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...
8 comments:
Greg,
I'm looking foward to your discussion about Revelation 20 because right now I don't see how the Amillenial position squares with that passage. You are missing the 1000 year reign and your position does not account for the 2 ressurections in that passage.
The 2 age theory is interesting and thought provoking. I have to say that the 2 ages does not necessarily exclude the possibility of a 1000 year reign. Keep in mind that the parables were not about the 2 ages. Although they were definite components of the parables they was not what the point of the parables was about. We must be careful when we interpret parables to not over-allegorize them. We can easily make things mean what they were not meant to mean if we allegorize them.
I'm looking forward to reading your next post.
JOnathan
I apologize for the poor grammar in my previous comment.
You were missed yesterday, brother.
JO
Thanks brother. I missed being there.
Obviously, I believe my position does account for the 1000 year reign as well as the 2 resurrections in Rev 20. Further explanation is coming...
I agree with you regarding the interpretation of parables. But in this case my points rely on Jesus' own interpretation of his parables. I have not allegorized the Matthew 13 passage, but used Jesus' interpretation.
The passage from Luke 20 does not involve a parable.
Greg, I agree that in dispensational premillennialism the millennium doesn't fit in either this age or the age to come. That's a problem, as you point out.
But, I think Gill's premillennialism works with it. On his view, the conflagration (burning) of this earth and the universe happens prior to, or at least at, the second coming of Christ. The saints are caught up in the air, escape the burning, and changed to their heavenly bodies. The millennium, then, is populated only by changed and resurrected saints since all of the rest were consumed in the burning. There will be no marrying or burying in the millennium. Gill says that the millennium is like a new and better Garden of Eden. At the end of the millennium, Satan will be released, all of the reprobates will be resurrected, and they will form the Gog and the Magog armies, which will war against Christ and his saints. Fire will reign down upon them to defeat them and then will come the great white thone of judgment.
So, it seems that on Gill's version of premillennialism, the millennium fits squarely in the age to come. What do you think? Does Gillite Premillennialism work? :)
Tom, thanks for the comment! That is interesting. I haven't studied Gill's position and certainly haven't heard that expression of premillenialism from anyone else. Thank you for pointing that out to us!
Ok sweet husband....I am ready for your next blog :) Jennifer
amen
Post a Comment