Category Archives: Age(s) (Two Ages)

CHRIST AS LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT (2)

PMW 2025-094 by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.

Gentry reminder:
This article continues the one in my previous posting. It continues citing a lengthy excerpt from Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.’s excellent book, Resurrection and Redemption (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978), pp. 78-92. This is a compelling study of Paul’s confusing statement regarding Christ being a “life-giving Spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45).

And again, I have only included Gaffin’s main text, not his footnotes. You can order this book here: https://www.prpbooks.com/book/resurrection-and-redemption

Now for the conclusion of Gaffin’s material.

The following is all Gaffin who writes:

With this preparatory spadework completed we can now concentrate on the description of Christ as life-giving pneuma in verse 45c. (1) What is the specific reference of pneuma? (2) When did he become life-giving pneuma?

(1) The first question is answered in the light of the correlation between pneuma and the adjective “spiritual” (pneumatikon, vv. 44b, 46), an especially close correlation in view of the overall structure of the passage and the function of verse 45 in providing proof for verse 44b. In Paul’s usage, with the exception of Ephesians 6:12, pneumatikos always has specific reference to the activity of the Holy Spirit (e.g., Rom. 1:11; 7:14; I Cor. 12:1; 14:1; Gal. 6:1; Eph. 1:3; 5:19; Col. 1:9). This is particularly apparent in 1 Corinthians 2:13-15, the only other place where Paul contrasts pneumatikos with psuchikos. The main emphasis of the immediate context (vv. 10ff.) is the Spirit’s function in revelation (cf. v. 4), and repeated reference is made to his person (v. 10 [twice]; vv. 11, 12, 13, 14). The contrast then, underscores the indispensability of the Spirit’s activity. The phrase at the end of verse 13 (pneumatikois pneumatkia sugkrinontes), whatever its precise meaning, refers to those things and that activity distinguishing the teaching ministry of the Spirit. Accordingly, the “natural man” (psuchikos anthropos) is unable to receive “the things of the Spirit of God” because he lacks the corresponding facility of discerning “spiritually” (pneumatikos) requisite for understanding them (v. 14). In contrast, “the spiritual man” (ho pneumatikos), since he is qualified by the Spirit, possesses such discernment (v. 15; cf. v. 12). All four occurrences in verses 13-15 of “spiritual(ly)” plainly refer to the activity of the Holy Spirit. Continue reading

CHRIST AS LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT (1)

PMW 2025-093 by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.

Gentry note:
This and the article that will follow it in a couple of days are excerpts from Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.’s excellent book, Resurrection and Redemption (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978), pp. 78-92. This is a compelling study of Paul’s confusing statement regarding Christ being a “life-giving Spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45). As Peter wrote, Paul could say some things difficult to be understood (2 Pet. 3:16). Stumbling over this text can lead one into various heresies, not the least of which is Hyperpreterism. So, understanding Paul properly is an important issue in today’s evangelical culture.

I have only included Gaffin’s main text, not his footnotes. I highly recommend your getting, reading, and studying this book — with its significant footnotes. I not only desire to offer insightful articles on my site, but also to encourage the reading of important and relevant literature from various theologians.

You can order this book here:
https://www.prpbooks.com/book/resurrection-and-redemption

Now for Gaffin’s material (the following is all Gaffin):

I Corinthians 15:45
Our interest in this verse is the description of Christ as the last Adam, as “lifegiving pneuma” (pneuma zopoioun). However, nowhere in the whole of Paul is a statement more inextricably embedded in both its narrower and broader contexts. In verses 45-49 together with verse 22, “Paul provides us with what is one of the most striking and significant rubrics in all of Scripture.” Compact modes of expression and the density of thought also make it, along with verses 42-44, one of the most difficult Some consideration, then, needs to be given to this contextual factor. Continue reading

WHEN DOES THE ‘ALREADY’ END?

PMW 2025-072 by Ardel Caneday

Gentry Note:
This article on the Two-Age redemptive historical scheme is quite helpful. After reading it, I wrote to Dr. Caneday (my old Grace Seminary friend) to let him know that not all postmills agree with Wilson and Brito on the matter. In fact, I follow Bahnsen in subscribing to Vos’ Two-Age view while maintaining the posmillennial hope. I am currently working on a book on the topic. If you would like to financial contribute to this project, please see my final note below. Even if you would not like to contribute, I hope you will before my hitmen set sail towards your house. But now for Caneday’s article:

“Already But Not Yet”: When Does the “Already” End? When Christ Returns or When Jerusalem’s Temple Was Destroyed?
by Ardel Caneday

Within my lifetime, not only academics but lay people also have become increasingly familiar with “the already but not yet”—the biblical concept of the overlapping of two ages—the present age and the age to come. This became evident when “Progressive Dispensationalism” emerged with the publication of Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church (1992). A feature that distinguishes this newer form of dispensationalism is the belief that Christ Jesus already reigns, fulfilling the promise to David (Psalm 110), but not yet are all his enemies put under his feet. Hence, concerning Christ’s reign, “inauguration is present, but consummation is not.”[1] While distinguishing their view from “Classical Dispensationalism,” they also contended that their “formulation of ‘the already, not yet’ kingdom” was different from George Ladd’s.[2] Nevertheless, they set in motion rapprochement with non-dispensationalists that accelerated profitable conversations among scholars from both views throughout the past thirty years.[3]

Continue reading

THE CENTER-POINT AND THE TWO AGES

PMW 2025-071 by Oscar Cullmann
Gentry note: As I research my book on the Two-Age view of redemptive history, I have found an older work by Oscar Cullmann quite insightful and valuable. It was originally published in 1950, then as a third edition in 1962. The post below is from pages 81–84 of his book, Christ and Time.
Cullmann (pp. 81–84) We have seen that the Biblical time line divides into three sections: time before the Creation; time from the Creation to the Parousia; time after the Parousia. Even in Judaism we find interwoven with this threefold division, which is never discarded, the twofold division into this age and the coming one — a division that goes back to Parsiism. In this Jewish two-fold division everything is viewed from the point of view of the future. The decisive mid-point of the two-part time line here as the future coming of the Messiah, the coming appears of the Messianic time of salvation, with all its miracles. At that point we find in Judaism the great dividing point that separates the entire course of events into the two halves. This accordingly means that for Judaism the mid-point of the line which signifies salvation lies in the future. Continue reading

MATTHEW 22, MARRIAGE, AND ETERNITY

PMW 2025-032 by Michael Allen

Gentry note:

The following discussion is taken from Michael Allen’s contribution to Michael Whittmer, ed., Four Views on Heaven published by Zondervan and available on Amazon. I found this material on pages 124–25 helpful as I am working on my Two Ages book. I will be dealing with Matthew 22 and Jesus’ rebuke of the Sadducees regarding marriage and eternity. You will have to see the book to get the full text and footnotes.

Michael Allen writes:

It has been asked: How will we relate to our spouses and other family members? Will there be marriage, sex, or family units in our final state? Will we remain gendered, and if so, will we wear clothes? It may be helpful to begin reflection elsewhere, to use this question as a teaching moment for a wider principle. Likely no text has so generated eschatological speculation as has Isaiah 60:5, 9 with its reference to the ships of Tarshish bringing treasures into the storehouse of Zion. Many that here is warrant for confidence that the aesthetic or productive triumphs of society will persist into the eschaton. Labor invested in earthly affairs has value not only for today but bright hope for tomorrow too. Continue reading

THE TWO AGES, PAUL, AND JESUS

Vos Reformed EschatologyPMW 2025-015 by Geehardus Vos

Gentry note:
I have recently edited several of Geerhardus Vos’ important eschatological articles and chapters in a new book: Reformed Eschatology in the Writings of Gerhardus Vos. Bill Boney and I have brought them up to date in terms of style and layout, making them easier to read for a 21st century Christian. This is a small section touching on the important issues of the two ages, which is a concept I will be explicating in a new book later this year. This material is found in our edited book on pages 10–16.

Paul’s Distinction from the Old Testament

In distinction from the OT point of view, the structure of Paul’s eschatology appears antithetical. It places the end under the control of one principle with the sway of which an opposite principle of equally comprehensive rule and of primordial origin is contrasted. This is done so as to make the two, when taken together, yield a bisection of universal history. By giving the soteric movement this cosmical setting it claims for it the significance of a central world-process, around the core of which all happenings in the course of time group themselves. By this one stroke order is brought into the disconnected multitudinousness of events. Continue reading

TWO AGES ARE NOT TWO COVENANTS

Two ages sunPMW 2024-095 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Through my GoodBirth Ministries I am seeking to raise support to allow me to work virtually full time on a new book on the two ages of redemptive history. This two-age concept, along with its corollary, the “Now but Not Yet” principle, are essential for understanding God’s plan in history. Much confusion regarding this matter reigns among evangelical Christians, especially among those who are not well-trained in academic issues related to eschatology.

In this article I simply want to briefly introduce the idea of the two ages. And I want to do so by showing that it has wide support among the three major eschatological views (obviously excluding dispensationalism, which is losing its academic voice in the market place of ideas). In my planned book on the two ages, I will provide about 250 pages of arguments to flesh out this crucial matter. But for now, I will show that I am not alone! Continue reading