PMW 2026-068 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my third posting on the reason I am writing a book on the two ages doctrine of redemptive history. If you don’t believe me, just count them. We now come to an important historical application of this study:

My theological concerns

The third issue prompting this book is my deep concern over the troubling development of a new heterodox theology rooted in (though not limited to) eschatology. This theology has set itself over against historic Christian doctrine, and is known by orthodox Christians as “hyper-preterism.”

Three fundamental, core errors of “hyper-preterism” that render it heterodox define the system in all of its various, differing, and competing forms. These include its denials of: (1) a future, physical, bodily return of Christ, (2) a future, physical, bodily resurrection of the dead, and (3) a future, physical, restored new creation. [1] However, hyper-preterism is mutating over time, such that its errors are not confined just to eschatology but are negatively impacting numerous other areas of theology.

For instance, we see its altering Christology, for example, by denying the continuing incarnation of Jesus in heaven after the ascension (e.g., Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:5), as well as anthropology and soteriology, by negating the defining significance of man as a body-and-soul composite (Gen. 2:7), though both body and soul are subject to either salvation or judgment (Matt. 10:28). It is a mistake, however, to limit the designation “hyper-preterism” to what is called “full” or “consistent” preterism. One does not have to believe all biblical prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70 to commit this error. “Hyper-preterist” applies to anyone who denies the three doctrines stated above.

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

In several respects, the system is neo-Gnostic, preferring the spiritual realm over the material. Note in this regard just a few samples: (1) It rejects the continuing physical incarnation of Jesus. It claims that after his physical resurrection, the Lord soon shed his material body at the ascension and assumed a new and different spiritual, ethereal body. (2) It denies a (still) future public, bodily return of Christ, holding rather that his return occurred spiritually and unseen in the context of the AD 70 judgment on Israel. (3) It dismisses the future physical, corporate resurrection of our God-created bodies, deeming our resurrection to be a spiritual transformation providing an altogether new ethereal body for each individual at the moment of his death. (4) It doubts the future physical new earth wherein God restores his creation to the glory for which it was intended and in which resurrected believers will dwell. Rather it claims we will forever be spirits like the angels.

This aberrant theology is partly (though not solely) fueled by a misunderstanding of the disciples’ questions prompting the Olivet Discourse. This is vitally significant in that understanding their two questions is deemed a crux interpretum by scholars. And the disciples’ inquiry gives rise to the whole Eschatological Discourse which, as a matter of fact, is a major source of the hyper-preterist confusion leading to their unorthodox theology.

The two different understandings of Matthew 24:3 may be seen by citing hyper-preterist J. Stuart Russell and orthodox preterist Jeannine Brown. Russell (1887: 59) states that “‘the end of the age’ … means the close of the epoch or age, — that is, the Jewish age or dispensation which was drawing nigh.” Brown (2015: 275) differs: “Jesus answers the disciples’ first question about the fall of the temple in 24:4–35 and their second about his parousia at the end of the age in 24:36–44.” And by parousia, Brown (p. 276) is speaking of “Jesus’ return [which] will be as clear as lightning in the sky.”

Unfortunately though, the hyper-preterists’ confusion on the disciples’ questions in Matthew 24:3 does not arise solely from within heterodox circles. For this mistake is even made by a number of orthodox preterist scholars, though employed to different ends and avoiding the hyper-preterist extremes. So, whether countering heretics or debating fellow evangelicals, studying the disciples’ questions has much to offer us for properly analyzing the Lord’s Eschatological Discourse as it impacts the two age phenomenon.

Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond
(ed. by Darrell Bock)

Presents three views on the millennium: progressive dispensationalist, amillennialist, and reconstructionist postmillennialist viewpoints. Includes separate responses to each view. Ken Gentry provides the postmillennial contribution.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

So then, some questions that arise in this interpretive context:

• To what “age” are the disciples referring?
• What do they mean by “the end” of the age in their question?
• Why does the prophecy of the temple’s destruction give rise to such a question?
• Why do the other Gospel writers not include this form of their question?
• And when that “end” comes, what happens then?

Our questions regarding their questions require answers if we are to understand the Lord’s great prophecy. And answering these questions can remove an issue that can and has become a stumbling block to many who follow the blind and fall into the ditch. These questions will be answered in the course of the book.

Indeed, we must properly understand the significance of the disciples’ questions in that they impact our understanding of the Lord’s teaching on the two ages, which structures the whole of redemptive history. These questions should especially be of great concern for us in that they spark one of Jesus’ longest (recorded) teaching sessions (Matt. 24:4–25:46), which appears in each of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 24:4–25:46; Mark 13:5–37; Luke 21:8–36). Besides, this is the Lord’s only fully-eschatological discourse, which lends it a special significance.

Dispensational Distortions (3 downloadable mp3s)
by Ken Gentry
Reformed introduction to classic dispensationalism, with analysis of leading flaws regarding the Church, kingdom, redemptive history, and Christ. Helpful for demonstrating errors to dispensationalists.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Furthermore, this Discourse comes at the conclusion of his three-and-one-half year ministry. For it appears in the very midst of Passion Week (Matt. 21:1–27:66) just two days before he dies (Matt. 27:35). And it is given to his disciples in private (Matt. 24:3; cp. Mark 13:3) as special parting instructions for them (e.g., Matt. 24:4–6, 15–20, 25–26, 33–34, 42; 25:13) as his final major teaching session (Matt. 26:1–2).

Thus, I will be demonstrating the significance of the two ages doctrine to the Lord’s glorious Olivet Discourse (aka Eschatological Discourse). It is often stated that Matthew 24:34 is the key to understanding the Discourse. But I believe an earlier verse rivals v. 34 for informing us properly of Jesus’s great prophecy: the disciples’ confused question that sparked the discourse, Matthew 24:3: “As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, ‘Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?’”

I have touched on this matter in several earlier postings on this site. But my book will be the most thorough presentation. I will let you know when the book is completed and available.

NOTE

1. Michael Wittmer has memorably called these three issues the three Rs of eschatology: “the Return of Christ, the Resurrection of the body, and the Restoration of all things” (Wittmer, Michael, The Bible Explainer: Questions and Answers on Origins, the Old Testament, Jesus, the End Times, and More [Uhrichsville, Ohio: Barbour, 2020], 438).