How a Changed Interpretation Strengthens Partial Preterism
When Dr. Kenneth Gentry's massive two-volume commentary The Divorce of Israel (2024) finally arrived, those of us who've followed his work for decades knew we were getting something special. But buried in those nearly 2,000 pages was a surprise: Gentry had changed his mind about who sits on the thrones in Revelation 20:4. And as I've reflected on this shift, I've become convinced it's not just a minor adjustment—it's a change that actually strengthens the partial preterist position and beautifully harmonizes with New Covenant Theology (NCT).
The Traditional Augustinian View Gentry Held
For years, Gentry held what's known as the Augustinian interpretation of Revelation 20:4. This view sees two groups on the thrones:
- The martyrs ("those who had been beheaded") - representing deceased Christians in heaven, the Church Triumphant
- The confessors ("those who had not worshiped the beast") - representing living saints on earth, the Church Militant
Together, these two groups were understood to picture all Christians throughout church history. The phrase "they came to life and reigned with Christ" was interpreted as referring to the new birth experience—spiritual resurrection from death to life in Christ, sitting with Him in heavenly places (Ephesians 2:6).
Gentry makes clear in his recent writings that he still affirms this as good theology. Believers absolutely do experience spiritual resurrection and reign with Christ positionally. But here's his crucial admission: it's bad exegesis to find this doctrine in Revelation 20:4.
Gentry's New Position: A Narrower Focus
In his 2025 blog series on the millennium, Gentry explains his shift:
"I originally held that two groups were in view Revelation 20:4... I no longer accept this interpretation... I still believe this doctrinal position, for it is taught in various places in Scripture (see especially Eph 2). But I do not believe this is a proper exegetical position here in Revelation 20. In other words, I now believe that this view is good theology but bad exegesis — if we try to draw it from Revelation 20."
So who does Gentry now see on these thrones? The martyrs specifically—those who died for their testimony during the persecution leading up to and climaxing in AD 70. Not all Christians, living and dead, but particularly those who paid the ultimate price.
This interpretation takes seriously the literary and dramatic flow of Revelation. The passage directly follows Revelation 19:11-21, where Christ wages war and defeats His enemies. Chapter 20 continues that victory narrative, showing the vindication of those who died in that conflict.
Why This Change Matters for Partial Preterism
This shift is significant for several reasons:
1. It Maintains First-Century Focus
The Augustinian "all Christians throughout history" interpretation tends to pull Revelation 20 away from its first-century context. By identifying these throne-sitters specifically as those martyred in the events surrounding AD 70, Gentry keeps the passage tethered to its primary historical fulfillment—the judgment on Jerusalem and the vindication of the early church.
This doesn't mean the millennium itself is limited to the first century. Rather, the vindication scene in Revelation 20:4 directly relates to the first-century martyrs, while the millennial reign that follows extends into the church age we're living in now.
2. It Honors Revelation's Literary Structure
Gentry emphasizes reading Revelation according to "John's literary flow and dramatic story-line." The book builds to a climax in chapters 19-20: Christ's victory over the beast, the false prophet, and Satan himself. Immediately following this cosmic battle, we see the martyrs—the very ones killed by the beast's persecution—enthroned and vindicated.
This makes narrative sense. The story doesn't suddenly jump from first-century judgment to "all Christians everywhere." Instead, it shows the specific vindication of those who suffered under the beast's reign of terror.
3. It Resolves Contextual Tensions
The older view created some exegetical awkwardness. If "those who had been beheaded" were simply all deceased Christians, and "those who had not worshiped the beast" were all living Christians, why the specific mention of beheading? Why the detailed reference to not taking the mark of the beast? Why the connection to martyrdom language found earlier in Revelation (6:9-11)?
Gentry's new interpretation answers these questions by seeing both phrases as describing the same group from different angles: Christian martyrs who refused to compromise with the beast system and paid with their lives.
How This Harmonizes With New Covenant Theology
As someone who embraces both partial preterism and NCT, I find Gentry's shift particularly compelling because it aligns beautifully with core NCT principles:
1. Christ-Centeredness
NCT emphasizes that all of Scripture points to Christ and finds its fulfillment in Him. Revelation 20:4's focus on martyrs—those who followed Christ even unto death—highlights the centrality of union with Christ. These believers participated in His sufferings (Philippians 3:10) and are now vindicated in His victory.
The vision doesn't celebrate human achievement but Christ's triumph on behalf of those who trusted Him. Their "coming to life" isn't their spiritual regeneration (good theology, wrong text) but their vindication and exaltation after physical death—a heavenly reality that mirrors Christ's own pattern of death and resurrection.
2. Old Covenant to New Covenant Transition
One of NCT's key insights is that Revelation dramatizes the transition from the Old Covenant temple system to the New Covenant spiritual reality. The judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70 wasn't just a historical event—it was God's definitive "divorce decree" against the unfaithful Old Covenant system.
The martyrs in Revelation 20:4 are those who died during this transition period. They witnessed the birth pangs of the New Covenant age. Their vindication signals that the old order has passed away and God's new creation purposes are now established. As Gentry puts it in his commentary, Revelation shows "the divorce of Israel" so that Christ might take a new bride—the church composed of all nations.
This fits NCT's emphasis that we're no longer under the Mosaic Law but under the law of Christ. The martyrs refused to return to the old system (symbolized by the beast) even when threatened with death. Their heavenly enthronement demonstrates that they chose rightly.
3. Already/Not Yet Eschatology
NCT embraces a both/and eschatology: the Kingdom has come (already) but is not yet consummated. Gentry's interpretation of Revelation 20 fits this perfectly.
The martyrs' vindication and enthronement is an "already" reality—it happened when they died and entered Christ's presence. The millennium they reign in is the church age, which began after AD 70 and continues now. We live in the reality their sacrifice helped birth.
Yet the "not yet" remains: the rest of the dead don't come to life until the thousand years are complete (Revelation 20:5). The final resurrection, judgment, and eternal state still await. This mirrors NCT's understanding that we experience the firstfruits of resurrection life now through the Spirit, but the full harvest comes at Christ's return.
4. Proper Hermeneutical Method
NCT insists on reading the Old Testament through the lens of the New—allowing later revelation to interpret earlier revelation. Similarly, Gentry's approach lets Revelation's own narrative and symbolic patterns guide interpretation, rather than importing systematic theology categories that might not fit the text.
His willingness to say "this is good theology but not what this text is teaching" exemplifies the kind of careful exegesis NCT champions. We don't make every text teach every doctrine. We let each passage speak on its own terms, trusting that Scripture's overall message remains coherent.
The Rest of the Dead: Contextual Reading
Gentry's changed view on the throne-sitters also affects how we understand "the rest of the dead" in Revelation 20:5. Rather than seeing this as all non-Christians throughout history (a common interpretation), Gentry argues we should read it contextually.
Looking back at Revelation 19:11-21, "the rest" likely refers to those destroyed in God's judgment on Jerusalem and the beast system—the armies of the beast, the followers of the harlot city, those who took the mark. These are the ones who "did not come to life" during the millennial reign. Their resurrection awaits the final judgment at the end of the age.
This contextual reading keeps Revelation's drama focused on the first-century conflict between Christ's church and apostate Israel/Rome, while still maintaining a future general resurrection for final judgment.
Theological Implications
For Our Understanding of Martyrdom
Gentry's interpretation gives profound theological significance to Christian martyrdom. Those who died for Christ during the tribulation period weren't just victims—they were victors. Their deaths participated in Christ's victory over evil. Their enthronement with Christ vindicated their faithfulness and demonstrated that Rome and Jerusalem's power was illusory.
For us today, this means martyrdom (literal or metaphorical) for Christ's sake isn't the end—it's the gateway to reigning with Him. As Jesus said, "Whoever loses his life for my sake will find it" (Matthew 16:25).
For Our Confidence in God's Justice
The vision of martyrs enthroned answers the cry of the souls under the altar in Revelation 6:9-11: "How long, O Lord, until you judge and avenge our blood?" The answer comes in chapter 20: not long. God vindicates His faithful witnesses. He sees their suffering and responds with judgment on the persecutors and exaltation of the persecuted.
This gives Christians facing persecution today (and every age) confidence that God will make things right. Justice may delay, but it will not be denied.
For Our Understanding of the Church Age
If the millennium pictures the church age following AD 70, then we live in the era inaugurated by the martyrs' faithfulness. Their sacrifice birthed the age we now inhabit—an age where Christ reigns, Satan is bound from deceiving the nations, and the gospel advances globally.
This postmillennial vision should fill us with hope. We're not waiting for Christ to start reigning; He's already on the throne. We're not hoping for the Kingdom to come; we're extending it through gospel proclamation. The martyrs' vindication was the beginning of a glorious era that continues to unfold.
Why Gentry Changed His Mind
What prompted this shift after decades of holding the Augustinian view? Gentry doesn't fully detail all his reasons, but his writings suggest several factors:
- Fresh attention to Revelation's narrative flow - Reading chapters 19-20 as a continuous dramatic sequence
- Consideration of parallel passages - Comparing how John uses similar language elsewhere (like Revelation 6:9-11)
- Recognition that the Augustinian view, while theologically sound, requires importing ideas the text doesn't explicitly state
- Desire for a more contextually grounded interpretation that fits Revelation's first-century setting
His humility in changing a long-held position demonstrates the kind of submission to Scripture that should mark all our theological work. We hold our convictions firmly, but we hold them with open hands, ready to adjust when better exegesis demands it.
Conclusion: A Stronger Partial Preterism
Far from weakening partial preterism, Gentry's shift actually strengthens it by:
- Maintaining tighter focus on the first-century fulfillment of Revelation's judgments
- Honoring the text's narrative and symbolic structure
- Providing clearer theological meaning to the martyrs' suffering and vindication
- Avoiding the tendency to universalize what John presents as historically specific
For those of us who hold to both partial preterism and New Covenant Theology, this interpretation feels like coming home. It centers Christ's victory, celebrates the transition from old to new covenant, maintains healthy already/not-yet tension, and practices sound hermeneutics.
The martyrs who died rather than deny Christ or return to the old system now reign with Him. Their faithfulness helped birth the glorious age we inhabit—the millennium of Christ's victorious reign through His church. And one day, when the thousand years (however long that symbolic period lasts) are complete, the final resurrection will come, the last judgment will be rendered, and the new heavens and new earth will arrive in full.
Until then, we follow in the martyrs' footsteps—not necessarily to physical death, but to daily dying to self, taking up our cross, and proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Their vindication assures us: faithful witness, whatever the cost, is never in vain.