Can I bring the discussion back to the post title? I know I am to blame for expanding the discussion, but someone above asked about the millennial views and I listed my understanding of the major views and so here we are.
Here is my specific question. The Amillennial view loses an age, the millennium, when compared with pre-millennialism. If you believe that the final salvation of all mankind happens at Rev 20:13-15 as I do, then this could be problematic with an amillennial view.
For example Jesus says that the blasphemy of the spirit will not be forgiven in ‘this age’ or ‘the age to come’. If ‘the age to come’ is eternity as nearly all non-UR amillennialists argue then we have a problem. Now preterist eschatology argues that ‘this age’ is the end of the Jewish epoch and ‘the age to come’ is after Christ. That understanding of ‘the ages’ could help my move to amillennialism.
Now you may not agree with where I am headed in your larger eschatological view, but humor me in answering this question.
What additional data is available to position the meaning of ‘this age’ and the ‘the age to come’ in Matthew 12:30-32?
… how does that work? If anything shouldn’t that help you move to prêterism? What you’ve said is correctly prêteristic and so in that sense doesn’t/can’t gel with amillennialism.
The exact dividing line between the pre-Christian age and the Christian age is a little bit fuzzy: The Christian age kind of started with the conception of Christ in the Virgin Mary’s womb, but it also kind of started with Christ’s baptism, and it also kind of started with His death, and it also kind of started with His resurrection, and it also kind of started with His ascension, and it also kind of started with the descent of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. In other words, the dividing line has a “thickness” of about 35 years. (Imagine a piece of paper with a line drawn in magic marker down its middle. To the left of the line would be the pre-Christian age, to the right of the line would be the Christian age, and the line itself would be the years between 4 B. C. and A. D. 30.)
Therefore, Christ’s words “this age or the age to come” in Matthew 12:32 refer as follows:
“this age” = the pre-Christian age
“the age to come” = the Christian age
Christ of course was speaking during the “gray area” of 4 B. C. to A. D. 30.
In any case, both of the above ages are historical times here on this fallen world. Neither refers to the time that will be begun with Christ’s glorious Second Coming.
Here is my specific question. The Amillennial view loses an age, the millennium, when compared with pre-millennialism. If you believe that the final salvation of all mankind happens at Rev 20:13-15 as I do, then this could be problematic with an amillennial view.
When Jesus spoke to the Pharisees about the fact they would not be forgiven in this age or the age to come, isn’t “this age” the Jewish age they were in at the time and “the age to come” the Church age after Jesus resurrection and then that still leaves the possibility of forgiveness in the eternal age, does it not?
Good observation, but not necessarily. Preterism and Amillennialism both have something in common when compared with the other eschatological models. They are both minus one of the future ages accepted by the other systems. Amillennialism makes the 1,000 years equal to the present church age. Preterism says we are in the age beyond the GWT now. However, just because Preterism and Amillennialism share a common point of being less one age than the other systems does not mean I am persuaded of Preterism. I still hold to the physical return of Christ to this earth. I asked a question earlier in this post about the Preteristic understanding of Revelation 20:9. I’d be curious how you would explain that. I would also be curious if you feel the institution of marriage is dissolved if we are in the eternal age now?
Back to my question about Amill. Yes I would have no problem understanding ‘this age’ to be the Jewish age. However, non-UR Amillennialists instead explain that ‘this age’ is always the church age and the ‘age to come’ is eternal life. For example Luke 18:30 is best understood this way. Moreover Luke 20:34 can only be understood this way. In Luke 20:34 ‘this age’ must mean ‘the age’ before eternity, while ‘the age to come’ is eternity. This poses a problem when compared with Jesus words that those who blaspheme the spirit will not be forgiven in ‘this age’ or ‘the age to come.’ However, if we agree to a future 1,000 year millennium, then that could serve as ‘the age to come’ when these people are not forgiven. In fact Rev 20 supports this idea by saying that the wicked dead are not raised to life until the end of the 1,000 years. The Amillennial understanding, however, seems short an age thus pushing unforgiveness beyond the GWT. A lot of UR people feel there is forgiveness extended beyond the GWT, however, for a host of other reasons I am convinced that final salvation is granted to all mankind at the GWT, while the LOF is prepared for the Devil and his angels.
Question:
Is it possible that Jesus could use ‘this age and the age to come’ in multiple senses? That seems unlikely but is there any data in that direction? For example in one sense ‘this age and the age to come’ could mark the time between the ages of this world and the New Heavens and Earth. And at other times ‘this ages and the age to come’ could mark the time between the Jewish age and the Christian age.
Thoughtful Biblical answers to this question will answer the title question of this post, that is does an amillennial eschatology undermine or falsify UR? For myself there are a thousands other solid proofs for UR, so I still remain confident of God’s victorious grace. However, I would like to add yet another proof to my understanding, that is a consistent eschatology.
Moreover Luke 20:34 can only be understood this way. In Luke 20:34 ‘this age’ must mean ‘the age’ before eternity, while ‘the age to come’ is eternity. This poses a problem when compared with Jesus words that those who blaspheme the spirit will not be forgiven in ‘this age’ or ‘the age to come.’ However, if we agree to a future 1,000 year millennium, then that could serve as ‘the age to come’
But Jesus told the Sadducees in the age to come there would be no more marriage and we would be like angels , so how could this be a millennium period?
How do we know the end of marriage couldn’t be during a future millenial period? Of course we agree that it is not during the present church age, though I am not sure what Preterists would say.
Is the ‘age to come’ in Matthew 12:30-32 and Luke 20:34 synonymous? Is there a reasonable explanation to indicate two different times?
How do we know it couldn’t be during a millenial period? Of course we agree that it is not during the present church age, though I am not sure what Preterists would say.
My understanding of a millennial period is that Christ and the Saints rule from Israel but that otherwise folks still marry and carry on as humans on earth. Do you have a different take?
If I go with pre-mill I certainly cannot agree to all the dispensational flair of the revived temple worship and sacrifice. I have typically sided with non-dispensational pre-mill. However, I joined the discussion at this post because I am reading “A Case for Amillennialism” by Riddlebarger which has many compelling arguments. Riddlebarger is not UR, but he still makes note worthy observations about the use of “this age and the age to come”. The challenge with the a-mill view is that loosing the future Millennium age ruins some of my arguments for UR concerning the ‘ages’.
As for people still marrying during a future Millenium, is there any Biblical support for pro or con? Except of course Jesus saying that in the age to come people will not marry. Why did you think folks would still marry during a future Millennium?
As for Jesus use of “age to come” I am looking into a couple of ideas. Did Jesus switch his use of “age and age to come” in his own ministry as he got closer to the cross and the New Covenant? Do translations fully respect the plural and singular translation of age and ages?
As for people still marrying during a future Millenium, is there any Biblical support for pro or con? Except of course Jesus saying that in the age to come people will not marry. Why did you think folks would still marry during a future Millennium?
As for Jesus use of “age to come” I am looking into a couple of ideas. Did Jesus switch his use of “age and age to come” in his own ministry as he got closer to the cross and the New Covenant? Do translations fully respect the plural and singular translation of age and ages?
The way the Millennium is described as Satan deceiving the nations and then whose number is as the sands of the sea sounds like there have been births of people during this period. It simply sounds that way if you read without any pre-suppositions IMHO. But on the other hand perhaps these usages of the word age is not really as literal as we tend to think, after all Paul said “ages upon ages” so that seems different then Jesus usage of “this age and the age to come.”
The bottom line is this, there is only one reference to a millennium which is Rev 20 yet in the NT the writers when describing Christ’s second coming never hint of any millennium, only a last day. So the phrase 1,000 is used throughout scripture as a phrase meaning “a lot” such as God owns the cattle on a thousand hills or God will bless 1,000 generations etc. If this is the case then the Amillennium position is possible and actually ties in to Rev 20.4. “Then I saw the souls of those who have been beheaded” which is from the First resurrection, the spiritual resurrection that John spoke about in John 5, “the hour is” and the second resurrection is on that last day.
Hey Jeff… I’ll get to some of your questions back up the page a bit later, but as I’m passing I note this…
You may come to a point where you realise that certain cherished sacred cows actually do need slaughtering. IF the UR position you are seeking to prop up really can’t stand by itself you can sure waste a lot of time and effort trying to do the work it can’t.
I say that to say this… from my perspective there are not too few “traditional” UR verses that I actually agree with non-UR proponents on their explanation of said texts, BUT “for me” there are other ample texts understood through a fulfilled eschatological grid that make “inclusion” (as opposed to standard UR although the end, end result is the same) is a no-brainer and lock solid.
IOW… there are certain texts that non-UR folk will use to challenge/defeat your UR position (and I think some of their rationales could be legit), I just don’t necessarily buy the non-UR ‘conclusions’ drawn etc, and simply use other non-standard UR-type texts to show the inclusiveness of God’s grace.
One other thing briefly… further up the page Steve gave a pithy little answer to YOUR conundrum which I thought was quite good…
Given where you’re coming from and exploring where you seek to potentially go, I’m thinking what Steve says above makes good sense. I’m also wondering IF you’re tying yourself up in eschatological knots over this “age/s” issue looking at it, as you seem to, in chronological order when some might well be concurrent and thus simply having a slightly different description (e.g., use of the plural) of the self-same thing??
Actually Jesus did not say in the age to come. He said in the resurrection(Mt 22:30). Also, Paul said there are ages to come(Eph 2:7). The plural mode means at least two. Possibly the millenial age, then possibly an age of the final subjection of adversaries, then possibly an age when all have been subjected and God is all in all.
In matthew 12:32 in the Greek, Jesus actually says, “in this age or the next”… or “this age or the coming”… He doesnt, for instance say, in this age or in the resurrection" or even, “in this age and in the world to come”
oute en touto to aioni oute en to mellonti
neither in this the age neither in the coming
Sure, if needed. Our models of understanding must conform to the Biblical data. I was satisfied with my model of understanding, but late in the game just before publishing my book I think I am switching from pre-mill to a-mill and so need to do some last minute re-evaluation as I look at my sacred cows.
Yes, point received. I’ve have used that argument. However, since NT reference to ‘this age and the age to come’ typically refers to the marker between the now and eternity I was looking for more defense. Is there any other reference to ‘this age and the age to come’ that clearly means the marker between the Jewish and Christian age?
Hopefully not tied in knots, but working to tie up the knots before I publish my book on the subject of UR.
Thanks, another good point. I am appreciating this help.
That is if considering things from an pre-mill grid.
Most of the recent discussion on this post however is watching me re-consider things from an a-mill grid. And so in that model the millennium is now as the church age and so the resurrection happens after the church age just before the consummation of eternity. The heart of the discussion in this post is to consider the question of whether an a-mill view falsifies or undermines UR. I had question about that myself, but the latest responses have been useful to show that this is not the case. However, I still hope to further bolster the defense on this point.
It is fine if you are pre-mill or preterist or any view, but if you are willing to thoroughly understand and even consider theoretically looking at things from an a-mill and have ideas to help the discussion here that would be awesome. The question under discussion is how to interpret the concept of ‘this age and the coming’ as an amill UR.
As I understand it… the first portion is apostate Judaism rising up against the saints in persecution, and then Rome’s conflagration against Jerusalem and her rebels, i.e., those having pursued and persecuted the saints finally coming under the prophesied divine judgment (Mt 23:38).
No not really… and I would clarify your “eternal age now” as the new covenant age that has no end, i.e., NO eschatology; IOW… biblical eschatology was (past tense) about ‘the end’ of the OC age/world – the rest of the NT is about THAT transitional era from old to new, from that which was burgeoning along with that which was “becoming obsolete and READY to pass away” e.g., Jesus’ ‘wheat & tares’.
But more specifically to the marriage position and the greater text in question…
The understanding of this passage becomes much clearer when viewed in its larger context: the soon coming new covenant age would not be like the old covenant nationalistic age where ethnic purity through the birth-marriage-birth cycle was the badge of covenant membership. Unlike the passing old order the coming new covenant age would no longer be established according to nationalistic identity, as per Israel only, but was to be truly inter-national through Gentile inclusion, and so no longer limited to or determined by natural or national progeny. Thus “neither marry nor are given in marriage” ceases to be an issue; but where all who were called “are equal to the angels and are sons of God” – showing that what was considered as the natural-birth-rite was no longer the qualifier for being the people of God.
OR… explaining this similarly taking a prêteristic perspective into account; we see that Jesus was asked about a marriage bound to (or under) the LEVITICAL/MOSAIC system of LAW. Thus Jesus is ONLY saying that in the resurrection there will neither be marriage (based on the Levitical/Mosaic requirements) nor will they be giving in marriage (based on the requirements of Levitical or Mosaic law).
The problem they proposed within their question (reductio ad absurdum) was based on their own assumption that “in the resurrection” – the Mosaic Law would still be in effect. Jesus is correcting their misunderstanding of Covenantal requirements in the resurrection, using ‘marriage’ (as they did) as an example. And Jesus was right… no one since 70AD has been married or given in marriage (under the Old Covenant Law) and no one has involved the teaching of the Levitical priesthood in their marriage since then either. It all fits together perfectly from a prêteristic perspective. IOW… since 70AD (resurrection) has anyone been married or been given in marriage under the Old Covenant? No. Remember… God did away with the OC system, so whatever might be claimed as rejuvenated practice under it is not. And once again Jesus’ prophecy (which is what it was) is vindicated.
This here is I believe and IMO your fatal flaw… the assumption that “age to come” equates to “eternity” typically understood in terms of “postmortem existence” i.e., ‘heaven’, it is NOT. Again they are the two ages… old and new, period.
Paul in Gal 4:21-31 lays out the THEN present concurrent or overlapping ages where…
…“according to the flesh” equates to old covenant Israel, whereas “according to the Spirit” equates to new covenant Israel.
The two CO-EXISTED for a time UNTIL (in the parousia) the “bond woman and her son were cast out”. Remember… ‘the women’ in question are “symbolic of two covenants” and the respective “sons” the people/children thereof. Until “the harvest” the TWO i.e., the ‘wheat and tares’ grew TOGETHER… then in the parousia the sickle was put in because “the harvest is ripe” and “the ends of the ages have come.”
As I understand it… Paul’s “ages to come” are any successive age/s beyond the then present “this age” of the old covenant. The coming ages, however one chooses to define them, being under the overriding auspices of the new covenant age, of which those in the then perishing old covenant age through faith had “tasted the powers” thereof, as per Heb 6:5.
It should also be noted that “to come” is in the present tense mean they were NOT off into some distant ‘never never land’ beyond the grave, but then breaking in and present in their reality. I guess the ‘age of grace’ can take any number of forms.
… how does that work? If anything shouldn’t that help you move to prêterism? 
What you’ve said is correctly prêteristic and so in that sense doesn’t/can’t gel with amillennialism. 
