Category Archives: Age(s) (Two Ages)

“AGE” OR “WORLD”?

Age(s) (Two Ages) April 24, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-029 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

A Question Presented

A long-time reader has recently sent me a question on this site. Mr. Cardona asks:

“In Hebrews 1:2, how do you understand αιωνας, “worlds,” “ages,” “universe”? I tried looking for how you understand that word in this context, but I can’t seem to find it. And how would you translate it?”

This is an important question for helping to understand Scripture properly. It is especially helpful for understanding scriptural eschatology, which is so easily abused (and I do not just mean by the “Latter-day Saints”). The word aion, which is generally translated either by “age” or by “eternal,” is an important Greek term that is found frequently in the New Testament. I am currently writing a book on “The Two Ages of Redemptive History” in which I will be discussing this word and its Old Testament counterpart olam. This two age phenomenon provides an important Reformed theological insight into the meta-narrative of Scripture, greatly impacting eschatology.

Continue reading →

TWO AGES IMPACT ON THE NEW TESTAMENT

Age(s) (Two Ages), New Testament April 21, 2026 Comments: 4

PMW 2026-028 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am currently working on a book on the two ages of redemptive history. In this posting I will simply present the key passages demonstrating the two age presence in the New Testament. These verses will be presented in biblical order. I will highlight in bold font the English words translated from the Greek aion.

In my book I will provide full exegetical analysis of these (and other) texts which are misconstrued by hyper-preterists as they have created a new unorthodox — and still evolving and mutating — theological paradigm. I am hoping this book will change the minds of some who are being tempted by hyper-preterism. It would be hard to change the mind of an actual hyper-preterist, because they developed a new (and heretical) holistic worldview. But it can be done and we should pray to that end. Demons can be cast out!

Continue reading →

CONFUSED DISCIPLES THEN AND NOW

AD 70, Age(s) (Two Ages), hyperpreterism, Olivet Discourse April 7, 2026 Comments: 10

PMW 2026-026  by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am researching a book on the Two Ages of Redemptive History. This issue of the biblical function of “this age” and “the coming age” arose during my research on a new expanded study Olivet Discourse.

In my research I have a large and important section showing how confused were Jesus’ twelve disciples — despite having the best teacher possible! Their confusion plays a large role in their misunderstanding Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of the temple (Matt. 24:2). They ask two questions of him, the second of which shows their confusion. They ask when shall these things be, then they ask what shall be the sign of your parousia and of the end of the age (Matt. 24:3). As per much first century Jewish and apocalyptic expectations, they believed the temple could not be destroyed without history ending and that the Messiah would wage war against pagans.
Continue reading →

CHRIST AS LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT (2)

Age(s) (Two Ages), Christ, Resurrection November 28, 2025 Comments: 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)

Age(s) (Two Ages), Christ, Resurrection November 25, 2025 Leave a comment

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?

Age(s) (Two Ages) August 29, 2025 Comments: 2

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

Age(s) (Two Ages) August 26, 2025 1 Comment
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 →