Implications of the "two-age construct" for premillenialism
In the comments on the last post, Rick pointed out that there is certainly a sense in which the age in which we live has been punctuated by historical events which subdivide this age into "ages" or "times". This is a valid point. Yet, it does not have an effect on my overarching notion here - Luke 20:27-40 clearly distiguishes between two "meta" ages: this age, and the age to come, and the character or nature of each of these ages is revealed.
So, how does this "two-age construct" that we see in Luke 20 prove that premillenial eschatology is wrong? Well, to answer that, let's look back at the text. This age is characterized by: marriage, death and dying, natural men, and the coexistence of righteous and wicked men. The age to come is characterized by: no marriage, no death and dying, resurrected men, and the only ones who attain to eternal life are those who are worthy. Whatever the stripe of premillenialism positted, the pre-miller's millenium cannot square with either of the natures of the ages presented in Luke 20 (or Matt 13).
Under the premillenialist scheme, there will be some kind of earthly reign of Jesus for 1000 years. Most pre-millers which I have talked with say that the saints will reign with him on the earth during this 1000 years. So... are they resurrected? If so, then that falls under the nature of "the age to come" in Luke 20. So... is there death and dying during this supposed 1000 years? If so, then that means we are still in this age. Hmmm... Do you see the problem? The millenium, as the premillenialist would posit it, cannot conform to or be consistent with the clear teaching of Luke 20 and Matt 13.
Next post, I'll talk about Revelation 20 and consistent hermeneutics...
