Gary DeMar's Functional Denial of the Gospel
This week on Facebook, the controversy surrounding Gary DeMar’s embrace of hyper-preterism1 resurfaced, sparked by photos taken of his latest work, The Hope of Israel and the Nations. Dr. Sherlin of Christicommunity took the photos, highlighting sections where DeMar and his co-author, Kim Burgess, explicitly deny any future, bodily return of Christ. While the photos don’t show their teaching on the resurrection, it’s important to note that both Gary and Kim hold to the same view regarding the resurrection—that it is not physical, tangible, or bodily.
As expected, DeMar’s apologists—some of whom are hyper-preterists and others who are not—have emerged to chide Christians for being unkind, divisive, or overly harsh for calling this what it plainly is: heresy. They quickly rush to reassure us that Gary is theologically sound, arguing that beliefs about the resurrection and Christ’s return are merely peripheral, and pointing out that Gary affirms both the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of believers.
But such claims are deeply misleading, and they reveal either a lack of awareness of the seriousness of resurrection errors in Scripture or a failure to grasp the implications of redefining these core doctrines. While Gary may affirm the resurrection in word, he empties it of its biblical substance—teaching that believers receive a spiritual body immediately upon death, entirely disconnected from the earthly body that dies. This is not the resurrection promised in Scripture, nor is it the hope confessed by the historic Church.
And while Gary may affirm the bodily resurrection of Christ, his denial of our bodily resurrection renders that affirmation hollow. The resurrection of Christ is not an isolated theological fact; it is the foundation and pattern of the resurrection hope held out to all who are united to Him. To affirm His resurrection while denying our own is to speak out of both sides of the mouth—to preserve the language of orthodoxy while denying the very reality that language was meant to protect. In doing so, he departs not only from the consensus of the Church throughout history but from the plain teaching of Scripture itself. This is not a peripheral issue. It is a rejection of the very hope that gives shape and meaning to the Christian faith.
Paul treats such errors with utmost seriousness. In fact, he directly addresses two distinct but related resurrection errors in his epistles: those who denied our resurrection of the body (1 Corinthians 15), and those who claimed that it had already happened (2 Timothy 2:18). In both cases, Paul does not regard these views as minor deviations but as serious departures from the faith—errors that undermine the gospel at its core.
Hymenaeus and Philetus, for example, are said to have "swerved from the truth" by teaching that the “resurrection has already happened.” Their teaching was "upsetting the faith of some" and "irreverent babble" that leads people into “more and more ungodliness”—spreading like gangrene (2 Tim. 2:16–18). It is difficult to imagine how anyone can read Paul’s assessment and then conclude that one's beliefs about the resurrection are somehow peripheral. They clearly are not.
In Corinth, Paul confronts another resurrection error—this time among those who denied our resurrection of the body. To respond, he employs a reductio ad absurdum. The point of this kind of argument is to assume the opponent’s position and demonstrate that it leads to absurd or contradictory conclusions they would not otherwise accept. Chief among the consequences of their resurrection denial is his statement: “Then not even Christ has been raised” (1 Cor. 15:13). This shows clearly that the Corinthians in question did affirm Christ’s resurrection; otherwise, the force of Paul’s argument would collapse. His whole point rests on the premise that Christ’s resurrection and ours are inseparably connected.
Paul goes on to call Christ’s resurrection the “firstfruits” of those who have fallen asleep (v.20), meaning it is both the guarantee and the pattern of the believer’s resurrection. Therefore, to deny the future bodily resurrection of believers—while affirming Christ’s resurrection—is still, in Paul’s reasoning, a functional denial of Christ’s resurrection itself.
So, it makes no theological difference that hyper-preterists—Gary included—affirm the resurrection of Christ. Their denial of the resurrection for the rest of us undermines the very resurrection of Christ they claim to uphold. And in doing so, it undermines the gospel itself.
To suggest that such a denial is not a salvation issue is not only mistaken—it directly contradicts Paul’s own urgent warnings in 1 Corinthians 15. To deny the resurrection is to unravel the very fabric of the gospel.
Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. - 1 Corinthians 15:12-19
Now, if one attempts to avoid this conclusion by redefining the “resurrection of the body” to mean something other than Jesus’ own bodily resurrection, then they are simply committing the fallacy of equivocation—using the same term in two different senses while pretending they are the same. This fallacy collapses Paul’s argument entirely.
Paul’s entire argument in 1 Corinthians 15 depends on a consistent use of the term “resurrection” (anastasis) and “body” (sōma). From the outset, he affirms the bodily resurrection of Christ, witnessed by many (vv.3–8), and then declares that Christ is the “firstfruits”(aparchē) of those who have fallen asleep (v.20). In biblical usage, “firstfruits” denotes not only priority but the same nature as the full harvest (cf. Lev. 23:10–11). Paul is asserting that Christ’s bodily resurrection is both the guarantee and the pattern of the resurrection that believers will likewise experience. The entire logic of 1 Corinthians 15:13–17 hinges on this continuity: “If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.” The implication is clear—if the resurrection of believers is denied, the resurrection of Christ is rendered meaningless, and with it the entire gospel.
However, hyper-preterism introduces a subtle but fatal shift: while affirming Christ’s bodily resurrection, it redefines the believer’s resurrection as non-bodily—merely spiritual, symbolic, or corporate. This is the classic fallacy of equivocation: using the same term (“resurrection”) in two radically different senses while pretending they refer to the same reality. Such a shift undermines Paul’s entire argument. If Christ’s resurrection is bodily, but ours is not, the firstfruits analogy collapses. Likewise, Paul’s seed-to-plant metaphor in verses 35–44 depends on continuity and transformation—not replacement. The body (sōma) that is sown perishable is the body that is raised imperishable. Even the contrast between “natural body” (sōma psychikon) and “spiritual body” (sōma pneumatikon, v.44) does not mean a shift from physical to non-physical, but from a body suited to the present fallen age to one transformed and glorified by the Holy Spirit (cf. Phil. 3:21). Paul is not speaking of a ghost-like existence but of the Spirit-empowered, glorified human body, as exemplified in Christ.
Moreover, Paul’s conclusion in verses 50–57—that death will be swallowed up in victory—only makes sense if death itself is undone. If the resurrection is non-bodily, then death still reigns over our bodies, and Paul’s climactic hope is robbed of its meaning.
This understanding is not only exegetically sound but also confessionally required. The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 32.2, states: “At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed; and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other, although with different qualities, which shall be united again to their souls forever.” Similarly, Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 87 teaches that the bodies of believers shall be raised up in glory, made conformable to Christ’s glorious body, and united again to their souls.
In other words, the bodily resurrection of believers is essential to the Christian hope, grounded in the bodily resurrection of Christ, and integral to the gospel Paul preached. To redefine the resurrection into something non-bodily is not only illogical and hermeneutically inconsistent, but also a direct violation of the apostolic teaching and Reformed confessional standards. It is, in Paul’s terms, to believe “in vain” (1 Cor. 15:2, 14).
Hyper-preterism—also known as full preterism—is a theological position that claims all biblical prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70, particularly in the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem.