Something I have Noticed

[Roberto]

Well, I think that if there is another age beyond the "age to come" that the universalists have a possible explanation, but when do we hear of an age beyond the age in which the resurrected saints exist?

[john6809]

robbyyoung wrote:Roberto,

You asked if their are ages beyond the resurrection, and I answered you unequivocally with Eph 3:2. All generations of man into the future contained in the abiding ages. For confirmation research the commentaries and the greek and you'll see.


How does that show that there are ages *after* the age in which resurrected bodies exist?
Help me out here, I don't get it! Explain it some more, maybe I'll see what you are saying.Roberto Posts: 133Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:57 pm

Roberto,

I don't know if this will help but... If you go back to Eph. 2:7, "7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus."

If we consider Steve's illustration of Age A, B, C as accurate, then Paul is living and writing in Age B - that is the post-Pentecost age. Accordingly, the very next age is the resurrection age. If the resurrection age was to be the last age, why would Paul write ages (plural) if there was only one more to come? In other words, "...that in the age to come..." (singular) would be a better rendering if that is what Paul meant.

Don't know if that is what you were looking for...

[robbyyoung]

Hi Brenden,

I'm no greek scholar but by reading the commentary, this interpretation doesn't change the impact of the context. Even if you would prefer to use the word "world" over age, the context of the verses we are discussing far surpasses this obscure rendering, making "age" the rightful interpretation. Do you really believe the verses we are discussing is not properly translated as "age or ages"? If I am not mistaken, most if not all the commentaries are educated in the greek, and they render the meaning age or ages. For now I see no reason to disregard their conclusions. But if world or worlds makes more sense, ok. But other verses back up the the proper rendering of age(s) rather than world(s).

[TheEditor]

Hi Robby,

I see my emphasis on one point has thrown you. Trench was referring to only one passage in which a translation of aion as "age" or, as in my JW days I would have said "system of things", would be untenable was Hebrews 11:3, which doesn't make sense in context as "age". I agree that in most every case, age, or, as I was used to "system of things", is a better word for aion. I was merely providing support for my statement (per your request) that an understanding of the Greek word to mean "spirit of the times", "order" "arrangement" "the construct of the times we live in" are all contained within the word aion.

Regards, Brenden.

[Roberto]

robbyyoung wrote:Roberto,

You asked if their are ages beyond the resurrection, and I answered you unequivocally with Eph 3:2. All generations of man into the future contained in the abiding ages. For confirmation research the commentaries and the greek and you'll see.


How does that show that there are ages *after* the age in which resurrected bodies exist?
Help me out here, I don't get it! Explain it some more, maybe I'll see what you are saying.Roberto Posts: 133Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:57 pm

Roberto,

I don't know if this will help but... If you go back to Eph. 2:7, "7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus."

If we consider Steve's illustration of Age A, B, C as accurate, then Paul is living and writing in Age B - that is the post-Pentecost age. Accordingly, the very next age is the resurrection age. If the resurrection age was to be the last age, why would Paul write ages (plural) if there was only one more to come? In other words, "...that in the age to come..." (singular) would be a better rendering if that is what Paul meant.

Don't know if that is what you were looking for...

Thanks for the reply! It seems that Jesus, in Luke 20 has told us that the "age to come" is one in which there is no marriage, and bodes are resurrected. This, to me, renders Steve's A,B,C interpretation incorrect.

[backwoodsman]

It seems that Jesus, in Luke 20 has told us that the "age to come" is one in which there is no marriage, and bodes are resurrected. This, to me, renders Steve's A,B,C interpretation incorrect.

You're forgetting that in Luke 20 Jesus is answering a question from the Sadducees that was specifically about the resurrection. Both the question and the answer mention only the age they were then in, and the resurrection age. There's no reason He would've mentioned any age(s) between those two, like the age we're now in, because it's irrelevant to the question. He doesn't say "the age to come", which would imply the next age after their current time; he says "that age", which would refer to a future age but not necessarily the next one.

[john6809]

Roberto wrote,

Thanks for the reply! It seems that Jesus, in Luke 20 has told us that the "age to come" is one in which there is no marriage, and bodes are resurrected. This, to me, renders Steve's A,B,C interpretation incorrect.

You may or may not be correct - Jesus' subject matter at hand concerned the next age. There was no need to mention any other ages because they were not applicable to the topic He was discussing. Of course, Jesus' words carry more authority than Paul's, but, we do consider Paul to be an inspired author and he did refer to coming ages (more than one).

What you are suggesting is the same as reading a parable in one gospel, comparing it to a parallel passage in another gospel, and then choosing to dismiss any added details that one or the other transmits.

I, personally, am not convinced either way at this point. In my use of the word 'eons' (which may differ from the common usage of the word), I generally don't consider that there might be a completely new paradigm from one 'eon' to another. I just use it, for better or worse, as an expression of multiple blocks of many years. Certainly, when Jesus used the word 'age" as you mentioned, He understood there were to be at least two blocks of time - one that He was living in and another that was to come.

[steve]

Homer wrote:

Seems plain enough when you consider what each of the synoptics say:

Matthew 12:31-32, New American Standard Bible (NASB)
31. “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

Mark 3:28-29 (NASB)
28. “Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29. but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”—

Luke 12:10 (NASB)
10. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.

No need for all the "this, that, and the other" age (or ages).

It seems to me that Matthew reports Jesus' actual words, while Mark and Luke give abbreviated paraphrases. You may be hanging most of you point on the word "never" in Mark 3:29. This translation is misleading, because it uses the English word never to translate a phrase in the Greek, which my interlinear renders, "not...unto the aion". This is more like Matthew's version, but briefer and more ambiguous. Nonetheless, in the discussion of whether there are ages to come beyond the resurrection age ("Age C"), these parallels do not provide an answer.


Roberto wrote:

It seems that Jesus, in Luke 20 has told us that the "age to come" is one in which there is no marriage, and bodes are resurrected. This, to me, renders Steve's A,B,C interpretation incorrect.

The A, B, C interpretation may be incorrect, though I am not aware of any way to understand Paul's reference to the "ages to come" otherwise. All I was pointing out was that there is more than one age after Paul's own age (I called Paul's and ours "Age B"). We don't have to name these ages "C," "D', "E," etc., but we do have to make sense of his reference to them.

I don't understand how the statement that there is no marriage or death in the resurrection age ("Age C") would tell us one thing or another about any successive ages. A person might live in more than one age (like the apostles did, who lived both before and after Pentecost). A resurrected, immortal person might, conceivably, live through innumerable ages.

[Roberto]

Homer wrote:

Seems plain enough when you consider what each of the synoptics say:

Matthew 12:31-32, New American Standard Bible (NASB)
31. “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

Mark 3:28-29 (NASB)
28. “Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29. but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”—

Luke 12:10 (NASB)
10. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.

No need for all the "this, that, and the other" age (or ages).

It seems to me that Matthew reports Jesus' actual words, while Mark and Luke give abbreviated paraphrases. You may be hanging most of you point on the word "never" in Mark 3:29. This translation is misleading, because it uses the English word never to translate a phrase in the Greek, which my interlinear renders, "not...unto the aion". This is more like Matthew's version, but briefer and more ambiguous. Nonetheless, in the discussion of whether there are ages to come beyond the resurrection age ("Age C"), these parallels do not provide an answer.


Roberto wrote:

It seems that Jesus, in Luke 20 has told us that the "age to come" is one in which there is no marriage, and bodes are resurrected. This, to me, renders Steve's A,B,C interpretation incorrect.

The A, B, C interpretation may be incorrect, though I am not aware of any way to understand Paul's reference to the "ages to come" otherwise. All I was pointing out was that there is more than one age after Paul's own age (I called Paul's and ours "Age B"). We don't have to name these ages "C," "D', "E," etc., but we do have to make sense of his reference to them.

I don't understand how the statement that there is no marriage or death in the resurrection age ("Age C") would tell us one thing or another about any successive ages. A person might live in more than one age (like the apostles did, who lived both before and after Pentecost). A resurrected, immortal person might, conceivably, live through innumerable ages.

I choose to start with the words of Jesus since He is the one speaking of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. We know that, to Jesus, the age He spoke this teaching in was age A and the age to come was B. I don't see how you can call the age to come C unless you contradict Jesus? This seems clear. What Paul meant is a puzzle. I start with the clear..

[Paidion]

The following passage indicates that there will be "coming ages" subsequent to the age in which Paul lived:

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:4-7)