Preterist: What 'age' is 'end of age' in Mt. 28:20?

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I am just curious what other preterist think the 'age' in Mt. 28:20b is?

And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

Please, only preterist responsd.

Thank you,

:sig:

[GhostontheNet]

I am just curious what other preterist think the 'age' in Mt. 28:20b is?

And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

Please, only preterist responsd.

Thank you,

:sig: I've personally been going between two positions on this, motivated at the moment greatly by N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God. The first is that the "end of the age" or the "age to come" is synonomous with "the kingdom of God". And as I had written in a P.M. to a friend at Christian Anime Alliance, As to "the end of the age", my present research has led me to believe that that manner of language is a full synonym for, "the kingdom of God". This aligns with what Ben Witherington dubs the "already-not yet" tension in the Gospels, which according to Craig Blomberg and my own research, there are Interpreting the Parables[/U] p. 296]key areas of agreement among scholars on the kingdom... (3) Jesus believed that the kingdom was in some sense both present and future... (5) the way which the kingdom was present was through the proclamation and activity of Jesus. It is my opinion that the end of the age language of Matthew 24, noting the preceeding context of the destruction of the Temple, which has already occured in history like He said it would, I believe as the already-not yet tension goes, it is a more formal inauguration of the already aspect of the kingdom. Something of an allegorical explanation would be an event in history; in the Year of the Four Emperors, while Otho was still on the emperor's throne, Vitellius' armies declared him to be the emperor, and civil war was initiated between the two. Tacitus declared it to be a battle between two emperors, but when Otho eventually comitted suicide, Vitellius more formally became emperor. So too I think A.D. 70 was to the already aspect of the kingdom. If I am being somewhat incoherant, its because i'm trying to briefly summarize what I will argue in another article. If this line of argumentation holds, it means that the "end of the age" in this page would be the final breaking in of the kingdom of God with the Final Judgment and Second Coming.

Alternately, taking into account the Jewish beliefs of the age to come, the question of whether or not Christ would be present in the age to come would be an extremely obvious yes. Rather, He wishes to emphasize that He will be with them always, even until and before that time.

[Cyrus of Persia]

I've personally been going between two positions on this, motivated at the moment greatly by N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God. The first is that the "end of the age" or the "age to come" is synonomous with "the kingdom of God". And as I had written in a P.M. to a friend at Christian Anime Alliance, If this line of argumentation holds, it means that the "end of the age" in this page would be the final breaking in of the kingdom of God with the Final Judgment and Second Coming.



I agree with this. I think that Jesus wanted to stress that He will be with us even during the time He is not on the Earth anymore. After this "age" when we see Him face-to-face we don't need this assurance anymore, because then we will be with Him anyway :wink:

Edit: it just hit me and i wanted to add...

In this age - Jesus is WITH US, because WE live on Earth.
In coming age - We are WITH JESUS, because we are taken to Heaven where HE is.

It's matter on nuance, but i think that is still important to notice the slight difference: with US, or with HIM.

[GhostontheNet]

I agree with this. I think that Jesus wanted to stress that He will be with us even during the time He is not on the Earth anymore. After this "age" when we see Him face-to-face we don't need this assurance anymore, because then we will be with Him anyway :wink: Alright, though just to ensure we're on the same page, you also agree with the concept of A.D. 70 being something of a more formal and complete manifestation of the end of the age breaking in around A.D. 27.

Edit: it just hit me and i wanted to add...

In this age - Jesus is WITH US, because WE live on Earth.
In coming age - We are WITH JESUS, because we are taken to Heaven where HE is.

It's matter on nuance, but i think that is still important to notice the slight difference: with US, or with HIM. Qualification: We will be with Him in a new heavens and new earth, the true restoration of YHWH's good creation of the earth and where the two spheres of reality are one; paradise regained.

[commonman]

I am just curious what other preterist think the 'age' in Mt. 28:20b is?

And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

Please, only preterist responsd.

Thank you,

:sig:

I think I'm a preterist, maybe a partial preterist. I don't really know.

A literalist approach would define an age in an astrological sense. Each astrological age is a little over 2,000 years (estimates vary on this). Using this approach and literal biblical timelines, creation occurred at the dawning of the age of Taurus ~4000 BC, Abraham left the land of his fathers around the dawning of the age of Aries ~2000 BC, Jesus came around the dawning of the age of Pisces, and the next age is the age of Aquarius ~2012-2013 AD, according to Mayan and Chinese astrological calendars.

There are some interesting correlations one could make with Biblical events and the astrological ages. Aries is the ram, and Abraham used a ram caught in the thicket to sacrifice instead of Isaac, Pisces is the fish and a nearly universal symbol of Christianity is the fish. Aquarius, the water bearer, is next and could be correlated to baptism and rebirth.

So from a literalist position the end of the age is the end of the Age of Pisces.

So how do you prove that the age Christ referred to continues to this day, you have to ask the following, Is Christ with us now? If yes, then we are still in the age. If Christ is no longer with us then we are no longer in that "age." I know the logic doesn't follow, but if we are still in the age that Jesus spoke of and we are still in the Age of Picses, then the Age of Pisces could be the "age" that Jesus was referring.

Food for thought.

Peace.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I've personally been going between two positions on this,


Yeah. Me too. Hince I made the OP.

motivated at the moment greatly by N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God. The first is that the "end of the age" or the "age to come" is synonomous with "the kingdom of God". And as I had written in a P.M. to a friend at Christian Anime Alliance, If this line of argumentation holds, it means that the "end of the age" in this page would be the final breaking in of the kingdom of God with the Final Judgment and Second Coming.

Could you elaborate more on Wright? Specifically, how does he define the Kingdom of God?

Alternately, taking into account the Jewish beliefs of the age to come, the question of whether or not Christ would be present in the age to come would be an extremely obvious yes. Rather, He wishes to emphasize that He will be with them always, even until and before that time.

Thanks (and to everyone else who answered as well)

:sig:

[GhostontheNet]

I think I'm a preterist, maybe a partial preterist. I don't really know.

A literalist approach would define an age in an astrological sense. Each astrological age is a little over 2,000 years (estimates vary on this). Using this approach and literal biblical timelines, creation occurred at the dawning of the age of Taurus ~4000 BC, Abraham left the land of his fathers around the dawning of the age of Aries ~2000 BC, Jesus came around the dawning of the age of Pisces, and the next age is the age of Aquarius ~2012-2013 AD, according to Mayan and Chinese astrological calendars.

There are some interesting correlations one could make with Biblical events and the astrological ages. Aries is the ram, and Abraham used a ram caught in the thicket to sacrifice instead of Isaac, Pisces is the fish and a nearly universal symbol of Christianity is the fish. Aquarius, the water bearer, is next and could be correlated to baptism and rebirth.

So from a literalist position the end of the age is the end of the Age of Pisces.

So how do you prove that the age Christ referred to continues to this day, you have to ask the following, Is Christ with us now? If yes, then we are still in the age. If Christ is no longer with us then we are no longer in that "age." I know the logic doesn't follow, but if we are still in the age that Jesus spoke of and we are still in the Age of Picses, then the Age of Pisces could be the "age" that Jesus was referring.

Food for thought.

Peace.
Your idea sounds to me like a textbook example of how not to interpret the Bible. You analyze Yeshua Christ's words in the light of astrology rather than the more likely Jewish idea of dividing history into two ages; the present age and age to come,

Into this scheme of things entered another dominant idea. From now, to the Jew, all history fell into two ages. There was the present age which was altogether bad and lost; and there was the age to come which would be the age of vindication, of glory, and of God. But in between the two ages there was to come that day which haunts the pages of the Old and New Testaments, The Day of the Lord. It would come without warning. It would be a day of world upheaval and of judgment. There are descriptions of it in Isaiah 2:12 ff; Jeremiah 30: 7 ff; Joel 2; Amos 5: 20. So now we have the Jews sunk in material and national disaster, still clutching to themselves the undefeatable hope and waiting for the sudden breaking of the Day of the Lord which would be birth pangs of the glorious age to come. [Note that my own view of the phrase “the day of the LORD” is at present closest to J.P. Holding’s work in Scheduling "the Day of the Lord”, http://www.tektonics.org/dayofl.html -Ghost]

The present age was a time when the creator god seemed to be hiding his face; the age to come would see the renewal of the created world. The present age was the time of Israel's misery; in the age to come she would be restored. In the present age wicked men seemed to be flourishing; in the age to come they would receive their just reward. In the present age even Israel was not really keeping the Torah perfectly, was not really being YHWH's true humanity; in the age to come all Israel would keep Torah from the heart.

Faramir: That's a difficult question to summarize, Wright ultimately spends almost two of those thick books of his on the question. If I understand him on the matter, the common Jewish view on the matter was that it would be something of a one shot pony, it would see the Return of YHWH to Zion, the end of exile (he argues that Second Temple Judaism still percieved itself to be in exile, something evidently supported by the book designed for a critical review of his Jesus and the Victory of God by the name of Jesus and the Restoration of Israel, though I hadn't had the chance to read it), the New Covenant, the reign of YHWH, the final judgment, the resurrection of the dead, the defeat of evil, basically YHWH turning the world upside down, or perhaps more accurately right side up. However, with the Christians (and in some ways also the Qumranites), you acquire an already shade of the same thing, in anticipation of the final act; Yeshua Himself is the return of YHWH to Zion (and the Gospels portray Him this way), He ends the exile of His people although they don't act like it by providing the forgiveness of sins that got them there in the first place (remember the liberty to the captives speech back at Nazareth?), the kingdom of God has smashed into the present age because of Christ's disasterous attacks upon the satan, particularly in His death, burial, and resurrection etc. I could make a list of corresponding details in this already/not yet tension. Other details of the common belief would find manifestation in Yeshua's own subversive way at A.D. 70. However, in the end there is still the anticipation of the resurrection of all the dead in what he calls transphysical bodies, when these things will be wonderfully and undeniably performed, which is the final coming of the kingdom of God and the end of the age, ushering in the age to come.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir: That's a difficult question to summarize, Wright ultimately spends almost two of those thick books of his on the question. If I understand him on the matter, the common Jewish view on the matter was that it would be something of a one shot pony, it would see the Return of YHWH to Zion, the end of exile (he argues that Second Temple Judaism still percieved itself to be in exile, something evidently supported by the book designed for a critical review of his Jesus and the Victory of God by the name of Jesus and the Restoration of Israel, though I hadn't had the chance to read it), the New Covenant, the reign of YHWH, the final judgment, the resurrection of the dead, the defeat of evil, basically YHWH turning the world upside down, or perhaps more accurately right side up. However, with the Christians (and in some ways also the Qumranites), you acquire an already shade of the same thing, in anticipation of the final act; Yeshua Himself is the return of YHWH to Zion (and the Gospels portray Him this way), He ends the exile of His people although they don't act like it by providing the forgiveness of sins that got them there in the first place (remember the liberty to the captives speech back at Nazareth?), the kingdom of God has smashed into the present age because of Christ's disasterous attacks upon the satan, particularly in His death, burial, and resurrection etc. I could make a list of corresponding details in this already/not yet tension. Other details of the common belief would find manifestation in Yeshua's own subversive way at A.D. 70. However, in the end there is still the anticipation of the resurrection of all the dead in what he calls transphysical bodies, when these things will be wonderfully and undeniably performed, which is the final coming of the kingdom of God and the end of the age, ushering in the age to come.

Thanks Ghost.

I think I am leaning towards Wrights position, but need to actually read Wright. (He is on my 'must read list' along with about 100 others.)

I am most interested in how Wright (or anyone else) sythesizes "end of the age" and "Kigdom of God/Heaven". Every time I change a position on one of these concepts it affects my understanding of the other. I keep having to tweak and retweak with no resolution. Maybe Wright has a coherent sythesis of these two ideas.

Thanks again,


:sig:

[Cyrus of Persia]

Alright, though just to ensure we're on the same page, you also agree with the concept of A.D. 70 being something of a more formal and complete manifestation of the end of the age breaking in around A.D. 27.


I did not got what you said. Did you mean that end of the age started when Jesus died and was completed at 70 AD?

While i agree that it started with the death of Jesus, and most prophecies in the end of Gospel focus on the fall of Jerusalem, i still see that Jesus talks about things what happen even in farther future. I dunno does it makes me preterist, or not. But again if we assume that Jesus was wrong when He said that He will come back during "this generation", while His Father (who is the only one who knows the date of His coming) prolonged His return (Peter saying about long-suffering of God in the context of His postphoned Second Coming), then maybe really Jesus meant only those things what will happen until destruction of Jerusalem.

[commonman]

Your idea sounds to me like a textbook example of how not to interpret the Bible. You analyze Yeshua Christ's words in the light of astrology rather than the more likely Jewish idea of dividing history into two ages; the present age and age to come,

I said the logic didn't work! And these are not my ideas, I've just read of them from several sources, both ancient and modern. Here is one source, although not the place where I learned of this: http://www.usbible.com/Astrology/bible_astrology.htm. I don't necessarily agree with everything here, but it does provide an interesting perspective to the discussion about what Jesus meant by "end of the age."

I would be careful to discount something just because you don't understand it. The mystery(ies) of God are constantly revealed to us through His creation, including the Zodiac.

BTW, Yeshua Christ?

[GhostontheNet]

I said the logic didn't work! And these are not my ideas, I've just read of them from several sources, both ancient and modern. Here is one source, although not the place where I learned of this: http://www.usbible.com/Astrology/bible_astrology.htm. Ow, my head, I would have prefered to not be exposed to that sort of eisegetical voodoo. I don't necessarily agree with everything here, but it does provide an interesting perspective to the discussion about what Jesus meant by "end of the age."

I would be careful to discount something just because you don't understand it. I didn't dismiss it because I didn't understand, I dismissed it because any second Temple Jew reading the passage wouldn't think of it in terms of astrological "ages", but through their dividing all history into ages, as I had documented, and if Yeshua Christ intended to communicate astrological issues, he would be more specific to avoid confusion with the world of ideas in His own culture. The mystery(ies) of God are constantly revealed to us through His creation, including the Zodiac. Maybe so, but I don't trust man-made connect the dots tricks and astrologers, but rather the word of YHWH.

BTW, Yeshua Christ? Yes, Yeshua Christ. Jesus' original name in Hebrew was Yeshua, in turn translated to Iosios in the Greek of the New Testament, in turn translated to Jesus from the Greek in Latin, which many use today. To make sure my readers realize they are one in the same, I add the commonly used Christ at the end.

[Jezz]

I am just curious what other preterist think the 'age' in Mt. 28:20b is?

And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

Please, only preterist responsd.
Hey Faramir - some random observations. I'm not a huge eschatology buff, but I have an insight on this which might help, based on some stuff that I know about Greek/semitic idioms.

I think that, as a preterist, you would probably like to lean toward the interpretation of "end of the age" being the age of the Temple and sacrifice. To my mind, this fits better with the preterist framework. However, I'm guessing that you are probably balking at that interpretation because of the word "until", right? I mean, if we take "the age" to be "the age of the Temple", doesn't this imply that Jesus left his disciples once the age of the Temple had ended? Well, I think I might have an answer for you here.

In English, the word "until" does indeed have this connotation. For example, if I say "Until now, I have been a Christian", then it is also implied that, as of now, I will no longer be a Christian. This is a nuance of the preposition "until" in English. However, in many other languages, the nearest equivalent word for "until" does not have the same nuance. For example, many times I have heard my Iraqi friend say something like "Until now, I have been a Christian", when I know for a fact that he still is a Christian and will continue to be so. This gives you some idea of how the preposition "until" does not carry the same connotation in his native language as it does in English - in saying this, he does not mean to imply that he will no longer be a Christian. He simply means to say that he has been a Christian right up until this point in time.

The Greek preposition ewV is the word used for "until" in this passage. Like my Iraqi friend's English-as-a-second-language, it does not mean that it stops after that point. Thus, when Matt 28:20 says "I will be with you always, until the end of the age", this does not imply (as it would in English) that Christ will cease to be with His disciples after "the age" has ended. Thus, it is perfectly acceptable to read this passage as a preterist naturally would, with "the age" referring to the age of the Temple, without implying that Christ left His disciples after 70AD.

On a related note, the same word ewV is also used in Matthew 1:25. Protestants who would use this passage as a proof text against the perpetual virginity of Mary are thus wide of the mark.

[Jezz]

Yes, Yeshua Christ. Jesus' original name in Hebrew was Yeshua, in turn translated to Iosios in the Greek of the New Testament,
Close. More precisely, it was transliterated, not translated - it was the same word, spelled with the closest-sounding Greek letters instead of Hebrew letters. Also, it was Iesous (IhsouV), not Iosios.

...in turn translated to Jesus from the Greek in Latin, which many use today.
Yep. We get from "I" to "J" because the two letters used to be the same in Latin. Note that in German, "J" is still pronounced like a "Y", as it would have been when "Jesus" was first transliterated into Latin. In German, Jesus' name is pronounced "Yay-soo" (spelled Jesu), which is almost the same as it's Greek pronunciation - except without the "s" on the end.

[Etcetera]

Jezz:

Greetings in the glory.

In English, the word "until" does indeed have this connotation. For example, if I say "Until now, I have been a Christian", then it is also implied that, as of now, I will no longer be a Christian. This is a nuance of the preposition "until" in English. However, in many other languages, the nearest equivalent word for "until" does not have the same nuance. For example, many times I have heard my Iraqi friend say something like "Until now, I have been a Christian", when I know for a fact that he still is a Christian and will continue to be so. This gives you some idea of how the preposition "until" does not carry the same connotation in his native language as it does in English - in saying this, he does not mean to imply that he will no longer be a Christian. He simply means to say that he has been a Christian right up until this point in time.

The Greek preposition ewV is the word used for "until" in this passage. Like my Iraqi friend's English-as-a-second-language, it does not mean that it stops after that point. Thus, when Matt 28:20 says "I will be with you always, until the end of the age", this does not imply (as it would in English) that Christ will cease to be with His disciples after "the age" has ended.

Good point. Origen, a native Greek speaker, makes a very similar point on the word until in his commentary on Matthew, book 12, chapter 34. Origen was by and large a futurist, and is discussing the until in Matthew 16.28. But he uses Matthew 28.20 as an object lesson:

But since some one may think that the promise of the savior prescribes a limit of time to their not tasting of death, namely, that they will not taste of death until they see the son of man coming in his own kingdom, but after this will taste of it, let us show that according to the scriptural usage the word until signifies that the time concerning the thing signified is pressing, but is not so defined that after the until, that which is contrary to the thing signified should at all take place. Now, the savior says to the eleven disciples when he rose from the dead, this among other things: Lo, I am with you all the days, even until the consummation of the age. When he said this, did he promise that he was going to be with them until the consummation of the age, but that after the consummation of the age, when another age was at hand, which is called the age to come, he would be no longer with them? So that according to this the condition of the disciples would be better before the consummation of the age than after the consummation of the age? But I do not think that any one will dare to say, that after the consummation of the age the son of God will be no longer with the disciples, because the expression declares that he will be with them for so long, until the consummation of the age is at hand; for it is clear that the matter under inquiry was whether the son of God was forthwith going to be with his disciples before the age to come and the hoped for promises of God which were given as a recompense. But there might have been a question, it being granted that he would be with them, whether sometimes he was present with them, and sometimes not present. Wherefore setting us free from the suspicion that might have arisen from doubt, he declared that now and even all the days he would be with the disciples, and that he would not leave those who had become his disciples until the consummation of the age; because he said all the days he did not deny that by night, when the sun set, he would be present with them.

You can read it in context at the CCEL (http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-48.htm#P8125_1739143).

In him.

Etcetera.

[GhostontheNet]

So then, between Greek grammar and the Jewish conception of the age to come filtered through Yeshua Christ's own variant on it, it seems this verse poses no danger to orthodox preterism and within that view may either be applied to the destruction of the Temple or to the Second Coming while still maintaining its emphasis.

Close. More precisely, it was transliterated, not translated - it was the same word, spelled with the closest-sounding Greek letters instead of Hebrew letters. My slip of the tongue, as I had noticed that also. Also, it was Iesous (Ιησους), not Iosios. I stand corrected, unfortunately, I have not yet had the chance to learn Greek and I seem to have mentally added in the -ios endings I often see on names.

[Jezz]

Etcetera: thanks for the Origen quote and reference. Good find.

So then, between Greek grammar and the Jewish conception of the age to come filtered through Yeshua Christ's own variant on it, it seems this verse poses no danger to orthodox preterism and within that view may either be applied to the destruction of the Temple or to the Second Coming while still maintaining its emphasis.
Yep. :thumb:

I tend to believe that "the age" refers to the present age, at the time of writing - because that is in keeping with the preterist interpretation of the rest of Matthew and the NT (which interprets "this age" as refering to the age of the Temple). I do not think Matthew was concerned with the end of the Messianic age - in fact, he probably did not think that the Messianic age would ever end.

My slip of the tongue, as I had noticed that also. I stand corrected, unfortunately, I have not yet had the chance to learn Greek and I seem to have mentally added in the -ios endings I often see on names.
Ahh, no sweat. You're doing pretty well for someone who hasn't learned Greek!

Your intuition about Greek names is pretty good - most Greek names end in "ios" or "os" - eg, Pontios, Petros, Paulos, Timotheos, Athanasios, etc. (at least, for men - for women, they tend to end in "e" or "ia" or "a" - eg, Phoebe, Sophia, Helena). The reason you got tripped up is because "Iesous" is not really a Greek name (as we noted above), and so it doesn't follow the Greek pattern. If it had been translated, it probably would have been "Soterios" (which is Greek for "salvation"). :smile:

[GhostontheNet]

Yep. :thumb:

I tend to believe that "the age" refers to the present age, at the time of writing - because that is in keeping with the preterist interpretation of the rest of Matthew and the NT (which interprets "this age" as refering to the age of the Temple). I do not think Matthew was concerned with the end of the Messianic age - in fact, he probably did not think that the Messianic age would ever end. That it does, but it must also be so much more than simply that as the context of the Jewish beliefs demonstrate, and orthodox preterism must make efforts to incorporate this within its system (I notice a lack of literature from within preterism on the kingdom of God passages and parables for example). It would be more accurate, I think, to say that it is instead the more formal beginning of the Messianic age rather than the non-existent end of it, explaining why Matthew uses the term parousia alongside the end of the age, for there is evidence of parousia being used of kingly and imperial visits to cities, or recieving their crown, etc . (Not to mention, as Ben Witherington notes, the equivalent in Latin is Adventus)