PMW 2026-066 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my second article introducing my reasons for writing a book on the doctrine of the two ages of redemptive history. Three particular issues have mainly prompted me to write this book.

First, my eschatological interests

The first issue is more general: my long-standing interest in and engagement with Reformed eschatology (after having converted out of dispensationalism while in seminary). Eschatology is not simply one locus of systematic theology; neither is it a secondary or inconsequential one. Rather it is an intricate part of God’s over-arching redemptive plan. Eschatology and soteriology are inextricably linked. And as strange as it may initially seem, Reformed theologians argue that eschatology actually precedes soteriology. Thus, Geerhardus Vos (2001: 77) can declare that “eschatology is older than soteriology.” Or as he puts it elsewhere: “the eschatological is an older strand in revelation than the soteric” (1948: 15).

This historical priority of eschatology is seen in Eden in Adam’s conditional immortality. He was not allowed access to the Tree of Life (Gen. 3:22) until he successfully passed his testing (Gen. 2:16–17). “The tree of life contains a prophetic element (cf. Gen. 3:22)…. The distinction is between a life in possession and one in prospect. It is eternal life in prospect. The essence of eschatology lies in this prospective. The seventh day, i.e., the Sabbath, may also be viewed as an eschatological term…. This rest of consummation was introduced into the life of man in order to show him his goal. Even in unfallen man the Sabbath was an eschatological sign” (Vos 2001: 75). The Sabbath (Gen. 2:1–3) was a picture of the rest that lay before him once he successfully completed his test.

As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary?
Book by Ken Gentry

Presents the exegetical evidence for Six-day Creation and against the Framework Hypothesis. Strong presentation and rebuttal to the Framework Hypothesis, while demonstrating and defending the Six-day Creation interpretation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Consequently, to “this original eschatology is now added a soteric force. It attained its original purpose, but now has a soteric form. The end that it deals with is the end of a saving process…. Eschatology aims at consummation rather than restoration” (Vos 2001: 74).

By this is meant that from the beginning of universal history, eschatology has guided soteriology toward its God-ordained goal. That is, upon the completion of God’s creation process (Gen. 1:31–2:3) we immediately learn of God’s pre-redemptive special revelation to Adam in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:16–17). This revelation warns that God’s relationship with Adam could be broken if Adam disobeys God’s command. But as suggested by Genesis 3:22–24, and as we may discern from later biblical revelation, God presents the eschatological goal of an eternal, unchangeable fellowship between himself and man. From the beginning, this goal included the prospect of Adam attaining a more glorious, more powerful, imperishable, Holy Spirit-driven body (1 Cor. 15:42–44). [2] His body as originally created could not live forever, for “flesh and blood cannot inherit the [eternal] kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 15:50). Thus, it must be changed, being adapted to the eternal order (1 Cor. 15:51–53). Consequently, Adam was created with the express eschatological goal of securing this glorious body. So again: eschatology precedes soteriology.

The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation
This commentary is an 1800 page, two-volume deeply exegetical, academic commentary on the Bible’s most mysterious book. It takes an orthodox preterist approach, giving serious attention to the details of John’s many visions.

Click: The Divorce of Israel
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

But Adam was created as a free moral agent. Consequently, he was to be tested in Eden first. His original, unfallen, created body was subject to the possibility of distress, death, and dissolution. For God directly warns him of such immediately upon his creation (Gen. 2:7–8, 17; 3:11). And, of course, death does eventually overwhelm him (Gen. 3:19; 5:5), coming about due to his sinning against God (Rom. 5:12–14; 1 Cor. 15:21). However, according to a careful understanding of 1 Corinthians 15:42–50, Adam’s unfallen “natural” (psuchikos, “soulish”) body was given with a view to his acquiring a perfect “Spirit” (pneumatikos) body. This would be designed for his eternal relationship with God upon the successful completion of his testing. [2]

NOTES

1. The “spiritual body” (1 Cor. 15:44) is not to be an ethereal, immaterial body (such as that possessed by a different order being, the angels). Contrary to ancient Gnosticism, modern liberalism, and contemporary hyper-preterism, it is to be a physical body fully and perfectly controlled by the Holy Spirit. It is the very eschatological body we will gain at the resurrection.

2. See Vos’ explication (Vos 2024: 80–84 ). For the most thorough and compelling exposition of 1 Corinthians 15, see: James P. Ware, The Final Triumph of God, 2025). For a shorter defense of the material resurrection body, see Ware, “Paul’s Understanding of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:36–54,” JBL 133:4 (2014): 809–835.