Oddly, Ice talks of a "plain reading of scripture" but then goes on to painstakingly go through calculations and complex exegesis to make the 70 weeks fit a futurist interpretation of Daniel 9. Here is a small section of his argument;

Explanation of Daniels 70 weeks of years;

69x7x360= 173,880 days
March 5, 444 B.C.+173,880 days= March 30 A.D. 33

Verification;

444 B.C. to A.D. 33= 476 years
476 years x 365.2421989 days = 173,855 days +days between March 5 and March 30= 25 days
Totals = 173,855 days + 25 days= 173,880 days

Rationale for 360-day years

Half week -- Daniel 9:27
Time, times, half a time -- Daniel 7:25, 12:7; Revelation 12:14
1,260 days -- Revelation 12:6, 11:3
42 months -- Revelation 11:2, 13:5
Thus: 42 months = 1,260 days = time, times, half time + half week
Therefore: month = 30 days; year = 360 days.

How on earth is that plain? I mean seriously! Its amazing to me that someone with the credentials of Ice has never studied the Hebrew conception of time. They didn't bother with such precise calculations, no culture at that time or in that region saw time as a precise mathematical measurement. This is why the writers of the gospels didn't bother clarifying that Christ was only in the tomb during three different days and not over an exact 72 hour period.

Gentry seems to make a similar claim about the "plainness of scripture" when he writes on page 186, "As for me and my house, we will read the translations as they appear." When just before he made a long series of arguments demonstrating that the Greek word "tachos" when used in Revelation 1:1 and 22:6 means "will soon come to pass" rather than "quickly or suddenly" as Dr. Ice contends. But somehow he sees this as justification for reading the texts "as they appear"? If anything this book demonstrates that there is no such thing as a purely plain reading of scripture. Certainly there are basic ideas and teachings in scripture that are difficult if no impossible to interpret out of the text, such as Jesus' death and resurrection bringing forgiveness and salvation to mankind. However, these secondary teachings and prophesies are far from obvious to the layman and require extensive research of the text.

Therefore, the Biblical text is not "plain" but is nevertheless "intelligible" and can be understood in great depth with proper study and determination. Even still, the text allows for new Christians to grab hold of its basic teachings and concepts while tugging them on to learn and study more through forcing the reader to ask difficult questions such as; how does Christ's death bring us forgiveness? What does it mean for Christ's resurrection to be a victory? The answers to these questions cannot be uncovered by simply reading the Bible, but must be sought also through meditation, studying theology as well as material on the language and context surrounding the Bible. All this "plain and simple" nonsense has stripped the Bible of its depth, glory and its relevance to mature Christians.

[Some Christian Lady · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting book debating the arguments for/against a dispensational or preterist interpretation of end times eschatology. I still don’t understand it all.