Something I have Noticed

[steve]

Roberto wrote:

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..

I also start with Jesus. His are the words were are here seeking to understand. However, for Jesus to mention two ages is not the same thing as His denying the existence of three or more. Jesus' words do not tell us that "this age" (His own) and "the age to come" (post-Pentecost)exhaust all the ages that God may have in mind. We all know there is at least an "Age C" because Jesus mentioned the age of the resurrection, which, almost all agree, will follow the present one. If Paul says that there are multiple ages to come, this does not contradict Jesus, since Jesus did not deny that there would be such.

[Roberto]

Roberto wrote:

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..

I also start with Jesus. His are the words were are here seeking to understand. However, for Jesus to mention two ages is not the same thing as His denying the existence of three or more. Jesus' words do not tell us that "this age" (His own) and "the age to come" (post-Pentecost)exhaust all the ages that God may have in mind. We all know there is at least an "Age C" because Jesus mentioned the age of the resurrection, which, almost all agree, will follow the present one. If Paul says that there are multiple ages to come, this does not contradict Jesus, since Jesus did not deny that there would be such.

Age B, for Jesus, is the age of the resurrection, correct? I thought that you had said that the age Jesus was A, after Pentecost B....age of resurrection C.
Anyway, what would an age "after resurrection age" be? Aren't resurrected bodies to remain resurrected without end, immortal? How would you have an age "after" something immortal? It may sound like I am combating you, but I do want universalism to be true, it's just that this is a roadblock for me....

[jriccitelli]

If the phrase: “… it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him (32)” didn’t even have the additional details it would have been clear enough, especially since the sin being discussed is ‘blasphemy’, which ‘surprise’ has it’s judgment ‘defined’ in the Law. But of course Jesus never referred back to Law for definitions, or did He? The Pharisees would know what Jesus was saying: ‘it was punishable by stoning and death’. Jesus adds to the equation with what you would think would be the obvious point of forgiveness or nonforgiveness - Gods Judgment - no matter 'where' you place the Judgment, the Pharisees would have to see the Judgment (post or predeath) as the point of division. I do not see Pharisees themselves considering any other ages beyond 'this life and the after life'.

Jesus just said he would forgive sins against him (32), and that all sins would be forgiven (32). Are we then to think this ‘promise of forgiveness’ does ‘not’ apply to the next age(s) or world(s), if we say the threat of unforgiveness does not apply either?
If you add an age that eliminates all the foregoing judgments, you have to allow then that it could go either way, a whole new order may start, with new demands, all sin may be then reapplied, or new sins need new considerations, you open the door to anything if there is an unknown world or age where none of the previous conditions and bible precepts apply. Seems to me Jesus could not be any clearer, either nothing changes, or the warning becomes punchless. Is Jesus telling a half truth and being ambiguous about the most grievous sin ever considered, by His own definition.

I hate referencing commentary resources here, because I like to try and keep this as discussion, as everyone has books. But since Steve likes to paint us as outside conservative Theological thinking I will only post the address to an article online (which includes Theologians and references, who refute the purgatory theory’s, and such, although not my personal resource):
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte ... ticle=1218

[john6809]

jr wrote,

...especially since the sin being discussed is ‘blasphemy’, which ‘surprise’ has it’s judgment ‘defined’ in the Law.

What was that judgement? Death? First of all, Lev 24:16 says that the one who "blasphemes the name of the Lord" should be put to death. Jesus says that any blasphemy except that spoken against the Holy Spirit would be forgiven.

Secondly, what if the sin discussed were adultery? It also carried the death penalty. Why then, didn't Jesus also say that this sin was unforgivable and annihilation was the only just penalty? Not all literal, temporal judgements must also apply to the next age.

[Roberto]

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.

I thought the same way, until I saw the NIV, which *does* say "the age to come". I am not Greek scholar, though......

[john6809]

Steve,

What would you do with Luke 18:29-30?

29 So He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God,
30 who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life."

"This present time" would seem to be the one in which he lived - pre-Pentecost. Yet 'the age to come" was to be the one where they would receive eternal life. Even if we allow for eternal to mean age-abiding, does this mean that age-abiding life was not available before Pentecost? It seems many OT fathers already had age-abiding life.

[Homer]

Jesus said this sin would not be forgiven in this age "A" (accepting this suggested designation for the purpose of discussion only), nor in age "B", and it is hypothesized there is an age "C' in Jesus mind where it will be forgiven. If this is so Jesus' threat seems hollow. If the Pharisees are not forgiven in ages "A" and "B", but will be forgiven in age "C", why would they be concerned with Jesus' threat? What is the risk for them?

Seems the "never be forgiven" is the only understanding that makes practical sense of Jesus words. Especially since in Luke's telling of it:

Luke 12:10, New American Standard Bible (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.

"not be forgiven him" is literally "will not be forgiven" and the verb is "indicative-future-passive-third person-singular". The person will not be forgiven in the future which takes care of all ages imagined, and is consistent with all three gospels.

[Paidion]

Age B, for Jesus, is the age of the resurrection, correct? I thought that you had said that the age Jesus was A, after Pentecost B....age of resurrection C.

Yes, I believe your second sentence to be Steve's position. And then no one knows how many ages after C. Perhaps the ages continue to roll for all eternity.

[Roberto]

Age B, for Jesus, is the age of the resurrection, correct? I thought that you had said that the age Jesus was A, after Pentecost B....age of resurrection C.

Yes, I believe your second sentence to be Steve's position. And then no one knows how many ages after C. Perhaps the ages continue to roll for all eternity.

Steve's position contradicts Jesus, who speaks of a time when resurrected people exist in an adjacent age to His.
To make the resurrection age equal to C, makes the ages "unadjacent"......

[backwoodsman]

I thought the same way, until I saw the NIV, which *does* say "the age to come". I am not Greek scholar, though......

Well, I guess that would make sense, if you had some reason to believe the NIV is right and every other version is wrong at this point. Do you? If not, it seems wiser to assume that the one that makes unjustified additions to Jesus' words is the one that's incorrect. In case of any doubt, one need not be a Greek scholar to check a few commentaries and language references to see which words are actually there, and which are not.