So ever since I read Heb 9:9, it's been on my heart to take a deeper look into the word "age" as it is used in the Bible. I don't mean "age" in the sense of the number of years a person has been alive, but rather I mean "age" as a near synonym to "era".

I did a word search for both "age" and "era" in the ESV, and found no instances of the word "era" anywhere in the ESV Bible, and no applicable instances of the word "age" in the OT. These are the applicable references to the word "age" that I found.

Matt 12:32; 13:39,40,49; 24:3; 28:20
Mark 10:30; 13
Luke 18:30
1 Cor 2:6,7,8; 3:18; 10:11
Gal 1:4
Eph 1:21; 2:7
1 Tim 1:17; 6:17 
Titus 2:12
Heb 6:5; 9:9; 9:26

Before I proceed, I recognize that the relevant Greek word, aion, which is used in most of these passages is not the word I'm studying. Also, that there is another word, kairos, which is used in some of these passages, which might also make for a relevant study. Both Greek words are used in a lot of other passages; I think the above list nonetheless represents a fairly thorough sampling on the topic.

OK, now let's connect the dots. We're going to talk a bit about the temple here. Keep in mind there are two common interpretations of the passages about the temple (as far as I know). First, that the temple in these passages is the second temple (Solomon's temple); this is how I see it, because of the conversation in Matthew 24, because all these books were written before the temple was destroyed, and because it's easy to see that the temple of that time was a representation of the first covenant. The second way of looking at it is that the temple described in these passages is Ezekiel's temple, which was never built; this second interpretation enables us to see ourselves in "this age", and to put "the age to come" in the future, which belief for some reason (I assume by deductive necessity) tends to accompany a method of interpretating Revelation with which I strongly disagree. I further disagree with this second interpretation, in part because of what I read in the section below, labeled "Christ and the end of the age", and in part because of my reasons for agreeing with the first interpretation.

Now, onto what the verses say:

==Two ages==

So we can see from Matt 12:32 and Eph 1:21 (most clearly) that there are two ages in question, "this age and the age to come".  Eph 1:21 tells us that Christ is superior to all others in both ages. 1 Tim 1:17 says that God is the King of the Ages, plural, (both/all ages). There are other verses which I chose to leave out of my list, which talk about past ages, indicating that there may have been more than one age prior to "this age".

==Sin==

 Matt 13, 24, and Mark 13 indicate that at the end of the age, ungodly people will be thrown into hell, and the righteous will be saved.  Matt 12:32 indicates that blasphemy of the HS will not be forgiven in either age, which seems to mean either that it is possible in "the coming age" to blaspheme the HS and not be forgiven for it, or that people who are not forgiven for blaspheming the HS in "this age" will remain in their state of being unforgiven in "the coming age".

==The temple and end of the age==

We see from Matt 13, 24, 28, Mark 13, and Heb 9:26 that "this age" is about to end. Matt 24 indicates that a sign that the end of the age is near will be an abomination in the temple, and that the end of the age will be accompanied by the destruction of the temple.  Heb 9:9 and context says that the temple and OT priestly rites are symbolic for "the present age", and seems to further support a link between the destruction of the temple and the end of the present age.

==Christ and the end of the age==

We read in Heb 9:26 and Gal 1:4 that Christ "came at the end of the age to do X, in order to accomplish Y", where X is "appear on earth and die as sacrifice", and Y is "put away sin and deliver us from the present evil age". I broke it up like that because I think that the cause/effect structure is easily missed in Paul's complex sentences. To paraphrase another way, Christ "came at the end of the age", and "delivered us from the evils of the present age" by "offering himself as a sacrifice". So, I read this as saying that Christ brought about the end of the age by appearing and dying as sacrifice. That means that the age ended back then, and it supports the idea that "this age" is the old covenant (temple) age, and "the age to come" is the new covenant (grace through faith in Jesus).

==Preparation for the end of the age==

We see in (again) Matt 13, 24, and Mark 13, that there will be tribulation at the end of the age. 1 Cor 10:11 says that the punishments on Israel in the OT were warnings to those who were to experience the end of the age, to not fall away when times get tough. Hebrews 6:5 warns that we cannot expect to win back to repentance those who fall away after experiencing all the good things of God. We see in Titus 2:12 that the grace of God sanctifies the elect. 1 Cor 2:6-8, and 3:18 indicate that the wisdom of "this age" is not useful in the age to come, and that we need spiritual wisdom. 1 Tim 6:17 says that wealth from "this age" is unreliable, and that all should depend on God for providence.We read in Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30 that people who have experienced loss in "this time" for the sake of God's name will receive back a hundred fold in this time, with persecution, and eternal life in the age to come.

==The age to come==
Matt 13, 24, Mark 13, Heb 9:26, and Gal 1:4 describe entrance into the age to come, for the elect, as a rescue. Mark 10, and Luke 18:30 tell us that the age to come brings with it eternal life. Eph 2:7 tells us that God raised us up (past tense) with him (Christ, referring to the resurrection), so that in the coming age (future tense) he will show us immeasurable riches of his grace. Finally, Heb 6:5 indicates that some have "tasted the powers of the age to come", which seems to refer to manifestations of the Holy Spirit, identifying that these powers are reflective of the age to come.

-------------------------------------------------

So, based on the sections on the temple and Christ and the end of the age, I find that "this age" refers to the age in which the author and immediate audience lived, that is the age wherein the temple still stood and Jews still made sacrifices there. The Bible repeatedly references the time of Jesus's death and the destruction of the temple by calling it "the end of the age"; and so I feel I have no choice but to conclude that "this age" ended with the destruction of the temple. The advice for preparation for the end of the age seems like good advice for an incoming tribulation, which is the abundantly well documented experience of Christians around the time of the war with Rome. Then, the age to come is the age we live in now (because it doesn't make sense for us to live in "no age", and it makes even less sense for Jesus to have failed in ushering in the age to come).

The implications of this are, in my mind, that the time when Jesus separated the wheat from the chaff has already taken place, and continues to take place now. That means I was wrong about that stuff about Sheol, Gehenna, Death and Abraham's bosom (from before), because that would only have applied to the interim period between Jesus's resurrection and the destruction of the temple. That is to say that if people die and are not Christian, then they go directly to hell. Whereas, eternal life for the elect starts at their second birth. This also implies that a lot more of Revelation has already taken place than what I previously estimated.

Furthermore, it means that "the powers of the age to come", which I have no idea how to interpret unless it means manifestations (gifts) of the Holy Spirit, are active today, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit chooses to manifest Himself, because they are the "powers of" the age we live in now.. I honestly have no idea how that works; maybe it's a study for another day.

Alright, to conclude, I want to point out that this is just an outlet for my thoughts. I'm not a Biblical scholar, and I hold no degrees in Bible stuff. I'm 100% open to the idea that I'm wrong, and there are videos on YouTube of me admitting defeat in debates about scripture to prove it. If I'm wrong, I would love for someone to tell me. In the meantime, I'm going to continue diving in and venting my thoughts wherever I find an outlet, or here.

p.s. on the trinity from before, I thought about it some more, and I think it's worth mentioning that, rather than saying that Jesus is the complete expression of God and meaning that Jesus is the only expression of God, I feel like in light of the Father's Voice (distinct from Jesus) manifesting at Jesus's baptism, it's maybe more accurate to say that the complete expression of God is about Jesus. This, in other words, might be to say that God always talks about himself. That's true of anyone if we say that all expressions reflect the inner character of the expressor...

Anyway, goodnight.

"Samson the Christian"