You seem to be overshadowing His FIRST advent and everything that was fulfilled/accomplished then by His future return. IOW.....I believe you have the emphasis on the wrong syl-LA-ble. You seem to be putting off a lot of His glory for the future (when I believe more emphasis ought to be on His first advent).
I am not. We are seated in heavenly places spiritually, but we still reside physically on earth. While our standing is perfect before Christ (because of His finished work on the cross), our state is still sinful and in a process of sanctification (being more like Christ).
An age in Scripture is an era, not merely our standing. You are trying to spiritualize the whole NT in order to support your Full Preterist leanings. Other PPs have confirmed your beliefs are Full Preterist.
Christ only recognizes two ages in His teaching – “this world/age” and “the world/age to come.” One is current, corrupt and temporal and the other is impending, perfect and eternal. These terms are commonly used in the New Testament when contrasting the toil and trouble of the here-and-now with the glory and pristine nature of the hereafter. These two common phrases are found in different places in the New Testament, along with several other similar expressions, referring to time and eternity.
For the sake of clarity, the phrases “this world” and “the world to come” in the KJV are better interpreted “this age” and “the age to come.” The Greek word that is often interpreted “world” in this contrast is
aion. But, it is not specifically speaking about the physical globe that we live on. It rather relates to: a vast period that is normally marked by what is said to occur within that period.
Scripture makes it abundantly clear that there is no intervening time-period or temporal age in between “this age” and “the age to come.” It is within the bounds of this juxtapose alone that we understand the whole eschatological arrangement, with its two unique diverse worlds. Johnathan Menn points out that the New Testament “gives us a clear, consistent and comprehensive eschatological interpretive structure. That structure is the ‘two ages’: … ‘this age’ and the ‘age to come’. The terminology of the two ages is the key concept for understanding biblical eschatology. A proper understanding of how this age and the age to come fit together renders biblical eschatology both understandable and coherent.”
The Greek word
kairos (meaning time) is also employed in a similar context to describe the here-and-now, whilst the Greek word
mello (meaning hereafter or ‘to come’) is regularly used to describe the eternal state, immediately following the second coming. Because of its contextual and consistent pointing to eternity, it is often translated “the time to come” or “the world to come.” These comparable words only serve to reinforce this recurrent New Testament contrast.
This can be seen in Romans 8:18:
“For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time (
kairos)
are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall (
mello)
be revealed in us.”
We see this same juxtapose in the New Testament between the words “now” and “then.” “Now” relates to time, and “then” relates to the future eternal state. The Greek word for “now” is
arti meaning: ‘just now, this moment, now at this time, at this very time, this moment’. The Greek word
nun is also used to describe the present time. The Greek word for “then” is
tote meaning: ‘then’ or ‘at that time’.
This is demonstrated in 1 Corinthians 13:9-12:
“For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then (
tote)
that which is in part shall be done away … For now (
arti)
we see through a glass, darkly; but then (
tote)
face to face: now (
arti)
I know in part; but then (
tote)
shall I know even as also I am known.”
These words are employed in Scripture to divide “this age” from “the age to come.”
It is important to note, ages are normally distinguished by specific and distinct characteristics which occur within them. This helps us understand what (and when) we are looking at. We should keep this in mind as we delve deeper into this subject.
Historians talk about ages in history like the stone age, the iron age and the bronze age. We also hear terms like the ice age. The description given to the said age normally gives us an insight into the period of time we are looking at.
For example:
·
The Stone Age was marked by a period in which stone was widely used to make implements.
·
The Bronze Age was an era characterized by the widespread use of bronze.
·
The Iron Age was a stage of time when the dominant toolmaking material was iron.
·
The Ice Age was said to be a time of significantly colder global temperatures that caused glacial expansion across the earth’s surface.
It is the same in Scripture! Ages normally have detail or descriptions attached to them that give us a general overall insight into their location, duration and character.
The Bible sometimes even uses the words “hour” or “day” in a general non-literal sense to describe a time, age or era. But, again, the setting and duration of that period can only be definitely identified by observing the detail that continues throughout that given day. For example: we know that the phrase “the day of salvation” (John 5:25) is not referring to a single 24-hour day because it describes a period of ongoing salvation. Obviously, as long as salvation is happening, the day of salvation still exists. From repeated Scripture, we know that such a period was inaugurated at the beginning of the world/age and will last until the end of the world/age. That is when salvation is concluded.
Equally, when we observe Martha’s statement regarding “the resurrection at the last day” (John 11:24), there are several reasons to relate that to a particular singular day, rather than some ongoing era. First, we note the ongoing distinction between “the last days” (plural), which most informed Bible student correctly relate to the intra-Advent period, and that of “the last day” (singular), relating to the end of time. Second, the detail attributed to “the last day” communicates an event rather than a protracted period – namely “the resurrection.” There is no sense in the name or description of an age of ongoing protracted resurrection. That would be patently illogical and unscriptural. Third, the occasion in view is repeatedly depicted in the Bible as a general instantaneous catching away in the twinkling of an eye. Moreover, the righteous and wicked dead all rise in response to the same sovereign voice at Christ’s climactic return (John 5:28-29). We can therefore determine that this singular day is marked by the resurrection of all the dead.
Scriptural time-references must therefore be examined thoughtfully and meticulously, noting their repeated use, the context they are used in and the specific detail attached to them. Confusion kicks in when the Bible student ignores these. We should view each text from as broad a perspective as possible; namely an objective position, rather than a narrow theological perspective, or subjective position. Mentions must be analyzed in their totality in order to get a good panoramic spiritual vantage point and to arrive at an accurate understanding of the period in view. This is necessary to achieve a safe and accurate understanding of Scripture. You would be shocked how many schools of thought fall apart on these vital basic rules of biblical hermeneutics.