What you end up believing about the “last days” is dependent upon the hermeneutic you approach the Bible with when studying the subject. One of the fundamental principles of hermeneutics is that we allow clearer passages to guide us in our interpretation of those which speak about the same subject, but are more obscure. It is this hermeneutical principle which serves to simplify biblical eschatology.
Eschatology has to do with history in general as well as the end of history as we know it in this age. Before we can deal with the numerous difficult figurative passages in the Bible which deal with some of the details of history, we ought to have a notion of the broader and more basic structure of all of redemptive history. The “big picture” is made clear at many points throughout the NT in passages which are not apocalyptic, figurative, or prophetic. There are three broad biblical constructs which clearly show us the overarching structure of biblical eschatology:
1) The two ages
2) The general judgment
3) The eschatological kingdom
It is my intention of deal with each of these and possibly some related implications in a series of upcoming posts. I will deal with the first one here.
If I had to pick one principle which was foundational to a biblical understanding of the “last days”, it would be this first construct – the two ages. It is formative to a proper understanding of much Bible doctrine in general (not only eschatology).
The Bible clearly teaches us that there are only two “ages” – this age, and the age to come. (The Greek word “aiwn”, translated “age” or sometimes “world” is the keyword under examination here.) In order to see the importance of this terminology it is necessary to overview its prolific usage throughout the NT. There are at least 17 places in the NT where this kind of terminology is used: Matt 12:32; Luke 16:8; Luke 18:30; Luke 20:34-36; Mark 10:30; Rom 12:2; 2 Cor 4:4; 1 Cor 1:20; 1 Cor 2:6, 8; 1 Cor 3:18; Gal 1:4; Eph 1:21; Eph 2:2; 1 Tim 6:17-19; Titus 2:12; Heb 6:5. The Bible makes it obvious that there is a clear distinction between the two ages. The age in which we live right now is evil, temporal and spatial (Gal 1:4; Luke 20:35). As we will see in a future post, d.v., the age to come has already been inaugurated and has broken into this age with Christ’s first advent – Christ is king already (Eph 1:21; Titus 2:11-12; Heb 6:5), yet the age to come has not been fully consummated. The age to come will be consummated upon the second advent of Christ. This age and the age to come, then, taken together, exhaust all time. The proof of this assertion can be seen in Matt 12:32 and its parallel in Mark 3:29 – not being forgiven in this age or in the age to come is being guilty of an eternal sin. Therefore, this age and the age to come are viewed in these texts as including all possible times in which one may be forgiven. The next logical question is, “How does Scripture distinguish between these two ages?” In other words, what are the qualitative differences we see described in the Bible between the two ages? There are two passages which will help us at this point: Luke 20:27-40 and Matt 13:24-43.
In Luke 20, what are the differences between this age and the age to come?
• This age
o Marriage
o Death and dying
o Natural men
o Righteous and wicked co-exist
• The age to come
o No marriage
o No death or dying
o Resurrected men
o Only the worthy attain
In Matthew 13, this age is a time of sowing and the end of this age is a time of harvest. What differences between the ages do we see here?
• Time of sowing (this age)
o Mixed wheat (good) and tares (evil)
o Natural condition
• Time of harvest (the end of this age)
o Only the wheat (good)
o Shining-as-the-sun condition (glorified)
From these passages, it is clear that this age and the age to come are qualitatively different, and the primary difference is that between the natural and supernatural order. What are a few of the implications of what the Bible teaches here?
1) Luke 20:35 teaches that attaining to the age to come is equivalent to attaining to the resurrection of the dead. Therefore, the resurrection of the dead is the door out of this age, and into the age to come. And when does this resurrection occur? It occurs at Christ’s second advent (1 Cor 15:22, 23, 50-55; 1 Thess 4:16).
2) Matt 13:39-43 refers to the same event as Luke 20:35. It is clear that it is a reference to the judgment of the wicked and the resurrection of the righteous which occurs at the return of Christ (Matt 24:30, 31; 25:31).
3) Titus 2:12 teaches that the second coming consummates this age and ushers in the age to come in all its fullness. Jesus’ coming brings the consummation of the age (Matt 28:20). The last day of this age is the day of Christ’s return and it is the first day of the age to come (John 6:39).
Points in summary, this post:
The basic scheme of biblical eschatology is truly simple. There are, of course, many difficulties (exegetically and doctrinally) to be worked out, but the basic structure of biblical eschatology is plain and it is simple: there are two ages – this age and the age to come. Every biblical prophecy finds its fulfillment in one of the two ages.
Pause for just a moment and let the simplicity of the biblical scheme of eschatology sink in. Jesus comes back. This age is over, and the new age begins. Biblical eschatology is humiliatingly simple. There is nothing sensational here. Biblical eschatology is not too complicated for you to know well. There are two ages: one temporal and natural, and the other eternal and supernatural. If you understand this, you understand more about eschatology than most of the “prophecy nuts” of our day.
Next post:
Implications of the two-age construct for premillenialism
11 comments:
Greg, this is an excellent summary of the substance of Sam Waldron's argument. Well done! While I don't think this is the only valid approach to arguing for amillennialism, it is a very very good one. Thanks for posting this, and I'll be looking forward to the next installment.
Peace,
Tom
Good arguments for the two age model but how does the model affect eschatology? It certainly does not affirm an a-mill position nor does it refute the premil position. Nothing in the two age model requires the exclusion of unique periods within either of the ages. In fact, when you state that the age to come has already “broken into this age” you are espousing this very point; the ages can have something of subdivisions within themselves. Looking at the present age one could easily draw distinctions between the periods before the fall, after the fall, before the flood, after the flood, before the Mosaic law and after the Mosaic law, before Christ and after Christ. The most significant subdivision in this age would be the periods under the old covenant and the period in which we now live under the new covenant. In light of these examples the expectation of a unique period at the end of this present age where in the order of things as we have known them is altered remains perfectly consisted with the historicity of scripture. Acknowledging these subdivisions within the present age does not require one to embrace classic dispensationalism it simply requires that we read the scripture and let it speak for itself; the differences cannot be ignored.
Previous post "Good arguments for the two age model but ..." by Rick. Forgot to sign.
In support of the concept raised in my previous post that the current “age” is not uniformly homogeneous in its characteristics I offered several general examples from biblical history. There are also explicit references in the scripture supporting this position. In 1 Peter 1:20 the apostle writes that that Christ “has appeared in these last times for the sake of you…”. This can also be translated “at the end of times”. This expression is frequently made by several NT writers (1 Tim 4:1, 1 Jn 2:18, Acts 2:17, Heb 1:2). In 1 Peter 1:20 the word for “times” is chronos and means a space of time. Other passages like Ephesians 3:5, Eph 3:21 speak of “ages” (plural) which does not necessarily imply more than the two general ages put forward in your model. Colossians 1:26 speaks of the mystery of the gospel being “hidden from past ages and from generations”. This passage in particular gives us a distinction between “ages” and “generations” and demonstrates that the idea here is more than simply generational periods
While each of these references for “times” and “ages” use slightly different words in the original language they carry or can carry a common meaning; a period or course of time. The point is the that NT writers, who according to your model all lived in the same “age” as Adam the patriarchs and the prophets, frequently and clearly, in non-apocalyptic text, speak in terms of successive periods or epochs within their common age. In particular those passages which speak of “the end of the age” or “the last times (i.e. 1 Peter 1:20) are important to note. These writers are living in the first age (according to your model) and yet they state it’s the end of the ages or times. Since the adjective “last” requires that there be others in kind preceding we must concede the subdivision of at least the present age.
How does this affect eschatology? It simply permits the arrival of a particular yet future period, time, or epoch which is distinct from those that preceded it; specifically the millennial kingdom. A kingdom era coming at the end of this present age is in harmony with history as revealed in scripture and does not compromise your “two age” model.
rick
Tom,
Thanks! Waldron is certainly a heavy influence on my eschatology. What are the other arguments you have in mind for arguing for amillenialism?
Rick,
Thanks for the comments! If the Bible does indeed teach what I have said here, it is certainly a refutation of premillenialism. As you will see in my next post, the problem for premillenialism is that it does not fit in either age. I agree with you that there may be distinct periods of time in each age, but the point I am making is that biblically, we only see two overarching "meta" ages - this evil age in which we live, and the age to come, which has already broken into this age, but will be consummated at Christ's second coming.
Blessings,
greg
Greg,
I became (cautiously) persuaded of amillennialism while sitting in Dr. Schreiner's class, working through the book of Revelation. He argued from the history of ancient literature that the apocalyptic genre basically follows a recapitulation pattern and showed that Revelation is no different. It tells the same story again and again from different angles and with different teaching points. He then persuasively (to me at least!) exegeted Revelation 20 in a way that is consistent with the recapitulation hermeneutic. After that, the book of Revelation as a whole made a lot more sense to me and it made sense in a way that seemed to fit well with the rest of the New Testament. I haven't read every argument in opposition to the amillennial system, nor have I read every argument in favor of the premillennial viewpoint. So, I am certainly open to being convinced of an alternate view, though I am presently satisfied with this one.
I started off (as you may remember) as a dispensational premillennialist, having learned the system from John MacArthur (though at that time he hadn't written as much in defense of it as he now has). Then, because I became less confident of the Israel/Church distinction, particularly with respect to the rapture of church believers in distinction from Israelite believers (and some general trouble with biblically justifying the pre-trb rapture itself), I moved to a classical/historical premillennial position (with some pointers from J. Gill). I just couldn't become an amillennialist because of Revelation 20. Then, Dr. Schreiner made me think amillennialism might actually be the biblical teaching. So, I read K. Riddlebarger's _A Case for Amillennialism_, A. Hoekema's _The Bible and the Future_, and W. Hendricksen's _More than Conqueror's_ (his commentary on Revelation), and I finally felt persuaded of amillennialism, though I hold my position on this one with open hands.
So many good men disagree. And, while I believe it is important to come to conclusions on this question via careful Bible study, it is a *third order* doctrine in my judgment and one which the bretheren ought to slug it out in charity and with caution.
Because of His eternal mercy,
Tom
Greg,
I don't think your position does not adequately deal with Rev 20:4-6. Additionally I don't see how Romans 8:19-23 and Isaiah 11:6-7 can describe the world today.
I love you brother but I have to side with Mohler and MacArthur on this.
Excog.
Sorry about my grammar. I meant to say, "I think your position does not adequately deal with Rev 20."
Why do people spend so much time talking about the end times. According to my view, I'll have 1000 years to tell you why my view was right.
Jonathan,
Thanks for the post! I love you too bro, and you can side with Mohler and Mac, but I'll side with Jesus and the rest of the NT. (wink-and-a-smile)
Joshing aside, all I ask is that you actually give an honest hearing to the rest of my posts on this subject. I assure you, I will deal with Rev 20, Rom 8 and Is 11.
Peace,
greg
Definitely intersting. I am currently in a study of eschatology myself starting with the Bible, and then seeking a little help from others. These posts and comments will help me along the way.
A book I picked up is "Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond" from Zondervan publishing. So far I have read the argument for Postmil by Kenneth L. Gentry with counterpoints by amil Robert B. Strimple and premil Craig A. Blaesing. So far I see that Gentry and Strimple are very good writers, though Strimple more than Gentry for I had questions to holes I saw in Gentry's argument which were reaffirmed by Strimple. I am not so sure about Blaising yet. These views I have taken on the writers so far might partly be part of my presuppositions that I would come out closer to amil or postmil, with a stronger leaning towards amil.
One thing that I have been wondering is the imlpications of Christian Reconstructionism or Theonomic Postmillennialism. How does this differ from a tradtional Postmil view? Even though in the book Strimple affirms that this certain view is not emphasized by Gentry, I still wonder how much it colors his argument.
I look foward to my study in the area of Eschatology, but I have to agree with many that it is not a dividing point, and as Tom said: "So many good men disagree."
I also have to note that from what I understand, many Presbyterians are post-mil.
It seemes to me that they arrive at this end the same way they arrive at paedo-batism: Through implications in the text that clearly are not there.
Post a Comment