Something I have Noticed

[Roberto]

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.

Well, I don't know what the truth is concerning whether He said "age to come" or not. Is it true that every other version states it otherwise? I don't know that, is that true?

[backwoodsman]

Well, I don't know what the truth is concerning whether He said "age to come" or not. Is it true that every other version states it otherwise? I don't know that, is that true?

I don't know if it's literally every other translation, but I just checked 10 others, and they all say "that age" or "that world". The Greek specifically says "that age", and does not say "the age to come". ("World" doesn't seem to me to be a good translation of 'aion', but I don't suppose it makes any difference in this verse.) I can't say why the NIV renders it that way, but it's not supported by the text.

[john6809]

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.

I don't think you quite got it - A = Prior to Pentecost (when Jesus lived) B = after Pentecost, but before the resurrection C = resurrection. I think we all agree that there will be a resurrection.

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?

Isn't that the million dollar question and the very thing up for debate? People don't seem to be able to agree about what will happen in the next age, but nobody seems to be saying that, what the Pharisees might have to endure within that "age" would not be so bad, because they would be forgiven in the next age. We endure many things here on earth that are very difficult but that result in greater comfort after the fact. Consider cancer treatment. But, I believe most people would gladly forego the suffering of chemo if the end result was the same with or without it. You seem to be saying that interim suffering is not so bad. I'd rather not risk it.

[Roberto]

Well, I don't know what the truth is concerning whether He said "age to come" or not. Is it true that every other version states it otherwise? I don't know that, is that true?

I don't know if it's literally every other translation, but I just checked 10 others, and they all say "that age" or "that world". The Greek specifically says "that age", and does not say "the age to come". ("World" doesn't seem to me to be a good translation of 'aion', but I don't suppose it makes any difference in this verse.) I can't say why the NIV renders it that way, but it's not supported by the text.[/be an when


Thanks for showing me that, it looks like it may not say "the age to come", unless we don't see something that's in the text.
From this angle, Jesus could be speaking of an age not adjacent to the age that He was speaking in, but there could be an age or ages in between, rather than the angle that insists that the age to come (adjacent age) is the resurrection age.
Does that make sense?

[jriccitelli]

John, many sins are punishable by death. Blasphemy (of the Spirit) was the one emphasized and left in place by Jesus, just as the punishment was left.
I pointed out the definitions of both.

[steve]

Wow! There has been a lot of activity here in the last short while. While I was writing this, several others posted some of my same answers. I will leave them in my answer nonetheless. I will attempt to answer those points addressed to me:

Roberto wrote:

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.

By my labeling, “Age B” is the present (post-Pentecost) age. The resurrection occurs at the beginning of “Age C” and the immortal state of the resurrected may last through any number of later ages (the number of which we do not know, though Paul alluded to them).

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?

I thought I answered this in a recent post. An immortal person might very well live through many ages (God is an immortal person, and has done so, in any case, so it is not inconceivable).

I thought the same way, until I saw the NIV, which *does* say "the age to come"

I woud not trust the NIV when it differs from other versions. I would check the interlinears—or at least a more-literal translation, like the NASB, ESV or NKJV.

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"......

I do not think Jesus said that the resurrection age is adjacent to His own. If He did, He would be mistaken, since what we call “the Church Age” (“Age B”) has fallen between the two.


John 6809 wrote:

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.

I believe that “the age to come” is here the age in which we now live. We have received this aionios life through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Remember, “aionios life” can mean “life pertaining to the age.”


JR wrote:

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.

This seems wildly speculative (and incorrect). The Bible nowhere suggests that succeeding ages nullify the grace of previous ages. Rather, each one seems to reveal greater grace (Eph.2:7—“That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus”).

There certainly is more grace revealed in the present age than there was in the previous one: “and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:39).

Seems to me Jesus could not be any clearer

Seems to me He could have been much 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 don’t think that the threat of unforgiveness (and therefore hell) is “punchless.” You often suggest this, but it makes no sense to me.

But since Steve likes to paint us as outside conservative Theological thinking…

I don’t understand this statement. Do you mean that I have repeatedly said that your favorite view, annihilationism, is as contrary to the traditional view as is universalism? If so, I am surprised you would disagree. Many traditional writers have written books demonstrating the disparity and contradictions between traditionalism and annihilationism. This does not mean that annihilationism is incorrect, but it certainly is at odds with traditionalism.


Homer wrote:

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?

I answered this same objection from JR (above). To your question, “What is the risk to them?” the obvious answer would be “hell.” You and JR both seem to pretend that only your view allows incentives to seek God in this life. You have often been corrected on this point. Why do you keep doing this?

[Roberto]

Steve, you says: "By my labeling, “Age B” is the present (post-Pentecost) age. The resurrection occurs at the beginning of “Age C” and the immortal state of the resurrected may last through any number of later ages (the number of which we do not know, though Paul alluded to them)."

But wouldn't "immortal" beings by definition last through ALL ages after their resurrection?

[steve]

But wouldn't "immortal" beings by definition last through ALL ages after their resurrection?

Makes sense to me.

[backwoodsman]

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?

Homer, you keep saying you know and understand the evangelical universalist position, but you keep demonstrating that you don't. If you did, you'd already know the answer to that question. If you don't know the answer, might I suggest (a) taking a good hard look at the topic, being very careful to try to understand what it is they really believe, as opposed to what you think they believe; and (b) reacting a bit more humbly (and a bit less caustically) when someone suggests you may not be as familiar with UR as you think.

Steve has asked you at least twice in recent days if you've read his book; unless I've missed it, you have yet to answer. Is there some reason you won't answer that question, or is it just an oversight?

[backwoodsman]

From this angle, Jesus could be speaking of an age not adjacent to the age that He was speaking in, but there could be an age or ages in between, rather than the angle that insists that the age to come (adjacent age) is the resurrection age.
Does that make sense?

Yes, that's exactly what we've been saying.

(In the passage in question there's no reference to how many ages may be in between, but it seems clear elsewhere that there's one, and only one.)