“WE WHO ARE ALIVE” IS NOT A TIME TEXT

PMW 2026-028 by Jason Bradfield

Gentry note:
Jason Bradfield once again applies devastating logic and destructive grammatical analysis to hyper-preterism. In this article he offers a master class in how NOT to interpret Scripture. He demonstrates this from the hyper-preterism in Gary DeMar’s writings. He also provides a warning regarding the necessity of understanding Greek grammar before writing about it. I highly commend Bradfield’s work and recommend you sign up to receive his new articles on a regular basis. I certainly have! (https://www.reformation.blog)

But now:

“We Who Are Alive” Is Not a Time Text

Among hyper-preterists, one of the more popular arguments for a first-century fulfillment of the resurrection is that Paul’s language in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 functions as a “time text.” The claim runs like this: when Paul wrote, “we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,” he was asserting that he personally expected to be among the living when Christ returned. Since Paul was alive in the mid-first century, the parousia must have been a mid-first-century event. Hyper-preterists Gary DeMar and Kim Burgess, among others, have pressed this reading.

“At this point in time, Paul still fully expected to be alive in his earthly body at the parousia of Christ as based on the direct warrant of Christ Himself in texts like Matthew 10:23, 16:27-28, and 24:34. This is precisely why Paul deliberately used “we” language in both 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15.1″

The argument sounds intuitive on the surface. But it collapses under the weight of Greek grammar, Paul’s own broader testimony, and, most critically, what Paul says in the very next verse. What we are dealing with in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 is not a prophetic time indicator at all. It is a category identification, and the difference matters enormously.


The Book of Revelation and Postmillennialism (Lectures by Ken Gentry)

In the first of these three 50-minute lectures Gentry explains Revelation’s judgments to show they do not contradict postmillennialism. In the next two lectures he shows how the Millennium and the New Creation themes strongly support the gospel victory hope found in postmillennialism.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com


The key phrase in Greek is hemeis hoi zontes hoi. The pronoun hemeis (”we”) is followed by two articular present participles: hoi zontes (”the ones living”) and hoi perileipomenoi (”the ones remaining”). The participles function substantivally, which means they describe a class of people defined by their condition at the time of the event, not at the time of writing. Paul is saying, in effect, “those among us believers who are in the state of being alive and remaining when the Lord comes.” The present tense of the participles is relative to the main action of the sentence (the coming of the Lord), not to the moment Paul picked up his pen. This is a standard use of the articular participle in Koine Greek and there is nothing in the grammar that restricts the referent to Paul and his immediate contemporaries.

To appreciate why this matters, consider the broader context of the passage. Paul is writing to a grieving church. Believers in Thessalonica had died, and the remaining congregation was distraught, apparently worried that their departed brothers and sisters would miss out on the parousia. Paul’s entire argument is pastoral comfort:

“But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.” (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 ESV)


Have We Missed the Second Coming:
A Critique of the Hyper-preterist Error

by Ken Gentry

This book offers a brief introduction, summary, and critique of Hyper-preterism. Don’t let your church and Christian friends be blindfolded to this new error. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

For more Christian educational materials: www.KennethGentry.com


The structure of Paul’s argument is to divide all believers into two groups: the dead in Christ and the living who remain. He uses “we” because he and his readers are currently alive and naturally fall, as things presently stand, into the latter group. But the whole point of the passage is that the timing is open-ended enough for some believers to have already died. If Paul “knew” the parousia would occur within his lifetime, the Thessalonians’ grief over a few recently deceased believers would be a remarkably trivial crisis to warrant apostolic correspondence. The passage only makes full pastoral sense if the timing genuinely remains unresolved.

But here is where the “time text” reading suffers its most decisive blow, and it comes from Paul himself in the very next breath. Without skipping a beat, Paul transitions into chapter 5:

“Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. (1 Thessalonians 5:1-2 ESV)”

The thief metaphor is entirely about unpredictability. A thief does not send you a letter telling you when he is coming. The whole point of the image is that the timing is unknown and unknowable. Jesus used the same metaphor in Matthew 24:43 for exactly that reason, and Peter picks it up in 2 Peter 3:10 the same way. If Paul had just planted a time text in 4:15 telling the Thessalonians that the parousia would occur within their lifetime, why would he immediately pivot to telling them the timing is as unpredictable as a break-in? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say “I’ve just told you it will happen while we’re alive” and then say “but you have no need for me to write about the timing because it comes when no one expects it.” Those two claims work against each other if the first one is really a time indicator. But on the categorical reading, the sequence is perfectly coherent: Paul is saying that whenever this happens, the dead will not miss out, and whoever among us is alive at the time will be caught up with them. As for when that will be, you already know the answer: you don’t know, and you can’t know.

What makes this connection even more devastating to the hyper-preterist “time text” claim is the phrase Paul uses. “The times and the seasons” in 1 Thessalonians 5:1 is ton chronon kai ton kairon. This is the same word pair that Jesus himself used in Acts 1:7 when the disciples asked him about the timing of the restoration: “He said to them, ‘It is not for you to know times or seasons (chronous he kairous) that the Father has fixed by his own authority’” (Acts 1:7 ESV). The only differences are the grammatical case (accusative in Acts, genitive in 1 Thessalonians, because of their different syntactic positions) and the conjunction (“or” in Acts, “and” in 1 Thessalonians). But it is unmistakably the same phrase.

Navigating the Book of Revelation: Special Studies on Important Issues

Navigating the Book of Revelation (by Ken Gentry)

Technical studies on key issues in Revelation, including the seven-sealed scroll, the cast out temple, Jewish persecution of Christianity, the Babylonian Harlot, and more.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com


Paul is not just making a general point about unpredictability. He is echoing the Lord’s own words. And he is doing it immediately after the passage that hyper-preterists want to turn into a chronological marker. Jesus told the disciples that the timing of these events is not for them to know. Paul then tells the Thessalonians, using the same phrase, that they have no need for him to write about the times and seasons, because they already know the answer: it comes like a thief. They know this because Jesus already told them so. That is not what you write ten seconds after dropping a time text. That is what you write after deliberately not giving one.

The parallel passage in 1 Corinthians 15 reinforces all of this….

To finish reading the article, go to:
https://www.reformation.blog/p/we-who-are-alive-is-not-a-time-text

THE BEST MATTHEW COMMENTARIES

PMW 2026-027 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

As I am working on a new book, tentatively titled The Two Ages of Redemptive History, I am investigating a number of commentaries on Matthew (I do not fly by the seat of my pants as some preterist enthusiasts do!). I have found help in many of them, even when they do not hold to a preterist understanding of Olivet. Yet, several commentaries have become absolutely essential in my investigation. And I highly recommend them to my reader.

In this brief article I will recommend some good commentaries for you. If you are interested in the the Two Ages concept, especially regarding how it impacts the Olivet Discourse in particular  or the Gospel of Matthew in general, you really need to get hold of these. Continue reading

CONFUSED DISCIPLES THEN AND NOW

PMW 2026-026  by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am researching a book on the Two Ages of Redemptive History. This issue of the biblical function of “this age” and “the coming age” arose during my research on a new expanded study Olivet Discourse.

In my research I have a large and important section showing how confused were Jesus’ twelve disciples — despite having the best teacher possible! Their confusion plays a large role in their misunderstanding Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of the temple (Matt. 24:2). They ask two questions of him, the second of which shows their confusion. They ask when shall these things be, then they ask what shall be the sign of your parousia and of the end of the age (Matt. 24:3). As per much first century Jewish and apocalyptic expectations, they believed the temple could not be destroyed without history ending and that the Messiah would wage war against pagans.
Continue reading

SHOULD WE VOTE LESSER OF EVILS? (4)

PMW 2026-025 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my final posting on the question of voting for the lesser of evils. The earlier postings should be read in order to understand this one. But now, how does all of my argument thus far square with:

The Question of Scripture

I believe in a Christian worldview rooted in Scripture. But how can we encourage Christians to compromise in their voting while maintaining their worldview? The question of compromise is particularly significant for Christians who are uncompromisingly committed to Scripture. So then, does the question of compromise undermine all the practical arguments brought up by Christian idealists?

This is an important matter to consider — especially in that it frequently arises in Christian political discussions. Does the Bible have anything to say regarding the question of compromise? Actually it does. It allows realistic, principled compromise. Consider the following examples.

Continue reading

SHOULD WE VOTE LESSER OF EVILS? (3)

PMW 2026-024 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my third in a short series on the question as to whether or not Christians should vote for the lesser-of-evils. We are now ready for the important question regarding the evaluation of our principles.

Third, evaluating our principles. We are considering political issues in this book, and are especially focusing on voting as an important political act that Christians should pursue. As believers we often find ourselves and our principles under assault. One of our principles should be to strive to protect our other principles as best we can against the majority opposition. I am arguing that, given our circumstances, we sometimes have to act as principled realists and vote for the lesser of evils in defending our principles for the long haul. Just as freedoms may be lost incrementally, they may also be re-established incrementally.

Continue reading

SHOULD WE VOTE LESSER OF EVILS? (2)

PMW 2026-023 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my last article, I noted that we are in an election year in America, and that as Christians we need to consider political issues. But now I want to focus on the vitally important:

The Question of Principle

We need carefully to reflect on the question of principle itself, which I will do under several headings.

First, distinguishing our principles. When we are engaging in politics we must be careful not to place our political actions (e.g., voting) on the same level as our doctrinal commitments (i.e., faith in Scripture). We must be careful not to develop a messianic political outlook. That is, we should not believe that if we can only elect the right candidate he will save our nation.

This problem of viewing political principles as if they are on the same level as doctrinal convictions is quite widespread. For instance, consider the “Defending Contending” website cited above. Notice how the writer (“Pilgrim”) sets up the debate: “true Christians should not have to vote if they first have to sit down and estimate which candidate is the lesser of two evils.” This writer is classifying “true” Christians by their voting rather than by their doctrinal commitments and personal lifestyle. This type of thinking apparently believes that “by their votes you shall know them.”

Continue reading

SHOULD WE VOTE LESSER OF EVILS? (1)

PMW 2026-022 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

As we move closer to our important off-year elections, American Christians need to think carefully about the options before us. As postmillennialists we recognize that we are in a socio-political struggle. For the long run. Therefore, we must act accordingly. Like it or not, in politics we cannot expect overnight success through one particular election or by means of a “perfect” candidate. To continually vote for the “perfect” candidate when we know he is going to lose does not help us build for the future, for by that we are ceding more victories to the overt liberals. Liberalism is a mess. And when its goo gets all over the place, it is very difficult to clean up the mess.

Continue reading