PMW 2025-055 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

On May 15, 2025 Gary DeMar (my old RTS classmate, friend, fellow-conference speaker, and publisher of several of my books) published an article about me that does not make sense: “Why Ken Gentry Must Oppose Full Preterism.”

DeMar’s opening charge

“Ken Gentry keeps changing his views about preterism. That’s OK because we all make changes. I believe his charges are designed to avoid having to deal with challenges to the partial preterist position.”

I must note up-front that Gary is correct. As I study the issue more carefully, I discover that I have made some exegetical oversights and argumentative mistakes in the past. However, I would note that though I have changed some of my arguments within preterism, my overall theology has not changed. I still remain fully within the flow of historic, orthodox Christianity (as reprehensible as that may sound to some).

Changing one’s understanding of certain texts of Scripture within one’s system is not necessarily harmful. However, changing one’s doctrinal positions on key issues defining historic Christianity is! Ironically, I still hold to the American Vision Statement of Faith (which is fully orthodox and reflects the position within the historic creeds of Christianity), whereas Gary as Senior Fellow of American Vision does not. Consider the following:

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 AV Statement of Faith reads:

“We believe in the personal, bodily return of our Lord Jesus Christ at the consummation of history. The dead, consisting of believers and non-believers, shall be raised up in final judgment. Those who are saved shall be raised up unto everlasting life and those who have rejected Christ unto eternal damnation.”

I also hold to what AV declares is the gospel, on its Internet site: “What is the Gospel” (https://americanvision.org/what-is-the-gospel/). A part of that statement reads:

“At the general resurrection of all men, when Christ returns in glory for the Final Judgment of the world, believers are resurrected in redeemed bodies, glorified like unto the Savior, acknowledged and acquitted by Him, and enter into the holy, happy, and eternal life of God’s consummated kingdom.”

I fully affirm each of these statements. And I affirm them in their original intent, without equivocating on their historic meaning. Though Gary once held to each of these doctrinal positions (and his ministry still claims to do so), unfortunately, he no longer does. He has not simply changed arguments within his doctrinal system but has changed his doctrinal system itself. His current doctrine is no longer fully orthodox.

Gary claims my changes within my argument are “designed to avoid having to deal with challenges to the partial preterist position.” I really need to go to another psychologist. Apparently my current psychologist has been reporting to Gary what I am thinking deep down within (because I certainly have not stated such in my writings or lectures). I knew I should have gotten a new psychologist when I told my current one that I was contemplating suicide and he responded by saying I need to start paying for sessions up front! And to add insult to injury, I told my psychologist I wanted a second opinion, and he simply put a sock-puppet on his hand and repeated himself.

Actually, changes that I have made in my preterist argument, to the contrary, are designed to respond to legitimate challenges to certain errors made within some of my writings. I am not attempting to avoid challenges to partial preterism as such, which I still hold. (By the way, “partial preterism” is a hermeneutic tool (that is helpful for understanding certain texts of Scripture), whereas “hyper-preterism” is a whole, new theological system, which is unorthodox.)

Olivet Discourse Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Verse-by-verse analysis of Christ’s teaching on Jerusalem’s destruction in Matt 24. Shows the great tribulation is past, having occurred in AD 70, and is distinct from the Second Advent at the end of history. Provides exegetical reasons for a transition from AD 70 to the Second Advent at Matthew 24:36.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

John Lightfoot

For some reason (I have not been able to wrestle it out of Gary’s psychologist, so I really don’t know why), Gary brings up my admission that I wrongly classified Lightfoot as being a “preterist.” And this is the first thing he brings up in his critique of me! He writes:

“Let’s begin with his claim that John Lightfoot was not a preterist even though he said in the past that Lightfoot was a preterist.”

Well, so what? But as a matter of definitional fact, Lightfoot was an historicist. Historicism necessarily allows some preterist positions within because it is dealing with history stretching from the first century all the way to the end of history. But I dealt with this fully enough in my previous posting, so I won’t go into this irrelevant matter any further.

My commentary on Revelation
Gary writes:

“Gentry’s two-volume commentary breaks with the preterist-historicist approach like no other commentary has. It’s nearly a full preterist commentary, and that’s a problem for Gentry.”

That is simply a mistake. It is not nearly a full preterist commentary. I whole-heartedly reject full preterism and affirm the second coming of Christ, the corporate physical resurrection of the dead, and the final judgment within my commentary. Since it is a preterist commentary, hyper-preterists will almost certainly find things in it that they will appreciate. But they also will vehemently reject other portions of it. I don’t have a problem. Gary and hyper-preterists have a problem — with the historic Christianity to which I am committed.

As a matter of fact, though, I declare in my exposition of Revelation 1:7:

“I will be arguing more fully in Excursus 3 that 1:7 refers to AD 70. I would point out, however, that Israel’s judgment in AD 70 parallels and rehearses the larger-scale second advent and universal judgment at the end of history (cf. discussion in Excursus 15 at 20:1). Indeed, it is a microcosmic anticipation of the macrocosmic consummation. As Bloesch (84) puts it: ‘The catastrophe that befell the Jewish people in A.D. 70 is a sign of the final judgment.’ So if we properly understand AD 70, we see that “the fate of Jerusalem is an anticipation of the last judgment. The same fate which befell Jerusalem will, on a much vaster cosmic scale, embracing the whole world, overtake the Gentiles.”

Elsewhere, Gary scoffs that I spend twenty pages arguing that Rev. 1:7 points to the destruction of the temple in AD 70 and does not deal with the Second Advent as most evangelicals believe. But as just noted, I alert my reader that though this one verse does not teach what they believe it does (at least not directly), I do hold to a future, visible, physical second coming of Christ. No hyper-preterist, full-preterist, consistent-preterist, non-full-stop preterist, or whatever they are calling themselves today will agree with this note. Or any of my many other affirmations of the Second Advent.

Postmillennialism Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Basic introduction to postmillennialism. Presents the essence of the postmillennial argument and answers the leading objections. And all in a succinct, introductory fashion.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The Mello melodrama
Gary complains:

“Why has Gentry changed his view of the Greek word mellō that he used to defend the pre-AD 70 date of Revelation?”

I have changed it because as I began to realize no major New Testament translation translated it as “about to” in Rev. 1:19, I thought I had better double-check the matter.

I have explained this lexical and syntactic gaffe on my part. I have explained it fully enough on my website (though on another verse). See: “Hyperpreterism and Mello in Acts” .

And also see my two articles on “Resurrection, Paul, & Acts 24:15: (https://postmillennialworldview.com/2022/02/18/acts-2415-and-the-resurrection-1/) (https://postmillennialworldview.com/2022/02/22/acts-2415-and-the-resurrection-2/)

Ironically, I was making the argument for (partial) preterism stronger by removing a Greek exegetical error on my part. The Bible translation committees that agreed that mello was simply referring to a future that was certain, rather than a future that was near, presented their translations based on tried-and-true linguistic, syntactical, lexical, and historical analysis. Mello sometimes means “about to” but at other it means “certain to come.” Jason Bradfield carefully answers this matter in his article “Mello and the Real Bias Problem” (https://www.reformation.blog/p/mello-and-the-real-bias-problem) I highly recommend subscribing to Bradfield’s blogsite. As a former hyper-preterist he has studied the matters more than most; and he has the academic acumen to deal with the issues.

(Ironically, I am praying that Gary will mello with age, and return to Christian orthodoxy.)

Matthew 24:27

Gary complains: “Did Gentry change his interpretation of Matthew 24:27 to avoid falling off the full preterism precipice?” He asks: “How does Gentry’s interpretation square with Matthew 24:34?”

That’s easy to answer: No! I simply noticed a contextual matter that I had overlooked. I explain v. 27 in my latest Olivet Discourse Made Easy:

“The Lord cautions his disciples: “If therefore they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go forth, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them” (Matt 24:26). We must recall Josephus’ report in Jewish Wars 2:13:5 [261–62] cited above that recorded an episode in which an Egyptian false prophet arose in the wilderness claiming a great deliverance.

Jesus dismisses such by stating that when he physically comes again to the earth, it will be an unmistakable event: “For just as the lightning comes from the east, and flashes even to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be” (Matt 24:27). The “for” (gar) here shows that he is giving the reason why his disciples should not think he is off in some wilderness or in an inner room somewhere. When he does return it will be as visible and dramatic as lightning flashing.”

Carefully examining the overlooked context moved me to make this change — and this was initially prompted by noting R. T. France’s argument in his world-class, 1100-page exegetical commentary on Matthew in Eerdmans’ New International Commentary on the New Testament! This is an aside statement that Jesus engaged as a warning for his disciples. They must not make the mistake of thinking Jesus’ literal second coming was to occur in the first century like the deluded Jewish false Messiahs might try to lead them to think.

Conclusion

There is more that I could say; and I will be stating much more as I continue working on the Olivet Discourse and preterism. But again: I we be firing my psychologist for letting out my deeply-held inner secret fear of hyper-preterism. I should have gone to a confessional booth where he would not have seen me and known who I am. Gary may say that he is just “asking questions” as he grills the historic, orthodox Christian faith. But I wish he would answer questions. Just three questions: the one’s Andrew Sandlin and others put to him. See: https://postmillennialworldview.com/2023/03/02/concerns-re-gary-demar/

Thine Is the Kingdom
(ed. by Ken Gentry)

Contributors lay the scriptural foundation for a biblically-based, hope-filled postmillennial eschatology, while showing what it means to be postmillennial in the real world.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com