# How Many Ages Are There?



## Robin (Jul 12, 2005)

The question begs to be asked....

How many "ages" are there in Redemptive history? (Obviously, refer to the mention of "age" in Scripture.)

I know we're not Dispensationalists on the board....so, how about it? What are we left with? One, two, seven, four? How many ages?

Inquiring minds want to know...


Robin


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 12, 2005)

I would say that the "last age" is used in different ways and cannot be absolutized.
Many in the RH camp think of it only as "this present evil age" (or something like it) and implicitly preclude the possibility of gospel prosperity.

But that runs into some problems. Elsewhere I can find examples of the "latter days"filled with gospel prosperity that would seem to be in tension with the above scenario. So what gives?

Matthew 24:3 tells us that Christ's coming will signify the end of the age. Yes, I see this referring to the destruction of Jerusalem (and with it, the old typological order). The destruction of the Temple (and the priesthood) inagurated a new era where the blood of Christ cleanses our consciences from dead works to serve the living God (Heb. 9:14). Therefore, the end of the age refers to the end of the Jewish age.

Hebrews 9:26 tells us "But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Christ died at the consummation of the ages, not at the beginning. The period between AD 30 and AD 70 is, as the apostle Peter tells us, "these last times" (1 Peter 1:20)

Notice the disciples did not ask when the dissolution of the physical heavens and earth would be, but the end of the age? When did the end occur? The only approximate framework is the time period between AD 30 and AD 70. The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 signaled the end of the old order and the beginning of the Age to Come.


----------



## crhoades (Jul 12, 2005)

Are we slicing the cake into the "now and not yet" pieces? or the Creation, Fall, Redemption pieces? For me, I like to cut the cake into the Before Creation, Creation, Fall, Redemption, Consumation pieces each with the different covenants interjected throughout...


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Jul 12, 2005)

There's only one age I have seen basically in two parts.
Since the goal of all things is for God to glorify Himself in the enthronement and magnification of His Son.

These two ages are the Prefiguration, and the Figuration. All ages towards the Messiah, is the Prefiguration, all ages after the Messiah is the Figuration. I call the first Prefiguration because it is laced with types, shadows, symbolism and prophecies with the Messiah as the cynosure. I call the second the Figuration since this is when the Kingdom is made manifest and the types, shadows and prophecies being revealed and fulfilled concerning the Messiah. The final Judgment and the New Heavens and New Earth is simply the consumation and the cilmax of the Figuration.


----------



## Scott (Jul 12, 2005)

Not a full answer, but note that Hebrews 2:5 speaks of a "world to come." 

"It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking."


----------



## Robin (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> But that runs into some problems. Elsewhere I can find examples of the "latter days"filled with gospel prosperity that would seem to be in tension with the above scenario. So what gives?
> 
> Matthew 24:3 tells us that Christ's coming will signify the end of the age. Yes, I see this referring to the destruction of Jerusalem (and with it, the old typological order). The destruction of the Temple (and the priesthood) inaugurated a new era where the blood of Christ cleanses our consciences from dead works to serve the living God (Heb. 9:14). Therefore, the end of the age refers to the end of the Jewish age.
> ...



Yes, but have we considered what the first century, Jewish mind would think about "age"? I mean, what was the traditional, Jewish understanding of world-history/eschatology? Maybe the Jews understood the "end of the age" to be physical? Plus, I thought Christ's incarnation was the moment of the "new age" appearing....else, why do the angels announcing to the shepherds, say what they do? For that matter, check-out all the herald announcements of the incarnation....aren't they quite eschatological in style? And, I thought the curtain being torn (as Christ died) signaled the end of the "Jewish" priesthood....which is hard to say, because Christ really turned out to be the TRUE JEW - isn't this why He is the great High Priest? (It doesn't seem to matter that, in rebellion and blindness, the Temple sacrifices continued until 70 AD.) Isn't that why Paul, Peter, et al...went to the Temple to proclaim the Gospel and explain Jesus' identity and works? Didn't they announce to the Jews that the former system was over because it was fulfilled IN Christ?

Just wondering how clearly "age" is taught in Scripture.

r.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 12, 2005)

Well, your last sentence is precisely the point--I don't think and wouldn't absolutize "end-age" thinking. We see phrases that suggest that this age is evil and the best that we can do is take it on the chin quietly. But we also see in Isaiah and Psalms that the latter days will be of prosperity. I see the dreaded tension between biblical and systematic theology (actually, I don't but many people play the two off against one another, especially in mainline circles).


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 12, 2005)

Berkhof argues there are 5 dispensations of the covenant of grace. Adamic (Gen. 3:15), the Noahic, then Abrahamic, then Mosaic, then finally the new covenant administration with Christ. (See Berkhof's ST pg. 290-301). Perhaps that is what you are looking for Robin?


----------



## Robin (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Berkhof argues there are 5 dispensations of the covenant of grace. Adamic (Gen. 3:15), the Noahic, then Abrahamic, then Mosaic, then finally the new covenant administration with Christ. (See Berkhof's ST pg. 290-301). Perhaps that is what you are looking for Robin?



Nope...I'm searching for a more basic, tangible, practical idea: how is human history divided up (in Scripture.) I guess I'm thinking: life vs. death; creation, destruction; there and back again; the overall age in which humans and the created order exist and then to where they're destined.

So far, I think I like Scott's post, most. But I don't think Scripture is unclear about it.

It could be expressed as: "inside time"- the earthly life; "outside time" - the dwelling place of God...wherever/whatever that is....




r.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 12, 2005)

You Might be a Hyper-Preterist


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 12, 2005)

I too think the concept of age is a little fluid. Human history divides clearly at the Cross. The historical details of that change end up overlapping (i.e. its not a "point" change, except in an abstract/absolute sense). But one must also take the beginning and end into special consideration as well. So you have Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Future Glory. This, to me, is the "grand scheme".

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Robin (Jul 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> You Might be a Hyper-Preterist



 

...where does Paul get all that extra time?


----------



## Robin (Jul 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> I too think the concept of age is a little fluid. Human history divides clearly at the Cross. The historical details of that change end up overlapping (i.e. its not a "point" change, except in an abstract/absolute sense). But one must also take the beginning and end into special consideration as well. So you have Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Future Glory. This, to me, is the "grand scheme".
> 
> [Edited on 7-13-2005 by Contra_Mundum]



This got me to ponder....could we call a miracle a complete intrusion in the created order? I mean, because it is a reversal of the laws of nature? A bona fide miracle is something contrary to the "natural order" as we know it....a thing utterly out of our control and ability, i.e. it is the possession of God alone. Could the "land of miracles" be where the "other" age is?



r.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 13, 2005)

I think what you're looking for is the age of Adam vs. the age of Christ. This present evil age is still under the curse of Adam and His sin. The age to come is under the blessing of Christ and all His obedience obtained for His new creation. Whenever a conversion takes place, or a miracle, it is the breaking through of the "age to come" into the present. So there would be 2 "ages." 

Is that more along the lines that you were thinking?


[Edited on 7-13-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## Robin (Jul 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> I think what you're looking for is the age of Adam vs. the age of Christ. This present evil age is still under the curse of Adam and His sin. The age to come is under the blessing of Christ and all His obedience obtained for His new creation. Whenever a conversion takes place, or a miracle, it is the breaking through of the "age to come" into the present.
> 
> Is that more along the lines that you were thinking?



Yes, Patrick....that is much warmer.....now, what are some more of the qualities of each age? You already mentioned:

Adam/Present Evil Age = Death

Christ/Age to Come = Life

How about...PEA = Temporal; AtC = Eternal

Can we get two columns going here? What other qualities can we discover (in Scripture) that contrast the Ages?




r.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 13, 2005)

I think the common theme for the creation in Adam is found in our own natural lives. We are born, grow up, age, then die. So with this present age. It is aging and dying. All that has suffered the effect of the Fall is passing away. Spiritually, the new brith has begun, the new creation as well, but we don't see it yet, at least not clearly. We see the breakthrough of the new creation in conversion, sanctification, and perhaps miracles. But, not until the second coming, when this present evil age is finally done away with, will we see the new creation in it's fullness. This present age must pass away and be replaced by the new. This is why the optimism of post mil is misplaced  (I think that is where you were heading anyway right Robin?)

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## Robin (Jul 14, 2005)

While I do think the Postmil triumphalism is incorrect....I think it far more important that the mature Christian realize what are the aspects of the two ages. 

This is why the NT writers could be singing while in prison; continue preaching, though beaten; rejoicing though their property was taken-their families executed. And as for the OT saints, Hebrews 11 expounds: "the world was not worthy of them".

The upshot is, the Church needs to have the "sight" Elisha had (2 Kings 6) in order to finish well. (There is much work for us to do.)

 In the Age to Come, that has already broken-in upon human history via Christ's Kingdom that IS HERE NOW...we walk by Faith not by sight.

r.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 15, 2005)

*Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., in Thine is the Kingdom: Studies in the Postmillennial Hope, pp. 139-144:*


> ... Second, postmillennialism allegedly distorts the two age structure of biblical revelation. Strimple argues against postmillennialism that "our Lord knows of only two ages, the present age and the age to come" (p. 63 [in Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond]). In his footnote he explains how this contradicts postmillennialism: "Postmillennialism seems to posit three ages: the present evil age, a future 'golden' age (see Gentry's definition reference to 'a time in history prior to Christ's return in which...'), and the 'age to come,' of which the New Testamen speaks" (p. 63, n 8).
> 
> My response: (1) Actually, I wholeheartedly concur with the two age structure of biblical eschatology, as carefully outlined in Geerhardus Vos' construction of redemptive history along these lines. In fact, I vigorously urge this in my Response to Blaising's premillennial essay where I outline some problems with the premillennial scheme, one of which is their expectation of a "future appearance of the fulness of Christ's kingdom in an age (dispensation) separate and distinct from the present era, despite this present era being the 'last days' (Acts 2:16-17, 24), the 'fulness of times' (Galatians 4:4). If these are the 'last days,' how can more days follow in a whole new era?" (p. 255).
> 
> ...


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> While I do think the Postmil triumphalism is incorrect....I think it far more important that the mature Christian realize what are the aspects of the two ages.
> 
> This is why the NT writers could be singing while in prison; continue preaching, though beaten; rejoicing though their property was taken-their families executed. And as for the OT saints, Hebrews 11 expounds: "the world was not worthy of them".
> ...



Robin,
Before we move any further, can you define triumphalism? Bahnsen clearly pointed out in his response to Theonomy: A Reformed Critique that his critics had erected a false dichotomy between suffering and victory; persecution and success. The postmillennialist (or theonomist), has never argued against suffering.

Secondly, Gabe (actually Gentry) demonstrated that the two-age theory is not antithetical to postmillennialism. Personally, I think it gets put into a procrustean bed all too often and don't really like using it myself, but that is another matter.



> The upshot is, the Church needs to have the "sight" Elisha had (2 Kings 6) in order to finish well. (There is much work for us to do.)



Precisely, Christ still has much more enemies to put under his feet.


----------



## Robin (Jul 15, 2005)

Hey guys,

I'm out for awhile...but will get back soon.

Gabe - what a great chart! I'm going to check my notes for one that I think relates to it...Jacob..great question...I mean "triumphalism" in the sense that the Church accomplishes an era of Christian-rule before the Second Advent. This could entail anything contrary to the Apostle Paul's view that, like Christ, the Church prevails while suffering and dying.

More later....



r.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 15, 2005)

antedilluvian - post dilluvian pre Christ - Christ/post Christ


----------



## Peter (Jul 15, 2005)

Yes, the millennium or "Golden Age" is a type of "the age of Christ", ie, the eternal state. But the fact is the optimistic passages contain things impossible in the eternal state, such as children living to 100 when in heaven everyone will live for eternity.


----------

