Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. —Matthew 12:32
What I want to highlight here is the idea of “two ages,” and its relationship to forming an eschatology of the New Testament. The NT constantly speaks with such language, I think what becomes clear, quite quickly, is that we live in an ‘already’ time (cf. “this age”), and then we look forward to an ‘not yet’ consummation (cf. “the age to come”). Both of these ages find their reference in the Person and work of Jesus Christ, in other words when He came the first time; He fulfilled all of the promises of the Old Testament, in an inaugural, yet ‘real’ way. This is the basis of saying that we live in an ‘already’ reality of the kingdom of Jesus (don’t forget the ‘Son of David’ promise/fulfillment motif, cf. II Sam. 7; Mt. 1; Acts; Rom. 1; etc.), He said in Matthew 12:28,
But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. . . .
The point is, what Luke draws out for us as He restates what Jesus said:
. . . The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21. nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you. (20b-21)
The “kingdom” came in the person of Jesus, and first it is a “spiritual realization” (the ‘already’ where we live ‘now’); which Jesus reinforces in the Luke passage. It won’t be until the second advent where the ‘not yet’ of the age to come is fully realized in consummation with our bride groom. The age to come is indeed where the body and the spirit become consummate with another, it is at this point that we experience beatific vision, and the “glorification” phase of salvation (see Rom. 8:18ff for this “spiritual-bodily” progression).
Another passage that reflects this two-age model is found Ephesians 1:19-20,
. . . and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20. which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, . . .
What is Paul referencing? It is the resurrection of Christ, and our raising with Him spiritually (‘already’ ‘this age’); with an proleptic eye toward the bodily resurrection (‘not yet’ ‘the age to come’). The implication is that if we are seated with Christ, and seated in the heavenlies, now; then we are currently partaking of, spiritually, what we will realize bodily when Christ comes the second time (the age to come). The point I want to underscore, mostly, is the continuity between the two-ages; they both are rooted in the ‘one’ resurrection of Jesus. It is both a spiritual and physical resurrection, it must be if we are currently experiencing the heavenlies right now, in Christ. This whole thing is presupposed by the idea that indeed there are two-ages, if not then we are of “all men most to be pitied!”
Theological Afterthought
Really, and theologically, it is the incarnation that best analogues or provides framework for thinking about two-ages. Since the two-ages is really ‘code’ for the relationship of eternity (or supra-time) and time. It is the Logos asarkos (the WORD, Jesus, before incarnating) who purposes to assume humanity as the Logos ensarkos (the WORD incarnate Jn 1:14) whom makes it possible to speak of two-ages at all. This is true because He alone transverses the gap between humanity (in historic) time, and divinity (in eternity, or better, ‘super-time’); He brings these two “ages” together in His life, reconciling humanity unto Himself. I see this as the basic, and inner logic, of the two-age model discussed in the passages of scripture above. Because Christ brought us into His intra-trinitarian life, through “becoming us” (in the incarnation), that we can truly hold to an ‘already’ and ‘not yet’ aspect of the kingdom (the kingdom truly being the life of God). Both ‘ages’ are given continuity and reality through the inseparably related and yet distinct natures of Christ; as ‘this age’ constantly finds ‘life’ as it is ‘received’ from the ‘age to come’. This implies one more thing, time (this age) is always and already eschatological, as the ‘now’ is already the ‘not yet’ in the person of Christ!
The Face Of Christ 
Bobby,
In response to your concluding reflections:
“Because Christ brought us into His intra-trinitarian life, through “becoming us” (in the incarnation), that we can truly hold to an ‘already’ and ‘not yet’ aspect of the kingdom (the kingdom truly being the life of God). Both ‘ages’ are given continuity and reality through the inseparably related and yet distinct natures of Christ; as ‘this age’ constantly finds ‘life’ as it is ‘received’ from the ‘age to come’.”
I’ve often heard the injunction to “live in light of the future” as we contemplate the “already/not yet” aspects of the Kingdom. I heartily concur with your your take on “becoming us”; however, as you and I have been discussing in other venues, I believe there is a larger overarching sense in which Jesus “became us” in order to show humanity how we are called to “reign over the world to come” (Heb 2:5) in obedience to the Creation commission. IOW, “We see Jesus” in His humanity as prototype of our own call to obey this commission. Ironically, are we not called to “become Him” now (i.e., conform to His image) and “learn obedience through suffering” so that we can fully “enter His rest” in the age to come?
So, to put this in Trinitarian terms, my proposal would be that to “live in light of the future” entails emulating the obedience of the Son by accepting the daily invitation of the Spirit, following His unpredictable lead in this present life with an attitude of total dependence on the Father, whose preordained works we are called to “walk in” during the present age. Since such obedience invariably entails some level of suffering, like Jesus, are we not daily called to “remember the future”—that that we will more fully share His inheritance in the “not yet” Kingdom as our primary source of confidence to walk in those works?
Jim,
Hi.
I don’t really have any objections to what you’re communicating, other than, maybe, seeing “Kingdom” as the primary theme of scripture. I’m still not sure how you understand or define “Kingdom” relative to the primacy of God’s life. In other words, how does the “Kingdom” relate to us sharing in the “Glory” that Jesus had with the Father before the world was? Do you see continuity between the Davidic Kingdom in “historic time” with the Kingdom in “super-time” (eternal state)? It almost seems that the “Kingdom,” for you, is abstracted from the life of God; and something that He acts out in time, dichotomized from who He is in eternity.
It also seems like you’re not completely on board with thinking in terms of “time,” eschatologically. What I mean is that you seem to be following a completely linear view of time, instead of seeing time subsumed (in Christ, in the Incarnation) and shaped, and given distinction by the “time of God’s life” (i.e. the space between the Father, Son, and Spirit). In other words, instead of seeing time and eternity in “competition,” I think we must think of it in union via the implications of Christ’s hypostatic union in the incarnation.
Jim, you said:
So, to put this in Trinitarian terms, my proposal would be that to “live in light of the future” entails emulating the obedience of the Son by accepting the daily invitation of the Spirit, . . .
As far as emulating, and I’m probably being way too picky here, I like the language of participation instead. This gets back to my desire to emphasize union language with Christ, which gets back to my desire for understanding “motivation” for “wanting” to be like Christ in the first place. I think to speak of humanity, we have to speak of Christ’s vicarious life for us. When we act, it is because He has already acted in our stead . . . and to be honest, as I write this and reflect on what you’re saying in your last paragraph, I think we’re probably saying a lot of the same thing here. I just think we need to be very intentional about how we frame “our responsibility,” and not forget that even that (our resp.) is shaped by God’s life for us “in” Christ.
I think though I probably disagree that Jesus’ primary point in coming was to “. . . show humanity how we are called to “reign over the world to come” (Heb 2:5) in obedience to the Creation commission.” For some reason this sounds a lot like the exemplar model of Christ’s life, I don’t really think His primary point was to “show” us how to live; but in fact to live for us the way we are to live, and now invites us to “share” in His kind of cruciformed living that none of us could live apart from participation with Him through the Spirit. I think Jn 17 sets up His point, and that is to share His glory with us (in an consummate sense); which includes the “Great Commission,” but I am not convinced that “Kingdom Reigning” is man’s ultimate source of telos.
I think the primary problem I’m having with your thesis, Jim, is that in the end it seems to make God’s life and purpose contingent on “showing” us what “our” purpose is; which if true, makes God’s life shaped and predicated by us and “human” history — instead of vice versa.
Bobby,
Excellent questions.
Re: “sharing his glory,” your point is well-taken: I see our participation in the reign of God as sharing in His glory that He will reveal in us to the world in the Davidic (millennial) phase of His reign (Rom 8:17-21).
Re: merging of time and “super-time” and “continuity of the Davidic kingdom with the eternal state”—yes, of course, at the end of the millenium, “when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power” (1 Cor 15:24). The cessation of “all rule and all authority and power” does not necessarily imply the cessation of God’s reign, per se—the time-bound Kingdom simply merges into the time-transcendent “union” depicted in the New Jerusalem. Whether we call it primacy of the “Kingdom” or the “eternal reign of God,” I still see it depicted in the New Jerusalem.
Re: “exemplar” vs. “union” model of our relationship to Christ, I guess I find primacy here in the Creation commission to Adam: Since the fall, the Father has been “waiting” for humanity to fulfill Adam’s commission; Christ as the second Adam is fulfilling and will consummate this commission on his return, and we are invited to share in that glorious consummation, under which the Great Commission is subsumed. We have to deal with Christ’s mediatorial function as one who “explained” the Father to us and serves as the “firstborn of many brethren,” our “elder brother” in terms of his humanity; but your point about John 17 is equally cogent in speaking to our absolutely requisite union with him “in order that the world may know.” I see both union and “leading,” rather than “example” per se. IOW, it’s not “What Would Jesus Do?” as much as “Who are we in Jesus?” and therefore how do we participate in his present redemptive “rule”? Now that the Son has returned to the right hand of the Father, this participation takes place by walking according to the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father filioque.
Re: “predicated by us and ‘human’ history,” not at all. Again, as I discussed with you in another venue, the “works” are foreordained. “Our purpose” is identical with God’s decree insofar as we choose to “walk” in his foreordained works. If we fail to obey the Spirit’s lead in this respect, God’s decree is not frustrated by our free will, because his time-transcendent will providentially incorporates time-bound human obedience in ways that are inscrutable to time-bound humans (Job 34:29; 37:13). If we fail to obey the Spirit’s lead, we don’t share in his “glorious revealing” individually as much as we could, but the corporate picture of union with Christ is unchanged.
Well, that’s more than enough for now; my brain is fried.
Yours,
Jim
Bobby I sure hope I’m still being perceptive here, otherwise I’m running the risk of being blown out of the water by the big guns!;-) …anyway:
Is it possible that you’re equating eternal life to a philosophical (Augustinian?) perspective on eternity in order to satisfy some category of a more classic interpretive grid? Even the scripture portrays the two ages in linear fashion with respect to time; one “now” and one “to come”. I’m thinking it’s unnecessary to presuppose a non-linear version of time in order to relate to the two ages or to any of the Kingdom passages, and perhaps further, that in so doing we may actually run afoul of the scripture.
I suspect a much better referent for these passages than time is “life”. If we consider eternal life as the life we have in Christ now in this age that continues in the age to come then doesn’t the “now and not yet” aspect of the Kingdom (spiritual now but not yet glorified) become obvious in our union with Christ? I believe this would leave your theological afterthought in tact but the “code” for the two ages would be relative to our relationship with Christ as it is now and as it will be in the age to come.
Kc,
I’m not denying that there is a “linear” unfolding, but an “linear” shape. In other words, there is indeed a now and a not yet; but what this presupposes is that the “now” is shaped by the “not yet” so that the “Kingdom” actually is what it will be (but only in an unrealized form). All I’m noting is there is a relational component to “time,” that typical linear understanding doesn’t pay much attention to.
I think your suggestion of “life” is good, and really is all that I am trying to underscore.
Jim,
let me get back to you tomorrow (or later today).
Jim,
thanks for all the clarification.
I still think there might be a hint of history predicating God’s life rather than vice versa in your last paragraph. Typically folks think and speak of decrees (absolutum decretum) as flowing from the God of Classical Theism, who is typically (and consistently) framed through negative categories; thus predicating who He is (even His decrees) through the specter of “human salvation,” which mitigates His internal freedom for us (methodologically).
I look forward to discussing further with you Jim. I just picked up Zane’s Absolutely Free, I’ve read it before (I actually did a paper on Zane and MacArthur’s disparate views of salvation in bible college); but I thought I might work through it again . . . I’ll be posting on it, or maybe even doing a video, reflecting on it.
Bobby,
I would hope by now that I would not come across to you as “thinking typically” in the terms of Classical Theism; as you picked up, I did use the term “decree” to try to mitigate the impression that I am predicating who he is through the spectacles (I hope you didn’t mean “specter”?) of human salvation.
The best I can come up with at this point might be to counter that “He predicates who we are through the regular invitation he gives us to participate in his preordained, providential and redemptive activity in the world.”
Cheers,
Jim
Jim,
I’m sorry for being so suspicious, I realize you aren’t “typical,” but to be honest I wasn’t sure if you were aware of the impact that “Classical Theism” has had upon “Evangelical” and even or esp. “Reformed” theology — in fact most, if not all of my profs in bible college followed lock-step within the tradition of “Classical Theism,” relative to thinking theologically. I actually did mean “specter,” since within the “Classical Theistic” framing (what I was trying to briefly sketch), that’s exactly how it comes across to me. But I’m glad that you are not “there!” Please forgive me if I’ve come across like a “snob,” Jim.
And I really like the framing you provide in your last paragraph, very Christocentric 🙂 .
Suspicious? …moi, a theological Trojan horse?
You are right, I have only a passing acquaintance with the full range of entailments of Classical Theism; and to be honest, I think there are tangible perks to remaining blissfully “ignorant.”
Christocentric? …you bet, as long as we remember He is the Second Adam 😉
I can see how there might be some “perks” to ignorance; but then again the “cons” of ignorance can potentially overshadow said perks . . . which actually makes the “perks” non-perks, and in fact the said perks are actually the “cons” (so it’s circular 😉 ).
But I do hear you, Jim. I struggle with this sometimes myself, sometimes I just wish I could simply read the bible; and be done, but in the end it really isn’t that “simple.” Don’t get me wrong, “getting saved” is simple, understanding the implications of being “saved” certainly is not “simple” (which actually, for me, points out the “doxological nature” of theology, we think upon the profundity of the Gospel’s implications, and we end up beyond ourselves and worshipping the LORD — see Paul in Rom 11, his “doxology”).
Yeah; I guess that as my hermeneutical approach to Scripture is becoming more “canonical,” I would just trust my exegesis more than historical theological systems of one kind or another, or trying to play them off against one another to arrive at solutions to the multifaceted nature or timing of “salvation.”
In re: “doxological,” sure; again, as long as you see “worship” as involving loving, obedient response by human agents (Rom 12:1-2) to his “invitation” to walk in his preordained works (Eph 2:10).
I see hermeneutics as “layered,” and I’ve come to see the “informing traditions” (historical theology) as very important in the process.
As far as doxology, sure “walking in obedience” is an aspect of worship, but so is “sitting at His feet” (which is an act of devotion). When I speak of Love, Jim, I’m thinking of the biblical concept (and not the “eHarmony” approach 😉 ). . . the one demonstrated at the cross. So I don’t think scripture frames obedience in “naked” terms, but that it frames it around terms of “motive” which “trumps” action (and I can think of many examples in this regard). In other words, to see “obedience” as an “outside-in” movement just is not biblical; and my most recent post on the “Marriage Framework” gets at this very point. My prof has labeled this Affective Theology, and I’m on board with that approach.
Yes, I’m with you . . . especially if you look at passages like 1 Jn 3:16-21—
16 By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down [our] lives for the brethren. 17 But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him? 18 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. 19 And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. 20 For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. 21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God. (NKJV)
You said: “motive” which “trumps” action
John’s uses the terminology of the “heart” which is then fleshed out in “deed and in truth.”
See how much easier it is to just go to Scripture? 😉 (“Multilayered” hermeneutics notwithstanding.) 🙂
Paul uses the language of “heart” which is then fleshed out as “motive center.” 😉
But I will say that I struggle with the tripartite faculty psychology which affections, mind, and will make-up; because of the scriptures.
Maybe I was unclear; here is what I believe the context of 1 John 3 supports:
I am agreeing with you that “motive” trumps “behavior”; John’s point is that “good motive” fleshes out in “deed” and “truth,” not simply “lip service” (parallel to Jas 2:14-16). The “heart” is the seat of conscience which, if sensitive to the HS, is brought under “conviction” or “non-conviction” to test that motive by illuminating the conscience as to whether a given act of “love” is truly “Christo-sacrificial” (rooted in Christ’s “motive”; 1 Jn 3:16) or only “lip service.” (There’s a concession to your Christocentricity 🙂 )
Care to elaborate on how you see Paul’s “mind” and “will” engaging in Rom 7:15-24? Are either of those parallel to “heart,” or is that even in view (explicitly)?
Good, Jim . . . it’s nice to agree so much 😉 !
As far as mind, will, and heart; like I said, I’m still struggling with that — in its mechanical and explicit nature. There is no doubt that each of these components are active in scripture, but this tripartite faculty psychology (as appropriated by Medieval and Reformed theology) come from Aristotle’s anthropology.
I once did an biblical theology of heart in the Torah, and found that heart could function many ways — as your seat of emotions, but more than that, it could function in synonymity with all three “faculties” (as heart, mind, and will). So this might be an example of “historical theology” over-stepping its boundaries. I do think “motives” can be aligned with the “biblical heart,” and that does seem to be the way that Paul appeals to them (and other NT writers as well) . . . but I think there might be an more “wholistic” anthropology at work in the bible, than faculty psychology allows for.
As far as Rom 7:15-24, I could try and give you the “Affective Theology” unfolding of how heart, will, and mind are at play (I heard my prof work through this very section many times) — remembering that “heart” language should be understood [at least “affectively”] as “motive language” vs. the typical framing of “emotional” (and I do think a biblical case can be made here, for the “motive” idea). But I’m not sure I’m completely on board with that accounting (the “affective”), Jim . . . so let me postponed what I think on that particular passage 🙂 .
I’m certainly not even considering the “emotional language” in these contexts at all (as in the tripartite Aristotelian framework you referenced) . . . but would you see key situations where “heart” is seat of conscience in OT (see, e.g., Eccl. 7:21-22) as well as the NT (cf. my example of 1 Jn 3:18-21, which sounds eerily similar to Paul’s actual use of Gentile suneidesis in Rom 2:15)?
Fair enough, Bobby, on Rom 7 . . . I agree, it’s not easy to see how “heart” fits in.
Jim,
w/o a doubt, I think “heart” can be very elastic in its usage in scripture.