HYPERPRETERISM VS. THE GOSPEL (1)

PMW 2025-058 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Introduction
Hyper-preterism in all of its various, warring branches is heretical at its very core. By “hyper-preterism” I am not limiting the concept to what is known as “full preterism” or “consistent preterism.” Such a definition is a common maneuver by hyper-preterists who are not absolutely and fully preterist in every single detail. By doing this, they can claim: “I am not a FULL preterist,” thinking that this declaration allows them to avoid the charge of being “hyper.” They are hoping this will allow them to fly under the radar and not be charged with eroding the foundations of the Christian faith.

Rather, I am more narrowly applying this distinctive term to the core issues that breach orthodoxy, whether each-and-every nuance of some full or consistent preterist is adopted. The label “hyper-preterist,” therefore, applies to any system of preterism that denies three key evangelical (orthodox) doctrines known as “The Three R’s of Eschatology.” Those doctrines that are denied by “hyper-preterists” are:

1. The Return of Christ (at the end of history in bodily, physical form).
2. The Resurrection of the dead (at the end of history in bodily, physical form— despite how “difficult” this might be for God.
3. The Renewal of all creation (after the resurrection as the new creation is established in its final, physical, eternal form).

Continue reading

“FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD”?

PMW 2025-057 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Introduction
We are currently witnessing the arising of neo-Gnosticism among a small but vocal body of some Bible students who are operating within evangelical Christian circles. This Gnosticism is making its presence felt by the ever evolving and continually splintering hyper-preterist movement. Though ancient Gnosticism was multi-faceted, at its core it elevated the spiritual realm over the physical. For those who are Gnostically-inclined today, salvation ultimately involves escape from the material realm and the physical body, preferring entry into the purely spiritual realm in a new ethereal body, such as proposed long ago by Origen.

The label of “neo-Gnosticism” can easily apply to hyper-preterism. This is (partly) due to its denial of a future, physical, fleshly resurrection of the dead. Some hyper-preterists go so far with this neo-Gnostic preference as to even rework Christology itself. They claim that though Jesus was physically resurrected from the dead, his physical body of flesh and bone dissipated and was replaced by an ethereal body made of spirit. This occurred in conjunction with his ascension. Continue reading

THE GOSPEL AND THE RESURRECTION

PMW 2025-056 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr..

In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul carefully and abundantly compiles a list of analogies that are important to understand. These underscore and accentuate the fact that our very mortal bodies in which we now live will be raised to new life and transformed into glory. Thus, he promotes a resurrection that involves continuity and discontinuity: continuity by involving the fleshly body in which we live on earth and discontinuity by enhancing the body’s power. He does so in such a way as to underscore and accentuate the truth that it is the “self-same body” that dies which is raised. And this is despite current-day neo-Gnostics in the hyper-preterist movement [1] who see our buried bodies as eventually being wasted away but that will be replaced with bodies composed of ethereal spirit material. Hopefully this theological fad will soon burn out and those caught up in it will repent and return to historic, orthodox Christianity.

A SUMMARY OF PAUL

In this regard, note the following summary analysis of 1 Cor. 15:36–41:

1. It is the God-designed goal of seeds to develop into plants, just as it is the God-ordained goal of our mortal bodies to be raised to immortal life (vv. 36, 38).
Continue reading

DEMAR’S CRITIQUE OF GENTRY

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). Continue reading

WAS LIGHTFOOT A “PRETERIST”? AGAIN.

PMW 2025-053 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

My mistake
I am returning to a thought that I had written on previously on my Postmillennial blogsite: I am explaining why I no longer hold that John Lightfoot of the Westminster divines was a preterist. I do this because Gary DeMar for some reason rebukes me for changing my understanding of Lightfoot. In a post on the American Vision website, DeMar asks: “Why is Gentry dismissing an author like Lightfoot whose works are filled with preterist arguments?”

I would note in the first place that I am not “dismissing an author like Lightfoot”! I admire and appreciate Lightfoot as a great Reformed scholar and remarkably brilliant Hebraist.
Continue reading

NEW LEXICON SUPPORTS PRETERISM!

PMW 2025-052 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Introduction
The academic world has recently released a new, updated Greek-English lexicon that is certain to replace the standard lexicons currently in use today. Research in ancient Greek continues unabated at major research universities, with more powerful research tools providing deeper insights into ancient culture and language. And this one will surely displace the universally accepted standard lexicons, such The Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, and the Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon.

The current batch of Greek-English lexicons has proven helpful to scholars for years. But some academic questions remained as linguistic hurdles impeded fully understanding the Greek, especially New Testament Koine Greek. Now we are witnessing a major upheaval with this publication of the latest, upgraded lexicon, which is invested more strongly in AI-enhanced research.

This new lexicon is called, quite appropriately, New Lexicon of the 21st Century and Beyond. And it certainly will be a tremendous boon for scholars — especially for preterist scholars, as we will see. Plus with the new layout and 100% computer-generated text, the cost of this lexicon will fall well below those currently available — perhaps even 50% less. Let me explain how this can be in this review. Continue reading

INTRODUCING GENESIS (2)

PMW 2025-051 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my second in a two-part, rather extensive series introducing Genesis. We now move on to consider its:

Genre
Moses was a gifted writer, as both the careful structure of Genesis as a whole and the exalted prose of Genesis 1 particularly testify. He was also quite capable of writing compelling poetry; in fact, and he did so frequently, both in Genesis (e.g., 2:23; 3:14–19; 12:1–3; 27:27–29; 49:2–27) and elsewhere (e.g., Exo. 15:1–8; Num. 6:24–26; Deut. 32:1–43; Psa. 90). But what is the basic genre of Genesis?

The content and structure of Genesis show that he wrote in narrative, historical prose. This is expected in that Israel possessed a factual, real-world oriented faith. As noted above, Genesis serves as the prologue to the Pentateuch. This is significant in that the Pentateuch is a lengthy narrative of the historical formation of Israel as a nation. Genesis would be useless for its purposes if we discount its historicity. Scholars do not doubt the basic historical nature of his genre in Exodus through Deuteronomy, even when they dispute its accuracy. And only a few scholars from critical schools of thought doubt his historical intent in Genesis 12–50. Nor do we have any evidence of a genre shift in the historical narratives from Genesis through the rest of the Pentateuch. Continue reading