So much gymnastics are needed to support this claim it's truly head spinning.
In the Galatian letter, Paul, speaking of Christ writes, "Who gave himself for our sins, that He might deliver us
from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father" (
Galatians 1:4).
Of primary importance is the fact that Christ died for "our" [the Jews] sins. Secondly, he died to deliver the saints from the "present age." Third, the apostle describes the present age as "evil."
First, if the "present age" Paul is referencing in the Galatians letter above is the Christian age, as you allege, then it is the age ushered in by Christ's death and resurrection. The present age would find its beginning on Pentecost and belong to the gospel dispensation. If the present age is the Christian age, then Christ died to deliver the saints from the age which he came to establish.
Further, this means that the age which Christ came to establish (the Christian age) was n
o more effective than the Jewish age in which men previously lived.
Paul writes, "Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not. For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law" (
Galatians 3:21).
So, life could not be achieved in the Jewish age, hence the need to deliver the Jews from it (
Romans 7:6).
However, since it is argued by you that life is likewise not achieved in the Christian age, then Paul should likewise have written the following: Is the gospel then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a gospel given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the gospel.
According to you, they were in the gospel age. According to Paul, they were yet through the Spirit eagerly awaiting the hope of righteousness (
Galatians 5:5). Therefore, there was no advantage of the gospel (Christian age) over the law with respect to achieving the hope of life/righteousness.
Secondly, it means
that Christ died to deliver the church from an age which did not then exist at the time of his death. As a matter of fact, not even the church existed. Christ had to die to bring the church into existence. Then he had to create an age in which to place the church so he could immediately begin to deliver them out of it! He allegedly takes them out of the Jewish age at his death, only to place them in an age from which they yet must be delivered. No doubt this was a great tribulation for the church. All that slinging around and movement from age to age made them quite dizzy to say the least!
A further complication to this matter is the fact that Christ taught through inspiration that their deliverance from the "present age" was "at hand" and "coming in a little while" (
James 5:7-9;
Hebrews 10:37). This must be the case since deliverance from the age is accomplished at the return of Christ. However since the traditionalist futuristic viewpoint alleges that these time statements are "elastic" and "relative," then Christ was merely "pulling their leg" with those "I come quickly" rubberband time statements. Generations have come and gone and are still going and going like the Duracell battery and yet there is no deliverance from the "present evil age."
A more ridiculous picture of scripture trifling and chicanery could not be made of the redemptive-historic, glorious work of Christ. Consider this scenario. A bodyshop repairman offers to replace your broken windshield. The only problem is that the windshield is not broken. Advising the repairman of this fact, he then responds by smashing the windshield with a hammer and saying, "It is now"!
This corresponds somewhat with the plight of the new covenant saints. Christ died, per the traditionalists, and ended the law (Jewish age) at the cross. Therefore, on their terms, no one was in it. According to Galatians, Christ also died to deliver them from the present evil age, an age which he had to create, place the saints into, then like the repairman above, offer to deliver them out of it. Would it not have been easier for the repairman never to have broken the windshield? Would it also not have been easier for Christ never to have made an evil age age from which the saints immediately needed deliverance?
A third problem in making the "present age" of scripture to be the Christian age, is the absurdity it makes of the defection of Demas. "For Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present age, and has departed for Thessalonica-Crescens for Galatia, Titus for Dalmatia," (
2 Timothy 4:10).
What was so evil about the "present age" (if in fact it is the Christian age) that loving it can be termed as apostasy? Is Christ the minister of Sin? God Forbid!
If Demas forsook Paul for the present age (alleged Christian age) then in what age did that leave Paul? Not the Jewish age if it passed away at the cross. Not the "age to come," since it is argued to be yet future.
I would be keen to see your gymnastic explanation of this.
Can we attribute the present age to which Demas apostatized as the age which Christ came to establish? Does not this passage show clearly that the gospel which Paul held firmly till his death (
2 Timothy 4:6-8) did not belong to the "present age" of scripture?
How can you have the Gospel NOT BELONGING to eh Gospel Age?
And What a bind we all are in today if loving the Gospel, and therefore the Gospel age, is apostasy.
Fourth, if the "present age" is the gospel dispensation, then the apostles did not speak the wisdom that belonged to the gospel age. "However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing" (
1 Corinthians 2:6). Not only could they not speak the wisdom of this age, but God apparently gave the authority to the gospel age to some other than the apostles.
Who are these "rulers" of "this age"? Paul clearly identifies them as those who in ignorance crucified the Lord of glory. Compare this with Peter's words in Acts. "Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers" (Acts 3:17). See also v.14. Peter calls those who crucified the Lord of glory his Jewish brethren and their rulers. These are the Jews. The rulers were none other than the chief priests, elders, and sanhedrin council. Did Christ die to deliver the Jews from the law, only to create a new age subjecting it to the law-zealous rulers of the old age? Perhaps now we can understand why Judaism was such a problem in the church.
God cut off the Jewish age at the cross only to make the Jewish rulers who crucified Christ the rulers of the gospel age!
Is the absurdity of your view becoming clear?
Now how can any man believe that these Jewish rulers who crucified Christ were rulers of the Christian age? They were yet ruling the age at the time of Paul's writing for he says they were coming to nothing. I suppose they would come to nothing when their age no longer existed. They would no longer have any realm in which to rule. If the Jewish age ended at the cross, why are they yet ruling the age?
Apparently there was quite a conflict, for Paul and the church wrestled with these rulers. "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (
Ephesians 6:12).
"This age" is characterized as both "evil" and "darkness." That does not sound like the age Christ came to establish. Such is the self-contradictory and unwarranted consequences of making the "present age" of scripture the Christian age.