Thomas Ice and the Time Texts

By Gary DeMar
President - American Vision
 www.americanvision.org



In going through the LaHaye/Ice (Lice) book The End Times Controversy (ETC), I continually find the authors arguing for complicated and convoluted interpretations of passages that are clear when the time parameters, context, and audience reference are studied and understood. Attention to these factors hit home for me when I first became a Christian and was told to read Hal Lindsey's Late Great Planet Earth if I wanted to know what was going to happen in this end-time generation. This was in 1974. Not knowing anything about the Bible, I believed that the book's sensationalistic claims were actually in the Bible. My enthusiasm for the book's premise waned when I started reading the Bible!

Beginning with Matthew's gospel, and with Lindsey's paradigm swimming in my head, I found myself thoroughly confused. The first passage that did not seem to fit with Lindsey's view was 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." Commentaries I checked were of little help. William Hendriksen's comments on the passage from his commentary on Matthew, quoted by Ice in support of his own view, were a big disappointment. Keep in mind that I was not a Preterist at this point in time. In fact, I had no idea what Preterism was, so I was not looking for a way to defend the Preterist position. I only wanted to know what the passage meant. Many of you reading this understand what I'm describing.

Ice spends nearly three pages in ETF trying to show how this passage does not mean what it seems to mean. "I believe," Ice writes, "because of the nature of the vocabulary, Matthew 10:21-23 refers to events that will take place during the Tribulation and climax in the glorious second coming of Christ" (84). Here's the problem with Ice's claim: He never deals with the vocabulary or the context. He quotes a bunch of commentators who know what the passage says but are unwilling to come to grips with its unpleasant implications for their prophetic system. Ice does the same thing when he tackles Matthew 16:27-28.

The Audience Context of Matthew 10:23

Whom is Jesus addressing? "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves" (10:16). Throughout His discourse, Jesus has His present audience in mind. Like in Matthew 24, Jesus uses the second person plural throughout the discourse to make this point more than clear. There is nothing in the passage that gives any indication that Jesus has any other audience in view other than His immediate audience. Ice never addresses the audience vocabulary. He jumps to a distant future "Great Tribulation" scenario that would require a discussion of a different audience that is nowhere found in the context of the passage.

Notice how the discourse begins: "And having summoned His twelve disciples" (10:1). Jesus is not describing a future tribulation scenario with a post-rapture, newly regathered Israel. He is characterizing the conditions that existed in Israel in His own day: "These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them, saying, 'Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel'" (10:1, 5-6). The "twelve" are the "you" of the rest of the passage. "Israel" is the Israel of Jesus' day. Notice the context: "go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (10:6) and "you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes" (10:23). Once again, Ice muddies what is very clear in the passage.

The Audience Context of Matthew 16:27-28

As I continued reading through Matthew's gospel as a new Christian, the next prophetic passage I came across hit me hard. You know it well: "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and will then recompense every man according to his deeds. 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" (Matt. 16:27-28). Ice spends four pages trying to make this passage fit his system. There is no need for me to rehearse his arguments here since they are common attempts to get around the obvious. But Ice brings up one argument that I had never encountered:

A further problem with the Preterist view is that our Lord said "some of those standing here. . . ." It is clear that the term "some" would have to include at least two or more individuals, since "some" is plural and coupled with a plural verb, "to be." The word "some" nicely fits the three disciples--Peter, James, and John (Matthew 17:1)--who were participants at our Lord's transfiguration. On the other hand, Peter notes that "John only survived" among the 12 disciples till the destruction of Jerusalem (88).

Ice is arguing that since only John lived after the destruction of Jerusalem, "some" does not fit the time period. If Jesus had said, following Ice's argument, "one of you will not taste death," then Preterists would have a point, but the passage says "some," more than one. The only immediate event that fits, according to Ice, is the transfiguration. Once again, Ice fails to consider the context and audience. Matthew 16:24 reads: "Then Jesus said to His disciples. . . ." The audience of 16:27-28 is made up of the "disciples", which as I will show, include Peter, James, John, and others. Simply put, when Jesus described the time of His "coming" in Matthew 16:28, Peter, James, and John weren't the only disciples present. The other nine apostles were there and maybe other disciples as well. While the apostles are often described as "disciples" (Matt. 11:1), the word "disciples" often means more than the twelve (Matt. 5:1; 8:21; Luke 10:1).

It's a week later when Peter, James, and John go up the mount with Jesus. After the experience of the transfiguration, we read in Mark's account of the event "And when they [Jesus, Peter, James, and John] came back to the disciples, they saw a large crowd around them, and some scribes arguing with them" (9:14). It's obvious; therefore, that the disciples of Matthew 15-17 are a larger group than the three disciples Jesus chose to take with Him to see His transfiguration. This means that the plural "some" fits the context very well. "There are some who those who are standing here [Peter, James, John, and other unnamed disciples] who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" (Matt. 16:28). D. A. Carson's comments on the transfiguration solution dismiss an interpretation like Ice's:

The problem [with this view] is twofold. First, "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see" is an extraordinary way to refer to Peter, James, and John, who witness the Transfiguration a mere six days later (17:1). Second, as magnificent as the Transfiguration was, it is not entirely clear how the Son of Man comes in his kingdom (Matt) or the kingdom comes in power (Mark) through this event.

Once again, Ice presents his arguments in terms that his dispensational readers will accept without debate. By never raising the issue of how the second person plural ("you") is used throughout Matthew 10, he is counting on his loyal readers not to notice. And who would think to go to Mark's account of the Transfiguration to see that the "disciples" is a larger group than Peter, James, and John? Of course, we all know the answer to this question: Preterists would.

Hit Counter

 Preterism-Eschatology---What are your thoughts on the matter?

 
Please fill in all fields marked with a *
Article

Thomas Ice and the Time Texts

Name*
Email Address*
Comments*