PMW 2022-090 by Thomas R. Schreiner
As I am researching the Two-Age structure of redemptive history in the New Testament, I am finding a lot of helpful insights in various technical commentaries. A key passage in the Two-Age model is Galatians 1:4, which states regarding Christ:
“He gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age [hopos exeletai hemas ek tou aionos tou enestotos ponerou], according to the will of our God and Father,”
I will be dealing much with this passage in the book I am currently researching: Olivet and the Two Ages. In my research I have found quite helpful Thomas R. Schreiner’s commentary on Galatians in the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (pp. 77–78). On Galatians 1:4 Schreiner well captures the significance of the passage and Paul’s instruction. There Schreiner comments:
“The eschatological character of Galatians emerges here [at Gal. 1:4b], for Jesus came to rescue believers ‘from the present evil age.’ Jewish thought distinguished between ‘the age’ and ‘the coming age.’ We find such a distinction in Jesus’ teaching as well (Matt 12:32; 13:39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; 20:35). Paul also uses the language of this age and the age to come (Eph 1:21). This age is also designated as ‘the present world [age]’ (to nun aioni, 1 Tim 6:17), and believers are not to be conformed to this age (Rom 12:2) as Demas was (2 Tim 4:10), for the world dominates the lives of unbelievers (Eph 2:2). Believers have been granted grace to live the life of the age to come in the present age (to nun aioni, Tit. 2:12). The rulers of this age crucified Jesus Christ because they were unaware that he was the glorious Lord (1 Cor 2:6, 8).
“The intellectual worldview that controls the mindset of unbelievers is limited to this age (1 Cor 1:20; 3:18), and Satan rules as the god of this age (2 Cor. 4:4). The present evil age is not the only reality, for the ‘fulfillment [ends] of the ages (ta tele ton aionon) has not dawned in Jesus Christ (1 Cor 10:11). The cross of Christ represents the intrusion of the new age, or as Paul says in Gal 6:14–15, the new creation. Indeed, the reference to the new creation at the close of the letter functions as an inclusio with the text here, so that at the beginning and end of the letter the arrival of the last days in Christ is featured. The world in its present form is passing away (1 Cor 7:31). Jesus reigns in the present evil age, and his rule will reach its climax in the age to come (Eph 1:21; cf. 1 Cor 15:24–28), so that in the coming ages all will marvel over the grace of God displayed in Jesus Christ….
We see as well here the eschatological tension of Paul’s thought, for even though the new age has come in Jesus Christ, the old age has not vanished entirely. Believers live in the interval between the already and not yet. God’s promises are already realized in Christ, but ‘the present evil age’ still exists, so that believers must remain vigilant and keep putting their trust in the cross of Christ.”
On p. 80 he summarizes the Already/Not Yet tension in Gal 1:4:
“The new age has dawned in Christ but it is not yet consummated. As Christians we live between the times. We are rescued from the present evil age through Christ’s death (1:4) and yet we must be warned not to revert back to the old era. We are delivered from sin but are not sinless. We are perfect in Christ but not yet perfected. Hence, we must remain vigilant so that we do not become captive to a false gospel that actually panders to our selfishness and pride, even after we have become Christians.”
I highly recommend Schreiner’s commentary as one that recognizes the influence of the Two-Age model on Galatians.
Click on the following images for more information on these studies:
 |
 |
 |
Postmillennial Worldview 
Thx Rev Gentry..im looking forward to your insights on the 2 age structure of redemptive history. I am also curious about the “end of the age” in Matthew 28:20 where Jesus promises to be with the Apostles always to the very end of the age. I have often asked myself what age this is referring to and whether it points is some way to the temporary office of the Apostles which was soon to pass away ?
You can tell from the three passages in Matthew how Matthew uses the “end of the age.” It always refers to the end of history.
but if end of the age in Matt 28 :20 is referring to the end of history then in what way did Jesus promise to be always with the Apostles to whom he is speaking or is this an argument for the continuation of a particular order of apostles that is distinct from presbyter ?
Through those whom they themselves send out and all who are sent in the future. God does not give up on discipling the nations in 40 years because the Apostles have died. They are representative of all who declare the good news.
Dr Gentry, you said in a comment: “You can tell from the three passages in Matthew how Matthew uses the “end of the age.” It always refers to the end of history.”
One of those references is 24:3.
If that’s the end of history, and given that we must believe in a future return of Christ, isn’t that precisely what he’s answering in the discourse? Granting of course that he is also speaking of a near judgement on Jerusalem. I’m curious how you would parse that out. It seems that many are reading everything as already fulfilled.
Thus the alarming rise of full preterism.
In your opinion, what is the danger of reading 24:3 as simply the end of the Jewish age, thus putting us completely in the age to come.
Good question. You should read my study on Matthew 24:3. The disciples’ question shows their error in understanding. Jesus corrects that in the Olivet Discourse. https://postmillennialworldview.com/2019/06/11/matthew-243-and-olivets-structure/
I read your article on Matthew 24:3 and am in substantial agreement. The only quibble I would have is that I think he starts warning about false statements of his return earlier, in V 23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it.” It seems Christ calls us to be sceptical of any claims to his return. And I think you would agree the reason is because it is an unmistakable event in all of history.
It seems then that the error of hyper preterists is assuming, as probably the disciples did that such a terrible event of judgement must be the end of the age, and thus must be Christ’s return. As you have pointed out, contrary to the way both ideas are used in Matthews gospel. I hear many partial preterists making that exact same mistake.
One thing that I have been wondering about is how does christology play out in our understanding of the second coming? If he is truly incarnate, how could there be a coming that was not physical in nature?
I’m thinking about Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s supper. It was his concern to be consistent in his understanding of the incarnation that drove his concern for the Eucharist. If he was in one place he could not by definition be ubiquitous in his physicality. So, he spoke of Christ being present by the power of the spirit. If we take seriously the incarnation, wouldn’t that affect our understanding of his coming/presence? Jesus sent the spirit, a spiritual presence. In the Old testament God was present among his people in an invisible spiritual way. But the incarnation is that the Word became flesh, as 1 John puts it “what we have seen and touched. He ascended and he promises to return.
So the references to God coming in judgment in the Old testament do not appear to have one-to-one correspondence because we are not just simply talking about incorporeal God, but about the God/man. So how does that understanding of christology change how we think about his return?
You are correct. They hyperpreterist view undermines the hypostatic union in Christ. He became incarnate to join with us in our humanity that he might suffer for us as humans so that eventually we might dwell in fullness (body-and-soul) forever. Hyperpreterism is not simply an eschatological error but a Christological, anthropological, and redemptive error as well.
“Believes live in the interval between the already and not yet.” Should probably be as follows, Believe[r]s live in the interval between the already and not yet., I’m guessing.
Oops! Got it. Thanks.
Hi Dr. Gentry,
By quoting Schreiner, does this mean that you affirm that we are still in this present evil age?
I read this from your book, He shall have dominion,
‘We have our feet in both worlds. Or as Geerhardus Vos put it: “The age to come was perceived to bear in its womb another age to come.”Because of this principle, we already share in the benefits of “the age to come.” This is because the two ages are linked by Christ’s ruling in both, for he has a name “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come” (Eph 1:21). Therefore, we have already “tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come” (Heb 6:5), despite living in “this present evil age” (Gal 1:4).’
I am open to correction. Thank you.
Yes we are still in “this present evil age” until Jesus returns and sin is removed from the world. That will happen in “the age to come.” We have not fully entered into it, but have begun to taste of it because of Christ’s resurrection. Check out some of thus article:
Thanks sir.
I still say we are already in “the age to come.” The demarcation was either the resurrection or A.D. 70, whichever you prefer. Since the New Testament was written before 70, that is probably the correct division. The idea that “this age” is from the Fall to the eschaton is, quite frankly, rather ludicrous. Honestly, you do have a phobia about hyper-preterism (which I am not), which is why I believe you take the view that you do.
there was the Old Covenant age and now we are in the New Covenant age.
There is no “old covenant age.” There is the old covenant era, just as there is the Adamic era, Noahic era, Abrahamic, and so forth.
When Jesus talks of the two ages (“this age” and “the age to come”) he is talking about world history since Adam (“this present evil age”) which is contrasted with “the age to come” (the eternal, consummate new earth after the resurrection when sin has been eradicated from the world).
Thus, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in history (“this age”) or in eternity (“the age to come”). It is truly the unpardonable sin (Matt. 12:32). Jesus is not saying it will not be forgiven now or in forty years. And the “end of the age” is when the general resurrection occurs and the final judgment transpire (Matt 13:39ff). It is the time when the obligation to evangelize and baptize will end, not in AD 70 (Matt. 28:20). And the blessings of this age since Christ’s resurrection will be much, but the ultimate experience of eternal life in the age to come is much more blessed (Mark 10:30). And the sons of “this (fallen) age” marry, but they will no longer marry in “the age to come” (Luke 20:33ff).
However, the powers of the eternal, consummate age are being tasted in spiritual principle now (Heb. 6:5). But we will have the full experience in “the age to come,” the eternal, consummate order. Like it or not, God created us as material beings requiring our material resurrection from the dead. Gnostic tendencies push hyper-preterists to re-interpret Scripture causing them to separate from historic orthodox Christianity.
Some of the glories of “the age to come” that we experience in part now (with the overlap of the ages, i.e. the fallen age being intruded upon by the eternal age) anticipate the fuller, more glorious fulfillment in the age to come.
We are now spiritually resurrected, in anticipation of the physical resurrection.
We are now spiritually a new creation, in anticipation of the physical re-creation.
We are now justified, in anticipation of the the Final Judgment.
We are now sanctified by the outpouring of the Spirit, in anticipation of the perfect sanctification in the consummate order.
On and on we could go.
My adoption of the two age model of redemptive history is derived from Scripture and articulated by Reformed scholars long before hyper-preterism was created as a cult-like movement. I picked it up in seminary from Dr. Greg Bahnsen, who picked it up from Dr. Richard Gaffin, who picked it up from Cornelius Van Til and John Murray, both students of Geerhardus Vos. But most Reformed scholars and many evangelical scholars hold to the two age model, which was powerfully explained in 1930 in Geerhardus Vos’s “Pauline Eschatology.”
There is no “old covenant age.” There is the old covenant era, just as there is the Adamic era, Noahic era, Abrahamic, and so forth.
When Jesus talks of the two ages (“this age” and “the age to come”) he is talking about world history since Adam (“this present evil age”) which is contrasted with “the age to come” (the eternal, consummate new earth after the resurrection when sin has been eradicated from the world).
Thus, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in history (“this age”) or in eternity (“the age to come”). It is truly the unpardonable sin (Matt. 12:32). Jesus is not saying it will not be forgiven now or in forty years. And the “end of the age” is when the general resurrection occurs and the final judgment transpire (Matt 13:39ff). It is the time when the obligation to evangelize and baptize will end, not in AD 70 (Matt. 28:20). And the blessings of this age since Christ’s resurrection will be much, but the ultimate experience of eternal life in the age to come is much more blessed (Mark 10:30). And the sons of “this (fallen) age” marry, but they will no longer marry in “the age to come” (Luke 20:33ff).
However, the powers of the eternal, consummate age are being tasted in spiritual principle now (Heb. 6:5). But we will have the full experience in “the age to come,” the eternal, consummate order. Like it or not, God created us as material beings requiring our material resurrection from the dead. Gnostic tendencies push hyper-preterists to re-interpret Scripture causing them to separate from historic orthodox Christianity.
Some of the glories of “the age to come” that we experience in part now (with the overlap of the ages, i.e. the fallen age being intruded upon by the eternal age) anticipate the fuller, more glorious fulfillment in the age to come.
We are now spiritually resurrected, in anticipation of the physical resurrection.
We are now spiritually a new creation, in anticipation of the physical re-creation.
We are now justified, in anticipation of the the Final Judgment.
We are now sanctified by the outpouring of the Spirit, in anticipation of the perfect sanctification in the consummate order.
On and on we could go.
My adoption of the two age model of redemptive history is derived from Scripture and articulated by Reformed scholars long before hyper-preterism was created as a cult-like movement. I picked it up in seminary (before there was a hyper-preterist movement) from Dr. Greg Bahnsen, who picked it up from Dr. Richard Gaffin, who picked it up from Cornelius Van Til and John Murray, both students of Geerhardus Vos. But most Reformed scholars and many evangelical scholars hold to the two age model, which was powerfully explained in 1930 in Geerhardus Vos’s “Pauline Eschatology.”
I’m sure you’re aware there are several instances where ages (plural) are referred to: past (Rom. 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:7), present (1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 9:26), and future (Eph. 2:7; 3:9; Col. 1:26). And while I respect all of those writers you cite, none are the be all to end all; there is no: Thus saith any one of them. Too much is made of this where people spend their time pontificating about the future instead of working in the here and now for the spread of the gospel. It’s obvious the Church has fallen short and much of that is due to futurism, dispensationalism which has us looking up waiting to be rescued by rapture, and now/not yet where we’re again obsessed with the future. Personally, while I agree with the now/not yet concept I prefer Chilton’s definitive, progressive, and final approach.
When you look at the apostles’ message, it was primarily Jesus’ resurrection, not the final judgment and bodily resurrection, even though they do talk about it. As to the gospel passages you cite, most can pertain to Jesus’ resurrection or at the bodily one at the end of history. Your Luke citation is interesting: how can someone blaspheme the Holy Spirit in the eternal state? On that note, when you talk about Jesus physically and bodily coming back, what exactly do you have in mind? Surely not a millennial age!?
I have in mind the eternal, consummate, new creation order where physically resurrected believers will live in a new creation, having long prayed “Thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” You seem confused on the Two Age concept. Hopefully you will get my book on it when I complete it.