Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Eternity, in the sense of the antithesis of time, infinity without beginning and end, an ever changeless sphere outside of time and the material world, is a solely philosophical concept without biblical reference; there are different opinions what eternity actually is, which further supports my point of view. It is a solely philosophical term and therefore ambiguous. To build a doctrine as eternal punishment on such an ambiguous term, demands an authoritative definition what eternity is and what eternal precisely means; the bible does not provide such definition, but warns of the vain philosophy of men:
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Colossians 2:8, KJV
The biblical terms in question are the Hebrew noun olam which has no adjectiveand the Greeknoun aiõn and its adjective aiõnios, I will render both olam and aiõn in the anglicized version æon;and aiõnios as æonian.
The first occurrences of olam in the bible:
Genesis 3:22, KJV
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever (lit. for æon).
Genesis 6:3.4, KJV
And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always (lit. for æon) strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old (lit. from æon), men of renown.
Genesis 9:12, KJV
And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual (lit. of æon) generations.
Genesis 9:16, KJV
And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting (lit. of æon) covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
Genesis 13:15, KJV
For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever (lit. for æon).
Genesis 17:7.8, KJV
And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting (lit. of æon) covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting (lit. of æon) possession; and I will be their God.
Genesis 21:33, KJV
And Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting (lit. of æon) God.
Genesis 49:26, KJV
The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting (lit. of æon) hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.
From the use of olam in Gen. 21:33 is argued it means eternal because it is applied to God, but this arguments holds no water; in Gen. 6:4 it is applied to a past perpetuity that can be no longer then from the time of Noah back to the creation of the world, which was surely no eternity. In Gen. 9:12 it is properly rendered perpetual, as everlasting generations would demand everlasting procreation which is not scriptural. The everlasting covenant (17:7) belongs to their generations, so we have no reason to understand this covenant to be eternal. The land of Canaan (17:8) will no longer exist after the dissolution of the present world (2Peter 3:10), it therefore cannot be actually everlasting or eternal in the sense of endless; neither the everlasting hills (49:26).
We have seen that the word olam cannot intrinsically denote eternity, the KJV translates it as for ever, always, of old, perpetual, everlasting in the shown occurrences. Though the things to which this term is applied are neither everlasting nor eternal. Both God and the hills are denoted with the very same word, but while the Godof æon has neither beginning nor end, the hills of æon have both beginning and end.
Aiõn, the Greek equivalent of olam
The Hebrew bible has been translated into Greek about 250 years before Christ, this translation is called Septuagint; the word that was chosen to render olam was aiõn.
In Genesis 3:22 and 6:3 we find the rendering eis ton aiõna (lit. into theæon), in Gen. 6:4 ap aiõnos (lit. from æon), to understand this as from eternity would be ridiculous. In Gen. 13:15 it is rendered eõs tou aiõnos (lit. unto the æon) which implies a finite period; in 9:12; 9:16; 17:7.8, 21:33; 49:26 the adjective aiõnios (æonian) is used,
Adherents of eternal punishment agree that aiõn can mean a finite period of time, in these cases the KJV commonly translates world in the New Testament; but insist that it can and must also mean eternity, especially in the form eis ton aiõna, which I will investigate later.
The adjective aiõnios allegedly has only but one meaning – eternal
In the examined verses we find:
· æonian generations (geneas aiõnious) in Gen. 9:12
· æonian covenant in Gen. 9:16 and 17:7
· æonian possession in Gen. 17:8
· æonian God in Gen. 21:33
· æonian hills (thinõn aiõniõn) in Gen. 49:26
If we judge only from this occurrences aiõnios may have these meanings:
· without beginning and end, i.e. eternal, this applies only to God
· with beginning but without end, i.e. everlasting, this might apply to God’s covenant
· With beginning and end, merely age lasting, or perpetual, continuous, enduring, this applies to the generations, the hills and the possession of Canaan.
I should add in this context that the translators of the Septuagint knew according to Psalm 102:25.26 that these hills and the possession of Canaan can’t be everlasting when they chose the term aiõnios to render olam
The last supposed meaning already challenges the traditionalists’ position. It is now necessary to consider the claims from the traditionalist theologians what aiõnios is supposed to mean and the authorities they claim (i.e. Plato) to judge in this matter.
Strong gives 3 definitions (Strong number 166):
without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be
without beginning
without end, never to cease, everlasting
In fact he gives only two definitions, a philosophical eternity without beginning and end, changeless and ever the same; and that which has a beginning in time but endures endlessly.
I wonder how that applies to the hills of Genesis 49:26; but I will proof this definition wrong from the inspired writings.
Romans 16:25.26, Green’s Literal Translation
Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel, and the proclaiming of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery having been kept unvoiced during eternal times (Gr. chronois aiõniois), but now has been made plain, and by prophetic Scriptures, according to the commandment of the everlasting God (Gr. aiõniou theou), made known for obedience of faith to all the nations.
It seems J.P. Green was an honest translator, but eternal times is a contradiction in terms as hot ice would be, but more of importance, these eternal times had an end. Again the finite times are likewise called eternal as God, while I do not question God’s eternity I question if that is expressed by the term aiõnios and if it even need to be expressed at all; and if not the apostle Paul wanted to tell us something different, when He called the infinite God aiõnios, just as he called the finite times also aiõnios.
Titus 1:2, Green’s Literal Translation
…on hope of eternal life (Gr. zõês aiõniou) which the God who does not lie promised before the eternal times (Gr. pro chronõn aiõniõn) …
Before eternal times (also 2 Timothy 1:9), I see no need to say anything further to show that Strong’s definition is false, I think it is fair to say that Strong has his definition of aiõnios not from the bible but rather from Plato and other heathen philosophers.
I could basically stop here; to prove that aiõnios is used in the sense of a finite perpetuity in the New Testament and may have two entirely different meanings in even one and the same sentence is more than enough to defend the restorationist’s view, due to this fact endless punishment cannot be proven from the bible. But I will continue.
Aiõn and aiõnios in the Greek philosophers
The idea of eternity developed quite late in the history of mankind according to various sources, we maybe find the idea first in the writings of Plato who lived about 400 years before Christ and in Aristotle; Philo Judæus, an Alexandrian Jewish Philosopher, contemporary with Christ, is further claimed as authority by some adherents of eternal punishment.
I will begin with Plato’s use of aiõn:
And when the Father that engendered it perceived it in motion and alive, a thing of joy to the eternal gods (aidiõn theõn), He too rejoiced; and being well-pleased He designed to make it resemble its Model still more closely. Accordingly, seeing that that Model is an eternal Living Creature (zõon aidion on), He set about making this Universe, so far as He could, of a like kind. But inasmuch as the nature of the Living Creature was æonian, this quality it was impossible to attach in its entirety to what is generated; wherefore He planned to make a movable image of Eternity (aiõnos), and, as He set in order the Heaven, of that Eternity (aiõnos) which abides in unity He made an æonianimage, moving according to number, even that which we have named Time (chronos). (Plato, Timaeus 37c, d)
Time, then, came into existence along with the Heaven, to the end that having been generated together they might also be dissolved together, if ever a dissolution of them should take place; and it was made after the pattern of the Eternal (diaiõnias) Nature, to the end that it might be as like thereto as possible; for whereas the pattern is existent through all eternity (panta aiõna), the copy, on the other hand, is through all time, continually having existed, existing, and being about to exist. (Plato, Timaeus 38)
When speaking about the gods, Plato employs the Greek word aidios (everlasting, eternal), in one sentence he seems to use aiõnios synonymous, though what he wants to express I cannot conceive. He uses aiõn in a very abstract sense, time he calls an æonianimage of that “eternity”, later he says “time, then, came into existence along with the Heaven”, this æonianimage at least had a beginning; Plato continues to say “that having been generated together they might also be dissolved together”.
Now if time, the æonianimage of Plato’s abstract æon, came into existence with the heaven and might dissolve together with the heaven, this image cannot be eternal for it had a definite beginning; and if it will dissolve and cease with the dissolution of the heaven which Plato seems to consider being possible, it cannot be everlasting or endless. Thus Plato could not have understand aiõnios to mean intrinsically everlasting or endless, when he applied it to something that according to his words had a definite beginning and may have an end.
Whatever Plato understood with æon I am not able to conceive, a German author writes: “The idea of an unchangeable and timeless condition was first put inside the term aiõn by Plato as a philosophically caused step for the distinction with chronos (i.e. time), as the moving image of the Platonic archetypes (theory of forms or ideas), as seen e.g. in Plato’s Timaeus. Aiõn in Plato is an artificial term of a pure realm of ideas without relation to the common language of that age.”
I will now turn to Aristotle’s use of aiõn (On the heavens, Book I, Chapter 9):
Hence whatever is there, is of such a nature as not to occupy any place, nor does time age it; nor is there any change in any of the things which lie beyond the outermost motion; they continue through their entire duration [aiõn] unalterable and unmodified, living the best and most selfsufficient of lives. As a matter of fact, this word ‘duration’ [aiõn] possessed a divine significance for the ancients, for the fulfilment which includes the period of life of any creature, outside of which no natural development can fall, has been called its duration [aiõn]. On the same principle the fulfilment of the whole heaven, the fulfillment which includes all time and infinity, is ‘duration’ [aiõn] - a name based upon the fact that it is always-duration [aei einai] immortal and divine. From it derive the being and life which other things, some more or less articulately but others feebly, enjoy. So, too, in its discussions concerning the divine, popular philosophy often propounds the view that whatever is divine, whatever is primary and supreme, is necessarily unchangeable.
It seems that Aristotle may have understood by aiõn the “life” or “course of existence” of the entire universe; he may have not defined a philosophical eternity, but explained the cosmic, everlasting and divine æon of the entire universe (i.e. its life or existence) this makes good sense to me as he called “the fulfilment which includes the period of life of any creature, outside of which no natural development can fall” it’s æon – in this sense æon might be called the “everlastingness” of persons or things within their natural boundaries, they last as ever they last; not to eternity but for ever within its own limit. For example an animal life; an animal life is the everlastingness of an animal, as it lasts for ever it lives, but at death its everlastingness is simply over.
I will now consider the witness of Philo from Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher contemporary with Christ:
But God is the creator of time also; for he is the father of its father, and the father of time is the world, which made its own mother the creation of time, so that time stands towards God in the relation of a grandson; for this world is a younger son of God, inasmuch as it is perceptible by the outward sense; for the only son he speaks of as older than the world, is idea, and this is not perceptible by the intellect; but having thought the other worthy of the rights of primogeniture, he has decided that it shall remain with him; therefore, this younger son, perceptible by the external senses being set in motion, has caused the nature of time to shine forth, and to become conspicuous, so that there is nothing future to God, who has the very boundaries of time subject to him; for their life is not time, but the beautiful model of time, eternity (æon); and in eternity (æon) nothing is past and nothing is future, but everything is present only. (Philo, On the unchangeableness of God)
Now this leaves us with no doubt that he understood with æon a philosophical eternity at least as one of its meanings. However the fact that Philo was a Jew and contemporary with Christ is no proof that the Jews in general or Christ and the apostles used æon in this philosophical meaning derived from the writings of Plato.
Further, this sense of eternity as found here, has nothing to do with duration at all, but seems to express a sphere of existence outside time, eternal punishment in this sense needn't mean endless punishment; for things that belong to time are temporal, however they do not last throughout all time but merely pertain to time; in like manner might eternal mean merely pertaining to eternity - the divine realm outside time, but not necessarily lasting throughout all eternity, i.e. without beginning and end.
In fact Philo is said to have used the very same words as Christ did in Matthew 25:46, rendered everlasting punishment there in the KJV, Greek kolasin aiõnion; the passage in Philo is:
It is better absolutely never to make any promise at all than not to assist another willingly, for no blame attaches to the one, but great dislike on the part of those who are less powerful, and intense hatred and long enduring punishment [kolasin aiõnion] from those who are more powerful, is the result of the other line of conduct. (Philo, Fragments)
“Given the context of Philo’s passage, the length of the punishment would be a few years to about a decade.” I was not able to confirm whether Philo actually employed these Greek words in this context due the lack of a Greek text of that fragment.
However I was able to confirm that Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian contemporary with Christ used aiõnios in a likely limited sense:
Many also of those that had been put in prison by the tyrants were now brought out; for they did not leave off their barbarous cruelty at the very last: yet did God avenge himself upon them both, in a manner agreeable to justice. As for John, he wanted food, together with his brethren, in these caverns, and begged that the Romans would now give him their right hand for his security, which he had often proudly rejected before; but for Simon, he struggled hard with the distress he was in, fill he was forced to surrender himself, as we shall relate hereafter; so he was reserved for the triumph, and to be then slain; as was John condemned to perpetual imprisonment [desmois aiõniois]. And now the Romans set fire to the extreme parts of the city, and burnt them down, and entirely demolished its walls. (Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 6, Section 434)
Given the context, æonian imprisonment, inflicted from the secular Roman power can in no way mean everlasting or endless imprisonment as the Pharisees taught concerning the afterlife according to Josephus; it can mean at most for lifetime – maybe he was even referring to the many “that had been put in prison by the tyrants” and “were now brought out”, then this æonian punishment would have already been over when he wrote about.
Concerning the Pharisees’ belief:
They also believe that souls have an immortal [athanatos] rigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments [dikaiõseis], according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison [eirgmon aidion] but that the former shall have power to revive and live again. (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Section 12)
Interestingly when he speaks about the postmortem imprisonment of certain souls in the netherworld, according to the Pharisees’ doctrine, he employs aidios instead of aiõnios, when he spoke about John’s earthly and temporal imprisonment.
The last author writing in Greek whom I will consider is John of Damascus, a church writer of the 7th century; some call him the last of the Greek fathers.
He wrote (DE FIDE ORTHODOXA, Book 2, Chapter 1):
It must then be understood that the word æon has various meanings, for it denotes many things.
o The life of each man is called an æon
o Again, a period of a thousand years is called an æon
o Again, the whole course of the present life is called an æon
o Also the future life, the immortal life after the resurrection, is spoken of as an æon
o Again, the word æon is used to denote, not time nor yet a part of time as measured by the movement and course of the sun, that is to say, composed of days and nights, but the sort of temporal motion and interval that is co-extensive with the eternals (aidiois); for æon is to things eternal (aidiois) just what time is to things temporal
The last definition is again the philosophical eternity of Plato; “in Plato the term is developed so as to represent a timeless, immeasurable and transcendent super-time, an idea of time in itself. Plutarch and the earlier Stoics appropriate this understanding, and from it the Mysteries of Æon, the god of eternity, could be celebrated in Alexandria, and Gnosticism could undertake its own speculations on time.” The other definitions of æon correspond well with the restorationist’s position.
John of Damascus also explains the mysterious and difficult expression “ages of ages”, commonly rendered “for ever and ever” (e.g. Revelation 14:10), he defined it thus:
But we speak also of æons of æons, inasmuch as the seven æons of the present world include many æons in the sense of lives of men, and the one æon embraces all the æons, and the present and the future are spoken of as æon of æon.
He seems to understand with ages of ages (or æons of æons) all lives of men of the present world; this has to be a finite period, for he says:
Seven æons of this world are spoken of, that is, from the creation of the heaven and earth till the general consummation and resurrection of men. For there is a partial consummation, i.e. the death of each man: but there is also a general and complete consummation, when the general resurrection of men will come to pass. And the eighth æon is the æon to come.
As the ages of ages, i.e. all lives of men of the present world, belong to the seven temporal æons of the present world, prior to the eighth and final æon, the phrase ages of ages, a Hebrew idiom, cannot intrinsically denote infinity, at least he did not understand it this way, though he was an adherent of everlasting punishment.
I think I have dealt enough now with the philosophers and their imaginations, in ancient classical Greek, aiõn seems to have primarily meant lifetime:
The Greek word aiõn, which is probably derived from aei, always, is distinguished from its Indo-European parallels (Lat. aevum and Eng. aye are cognate) in that it is thought of not so much from the point of view of an abstract period of time as from the point of view of the time in which one has lived. In Homer aiõn is often parallel with psyche, soul, life (e.g. Il. 16, 453); in Hesiod (Frag. 161, 1) it denotes a life-span, and in Aeschylus (Sept. 742) a generation. Thence it can mean the time which one has already lived or will live, i.e. it can relate to past as to future. It thus appeared appropriate to later philosophers to use the word both for the dim and distant past, the beginning of the world, and for the far future, eternity (e.g. Plato, Tim. 37d).
Moulton and Milligan, who made a New Testament dictionary contend that the Sanskrit ay-u, to which aiõn is related, contains the idea of life and long life.
Further examples for the finite use of aiõnios
As already shown, aiõnios seems to first appear in Plato and many dictionaries give only one definition, i.e. endlessness, which falsity I have already shown. I will show now several evident instances from the Septuagint and extra biblical writings were aiõnios was used in a temporal sense.
Leviticus 25:33.34, Translation by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton
And if any one shall redeem a house of the Levites, then shall their sale of the houses of their possession go out in the release; because the houses of the cities of the Levites are their possession in the midst of the children of Israel. And the lands set apart for their cities shall not be sold, because this is their perpetual [aiõnios] possession.
A philosophical eternity could hardly have been in view here, but perpetuity within its natural boundaries.
Numbers 10:8, New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS)
And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall trumpet with the trumpets, and it shall be a perpetual [aiõnios] precept for your generations.
Though speaking of divine law, it refers to Aaron and his posterity; a philosophical eternity could not have been in view here also. This is only one example of many.
And they remain as sheep everlasting [aiõnios], and their children play before them, taking up the psaltery and harp, and they are gladdened at the sound of a psalm. And they complete with good things their existence, and in the rest of Hades they go to sleep.
Job is speaking about the impious here! (Job 21:7); that they “remain as sheep everlasting” can only refer to their lifetime as the context plainly shows, “they complete their existence”, aiõnios can therefore only be understood in a finite sense here.
Jeremiah 20:17, NETS
…because he did not kill me in the womb, and my mother became my grave and the womb one of perpetual [aiõnios] conception.
To understand æonian conception or pregnancy as eternal or everlasting pregnancy would be strange and unnatural, lifetime or indefinite continuance only can have been in the mind of the ancient translator.
Proverbs 22:28, Translation by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton
Remove not the old [aiõnios] landmarks, which thy fathers placed.
Again perpetuity within its natural boundaries was in view, not ceaseless infinity.
And he remembered everlasting days [êmerõn aiõniõn], the bringing up from the land; the shepherd of the sheep.
May the reader judge for himself whether there can be something like “eternal years” or “eternal days” and if it can be true what the adherents of everlasting torment claim aiõnios solely to mean? – Are there days or years “without beginning, without end, never to cease, everlasting”, ever the same for all foretime and to all futurity?
And they shall build up wildernesses everlasting [erêmous aiõnias], being made desolate prior. They shall rise up and revive cities of wildernesses, having been made desolate for generations.
Wildernesses æonian, are equalized with generations here; and they shall be restored.
Isaiah 54:4 (NETS)
Do not fear because you were put to shame, neither feel disgraced because you were reproached, because you will forget your ancient shame [aischynên aiõnion] and the reproach of your widowhood you will not remember.
The Hebrew word that has been rendered with æonian is awlum (Strong’s Number - 05934), of youth; of youth hardly resembles eternity.
Ancient, or æonian shame [aischynên aiõnion] is the very same expression as in Daniel 12:2 in the Septuagint, yet it is said here that such æonian shame shall be forgotten.
Daniel 12:2, C. L. Brenton
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life [zõên aiõnion], and some to reproach and everlasting shame [aischynên aiõnion].
Zõên aiõnion, is the same expression as throughout the New Testament, it is also found in the preserved Greek text of the pseudepigraphal book of Enoch
Enoch 10:10, R. H. Charles’ translation (from the Ethiopic)
And no request that they make of thee shall be granted unto their fathers on their behalf; for they hope to live an eternal life [zõên aiõnion], and that each one of them will live five hundred years [etê pentakosia].
“Eternal” or æonian life is equalized here with 500 years; this is far from being eternal.
I will show now an example from extra biblical and non philosophical Greek use:
Diodorus Siculus, Library, Book 17, Chapter 71
The second wall is in all other respects like the first but of twice the height. The third circuit is rectangular in plan, and is sixty cubits in height, built of a stone hard and naturally durable [aiõnias].
It may be rendered “a stone of æonian continuance“ (diamonên aiõnias), I think it is fair to say that to understand “a stone of everlasting permanence” is a rather unnatural understanding and seems not have been the thought of the author.
Here we have seen the term aiõniosused in a very mundane sense, totally opposed to the philosophers’ fancy ideas. Plato uses indeed aiõnios in a very strange sense:
Thus: - Since our King saw that all actions involve soul, and contain much good and much evil, and that body and soul are, when generated, indestructible [anõlethron] but not eternal [all ouk aiõnion], as are the gods ordained by law (for if either soul or body had been destroyed, there would never have been generation of living creatures), and since He perceived that all soul that is good naturally tends always to benefit, but the bad to injure,—observing all this, He designed a location for each of the parts, wherein it might secure the victory of goodness in the Whole and the defeat of evil most completely, easily, and well.
The Universalist Dr. John Wesley Hanson concludes that Plato understood aiõnios here in a limited sense,
Again, he speaks of that which is indestructible (anõlethros), and not aiõnios. He places the two words in contrast, whereas, had he intended to use aiõnios as meaning endless, he would have said indestructible and aiõnios.
Here however Hanson is in error; “eternal” in its philosophical sense means not merely endless time or duration, but that which is above time and belongs to another sphere; Plato, or the better to say the Athenian in his dialog said here that a soul, though it is indestructible and therefore most likely everlasting is not “eternal”, i.e. belonging to the divine æon/eternity outside of time and the sphere of the mortals, though it may exist forevermore.
Concerning Plato’s use I agree here with the bible scholar and Universalist William Barclay, who wrote:
Second, one of the key passages is Matthew 25:46 where it is said that the rejected go away to eternal punishment, and the righteous to eternal life. The Greek word for punishment is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment. The word for eternal is aiõnios. It means more than everlasting, for Plato - who may have invented the word - plainly says that a thing may be everlasting and still not be aiõnios. The simplest way to out it is that aiõnios cannot be used properly of anyone but God; it is the word uniquely, as Plato saw it, of God. Eternal punishment is then literally that kind of remedial punishment which it befits God to give and which only God can give.
I do however not agree that the Platonic meaning was the general and biblical meaning of the term in question. However, even if the Platonic meaning were the biblical meaning, this would not by necessity contradict the restorationists’ view.
Plato lived in the 4th century BC as far as I know, Diodorus Siculus in the first BC, Diodorus was a historian and Greek his mother tongue, I suppose a man learned like him would not have used a common word in a totally different sense than it had usually and I further suppose he was aware of the Platonic meaning of the term. Now when he called a stone æonian, when he spoke about the walls of Persian buildings, he could not have understood such stones as to pertain to a philosophical eternity, he also hardly meant they were everlasting, i.e. existing within time for evermore. I suppose most of this building with the æonian stones exist no longer.
I think this supports the restorationists’ position very strongly, if a learned native Greek writer, three centuries after Plato and one prior to Christ, without either philosophical or theological bias used aiõnios in a limited sense then this should confirm that this was one, if not the only common meaning this word had.
My conclusion
Now I think I have shown in many instances and examples that the Greek word aiõnios has been used by various writers, the ancient Jewish translators of the Hebrew bible, the authors or translators of the pseudepigraphal Book of Enoch, the Jews Flavius Josephus and Philo, both contemporary with Christ, Greek writers and the apostle Paul; in a finite sense. Does this not shake the position of the adherents of everlasting torment, that claim aiõnios has only but one meaning?
If now aiõnios may have many meanings, and only one of this is endless, if even at all; and if aiõnios may have been used in an antithetic sense in even one and the same sentence in the bible in various instances (Romans 16:25.26, 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2), what reason is there left to claim that Christ meant endless punishment in Matthew 25:46? - And is it even valid to suggest that if both life and chastisement are called aiõnios, - just as past times and God are, that they must endure for the same length, and if the one is finite so has the other to be; or if the one is infinite so the other has to be?
I would suggest rendering aiõnios with lasting, enduring; or perpetual, as it has been done in many instances in the Septuagint translations.
This would lead us to following possible translation of Matthew 25:46:
Then they will go away to long enduring chastisement [kolasin aiõnion],
But the righteous to lasting life [zõênaiõnion].
Now this rendering may be offensive for the one or another, but for what reason?
Both phrases have been used in a finite sense as shown (kolasin aiõnion in Philo, Fragments; zõênaiõnion in Enoch 10:10), not that I say that the life of the believer is finite, it may be limited by the will of God, just as the punishment may be and everything else, but the will of God is that nobody perishes, so lasting life may be for evermore but long enduring punishment merely until it has served its purpose.
Then they will go away to long enduring chastisement [kolasin aiõnion],
But the righteous to lasting life [zõênaiõnion].
Now this rendering may be offensive for the one or another, but for what reason?
Both phrases have been used in a finite sense as shown (kolasin aiõnion in Philo, Fragments; zõênaiõnion in Enoch 10:10), not that I say that the life of the believer is finite, it may be limited by the will of God, just as the punishment may be and everything else, but the will of God is that nobody perishes, so lasting life may be for evermore but long enduring punishment merely until it has served its purpose.
Dear SvenM, the first sentence in the quote above is not about the believer as he stated here: "not that I say that the life of the believer is finite" because the judgment scene in Matthew 25:31-46 is not concerning if the nations believed Christ died for them or not but is solely concerning their treatment of His brethren.
The life the good nation gets to enjoy for treating Christ's brethren well during their great tribulation is a life of kingdom blessings.
Both the chastening and blessings the nations get are of the same duration. They are both aionion or pertaining to the aion.
svenM.....great post....Im new here....so HI ALL!!!
svenM....when you posted that ....
Quote:
If we judge only from this occurrences aiõnios may have these meanings:
· without beginning and end, i.e. eternal, this applies only to God
....this is the only thing I question. 'Aionios' should have the same meaning throughout. As pertaining to God Himself it simply should be "God of the ages".
I cannot seem to copy/paste from Word into here....I was trying to post a certain thread I had with someone so as to explain myself a little better. I guess I will have to read up on the posting rules here. Until then ....Good Day All!!!
I cannot seem to copy/paste from Word into here....I was trying to post a certain thread I had with someone so as to explain myself a little better. I guess I will have to read up on the posting rules here. Until then ....Good Day All!!!
Hi joallcomm,
Welcome to CD forum.
In the past I have been able to copy and paste from word to here .... so I am unsure why you can not do it
meeRkat2....Ya me neither. When I post it, it shows all the text fine, but it also shows things like [New Times Roman] and [Text Size...] at the beginning of just about every line. Is there a 'text' field I need to turn off or something?
AnyHoo......THANK YOU FOR THE WELCOME!!! Take care
meeRkat2....Ya me neither. When I post it, it shows all the text fine, but it also shows things like [New Times Roman] and [Text Size...] at the beginning of just about every line. Is there a 'text' field I need to turn off or something?
AnyHoo......THANK YOU FOR THE WELCOME!!! Take care
I have heard of problems like that .... maybe if you save it as a txt file it would copy ok?
Here is a conversation between me and someone I will call E___ on the subject of 'aion' and 'aionian God'. Feel free to critique.
E____ Wrote:
By the way, I looked up the word "aion", and "aion" doesn't actually mean "has an end". It means "indeterminate period of time", including time periods which have ends and time periods which do not have ends. While the KJV did butcher the translation of the word "aion", their butchery does demonstrate that "aion" can mean eternity.
An example would be that the KJV's translation "eternal God" is actually "aionian God". If the proper translation of "aion" *always* meant "a time period with an end", then the correct translation would be "a God who exists for a finite period and then ends." And in fact if "aion" always meant "time period with an end", this would mean that not even the Bible could be used to prove that God is "forever", because the consistent word used to describe God is "aionian God", or "God who will end someday."
Thus "aion" has two meanings, depending on the *context*. If we are referring to a mortal person, then clearly "aion" carries the "time period with an end" definition. A commonly known example would be the correct translation of the "Jonah in the whale" story: he was there for an "aion" which lasted three days, an "aion" which is a "time period with an end."
And if we are referring to "a being who is considered to be 'without end'", then "aionian God" does not refer to "finite God who will end someday", we are using "aion" in its "eternal" sense.
So who is Jesus? Jesus is a "being who is considered to be 'without end'". How long is the rule of a being who is "without end"? An "Aion", and since the context is that of an immortal being, "Aion" in this instance means "eternity."
Jesus, in the "second age" rules for an "aion". Jesus is an immortal being, hence his "aion" translates correctly as "eternity".
And thus blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is *never* forgiven.
Trying to say that "aion" always means "time period with an end" is to engage in the same kinds of translation tomfoolery used by the translators of the KJV: translating "aion" into whatever word you feel meets your preconceived notions about what the Bible really says. When it really does mean "eternal", you ignore that translation so that you can claim that "aion" means "time period with an end" so that you can justify the idea that hell (in any of its many original Greek words) isn't eternal, despite being ruled over by "the Lamb" (an *immortal* being and also an "aionian" being) for an "aion".
Take your own Bible's advice, as in Matthew 7:5 "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
There's also the point that the Hebrew word "olam" was also context-specific and could mean eternal.
Case in point: Genesis 21:33 "And Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting God."
The original Hebrew would have been directly translated, in the correct order, as "God everlasting", and the Hebrew words used were "El Olam." If we were to use what is often claimed, that "olam" *always* meant "of limited duration", then Genesis 21:33 would translate as "...the name of the LORD, the God of limited duration."
Since no Jew or Christian would possibly agree with that translation as a description of their God, it follows that olam, like aion, is context-sensitive and not always defined as "period of limited duration."
And as if to illustrate my points, the Septuagint translates "olam" in the "El Olam" usage in Genesis 21:33 *not* using the Greek word aidios (a word translated even by Christian Universalism as "eternal" because it is only used twice in the NT and then only in the context of God), but rather as: [ho] theos [ho] aiônios.
Clearly even the Greek translation occasionally refers to "aion" as "everlasting", or its synonyms "forever" and "eternal". The passage specifically refers to God, and as such "aion" can mean "eternal."
And thus one cannot simply, baldfacedly claim that "aion" *never* refers to "eternal", "everlasting", and/or "eternal". One cannot also simply, baldfacedly claim that any given use of the word "aion" can be translated as "period of limited duration" just because it fits your preconceived notion of a "limited duration hell", "limited duration reign of Christ", or "limited duration period of time in which blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."
JoeAllcomm Wrote:
On Eternal God……I guess I am going to have to, as you say ‘boldfacedly’, claim that the ‘adjective’ of ‘aion’ here, still does NOT mean ‘eternity’. The laws of grammar do not allow it. An adjective CANNOT have a stronger meaning than it’s noun. Hence the noun HOUR cannot have the adjective YEARLY, it must still pertain to only an HOUR (hourly). The adjective “aionian” simply means pertaining to or belonging to the ‘aion(s)’ as an adjective should. So ‘aionian God’ simply means what it says in its context “age-abiding God”, in its adjective form of “God of the aions”.
So, question, scripture also says that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but does that mean he is not OUR God? What I mean is: If “aionian God” means “eternal God”, are we supposed to claim, in the OTHER over 2,300 times that the word “God” is NOT preceded by “aionian”, that God is NOT eternal then?
The first recording of an “aionian God” is in Gen 21:33. I roughly count 10 times (from the Creation to Gen 21) that Man had actually spoke, with his/her own mouth, and just said the word “GOD” (in their language of course). Are you telling me that God was NOT eternal to them, because they didn’t say “Oh Eternal God” or “Oh aionian God”? Are you telling me that when someone says the word “GOD” to you, you actually think He is NOT eternal, unless they say “Eternal God”? No you do not! I and You derive “eternity” from God himself. Nobody has to tell us He is eternal.
In the context, as you say, as to ‘why’ he is called the “aionian God” (hence God of the aions) is because He had just got done given Abraham an “aionian” (age-abiding) covenant and possession (Gen 17:7+8, 17:19), which were NOT eternal (thee and thy seed after thee). Not to mention that God, who Himself knew was it was NOT an eternal covenant, called it an “aionian covenant” (or rather covenant for the ages). And after ALL this, you are surprised to hear Abraham calling Him the “aionian God”? Abraham was just calling Him “God of the ages” of the covenant he had just been promised. Or he could be calling Him the “God of ALL ages”.
The reason I say this is because EVERY time God is called an “aionian God”, the context of the script is talking about “aions”. Here in Gen 21, Abraham is now living in the land of the Philistines (Gen 20:15), and a part of Gods “aionian convenant” was that he would be given the land that he (Abraham) is a stranger in (Gen 17:8). In chapters 20 and 21, he is given ‘possession’ of sheep, oxen, menservants, womenservants, thousand pieces of silver, and land; and now has a son (thy seed) and he had just made a covenant with Abimilech for a well the Abraham himself had dug, on someone else’s ‘land’.
And you don’t think that Abraham, at this time, is NOT thinking about the “aionian convenant” that God gave him, and therefore calls Him the “aionian God”?
This ‘context’ naming happens just about EVERYWHERE in scripture. When the script is speaking or implying of the Power of God he is called “Almighty God” (Gen 17:1, 28:3, Psa 68:14, Rev 1:8). When the context speaks of jealousy, God is called a “Jealous God” (Exo 20:5, 34:14, Deu 4:24). When context speaks of God being forgotten or nonextisting, He is called the “Living God” (Jos 3:10, 1Sa 17:26). With sanctification, “Holy God” (Jos 24:19, Lev 10:17,). With other gods in view he is called “God of gods” (Jos 22:22, Dan 11:36). Do you see a pattern going on here? So when He is called the “aionion God”, the context of the script implies or has to do with “aionion” something. Whether it be “aionian” covenant (Gen 21:33), or times aionion and aions of the aions (Rom 16:26), or aionian life (1Ti 1:16-17). The “age-abiding” God” made an “age-abiding” covenant, priesthood, and statutes that were only “age-abiding” NOT eternal. He is the “God of the ages”, hence the “aionion God”.
It is the same thing with “aionian life”. It is only “age-abiding life” through the coming aion (or Christs reign). Christ only speaks of this for the ‘next’ aion. AFTER the end of all the ages, we CANNOT have ‘aionian life’ anymore, because we can’t have age-abiding life when there are ‘no more’ ages. It is THEN that we get immortality and incorruptiblility.
As with “olawm”. Here is something else that translators have messed up and you have probably picked up on it. In the Septugant, you are correct, in Hebrew it was NOT written in an “adjective” form, so the original Hebrew would read “ El Olam”. But the Septugant when translating this into Greek, translated it into the “adjective” form, as in “aionian God” (hence: the God of the Aions…would become…the Aionian God). There is one reason why I don’t like this type of translating, because if you notice, the ‘plural’ form of ‘aions’ has been lost.
There can be no adjective form of a plural noun, only of the noun in singular (I may be wrong about this, if I am let me know). Therefore “aionion God” can be “God of the aion (singular) or God of the ages (plural). So any translation that was translated (directly or indirectly) from the Septugant (i.e. KJV) could very well have lost the plural form of ‘olam’ (which is olamim). But we do know that there are ages (plural) by reading the NT. If it wasn’t written in the adjective form, it should have been left that way.
I have not ignored ANY translation that you say. I have said that “aion” always means “age” or something having to do with and “age”. I have never said it means eternal. The translators THEMSELVES are picking and choosing “fitting” translations, because THEY had “preconceived ideas”,such as eternal hell, that caused them to butcher many translations of this word, of which you are now starting to see. Interestingly, they still translated in Rev 20:14 which states, again, that HELL is thrown into the Lake of Fire (hence: Hell is NOT the Lake of Fire). You have yet to comment on this scripture
And it is interesting that you bring up the word “aidios”. It is said to mean “everduring” or “ever-enduring”. To say that this word does mean “eternal” is incorrect, but to say it “could” denote something that had a beginning but NO end, would be closer to the truth. I only say “could” (you are correct, there are only 2 instances in scripture), because the chains in Jud 1:6 were obviously put on at a point in time (beginning) and they will be taken off (ending) when they are judged. On the other hand, in Rom 1:20, the “everenduring” power was seen since the foundation (beginning) till now (scripture shows “no end” to this). The best definition of an aion, in my opinion, is that it is “an indeterminate time period with a beginning and an end”. Example being: We know that a person IS going to die one day, but we cannot determine WHEN he will. Therefore, his life can be said to be an ‘aion’.
E____ Wrote:
JoeAllcomm, its very simple:
1) Your entire argument is based on the mistaken idea that "olam" and "aion" *never* mean "eternal", "everlasting", or "forever."
2) Genesis 21:33 is Abraham referring to God. Not "referring to an agreement between himself and God", referring to the being known as God, "El Olam", with "olam" as an adjective referring to God.
3) "Olam" is a word meaning a time period, both time periods which are eternal and time periods which aren't eternal.
4) This duality is represented in Genesis 21:33, where Abraham is referring to an eternal God and using the "eternal" meaning of "olam" to do so. If he was referring to God as "God of limited duration", this would be *blasphemy* and thus we know that the meaning of "olam" in this passage has to be "eternal".
5) The translators who wrote the Septuagint felt that the "eternal" context of "el olam" merited the word "aion" to describe it.
6) The translators of the Septuagint were Christians and weren't seeking to write a blasphemous document stating, in Genesis 21:33, that God was a "God of limited duration".
7) Thus "aion" can also mean "eternal", provided the context calls for the meaning of "eternal".
Thus your entire argument falls down because it is based on the idea that "olam" and "aion" *never* mean "eternal," "everlasting," or "forever," when Genesis 21:33 in the original Hebrew and the translated Greek indicate that both words have to have the meanings "eternal," "everlasting," and "forever."
Because if they do not mean "eternal," everlasting," and "forever," then the Hebrew and Greek writers of Genesis 21:33 are both heretical blasphemers. We both know this is simply not true.
JoeAllcomm Wrote:
On Point 1) No. It is your entire argument that the translation butchering of the word OLAM to mean……
And don’t for one second think that just because you see the words “ever, everlasting, perpetual, etc.”, that it adds any weight to your argument. Just go read them. In some, the translation is down rite EMBARASSING. And for the word “aion” it look virtually the same.
On Point 2) Incorrect. Quick lesson in grammar. Olam is NOT an “adjective”, it is a NOUN. As a matter of fact, there never was an adjective form of Olam in the scriptures. So where you got this, I don’t know. It is simply 2 nouns together in print, but it is not read as such. For instance: in Gen 31:13, the text reads “El Bethel”. There are 2 nouns next to each other in print, but it is NOT read as “God Bethel”, rather it is read “God OF Bethel”. The “of” is because they are both nouns. It could have many conjunctions like “God unto/to/for Bethel”. But you can’t use the possessive discriptive “IS”, as in “God IS Bethel”, unless it was actually fact as in “Jesus is Christ”. The possessive “IS” is used with a noun and an adjective, as in “God IS good”. Olam is a noun, and you want it to say “Eternal”, as in “God IS Eternal”, which is an adjective. So to read it in your own belief, using correct grammar, you would have to read it as “God Eternity” or “God IS Eternity”, which makes no sense at all. But if you say “God OF Eternity” (noun/noun), then it makes sense, and God would not BE eternity, but rather God OF it.
So using “God OF Bethel” above, to translate this into the ‘adjective’ form of the phrase, we would change ‘Bethel’ to ‘Bethelian’ (an adjective describing who God is OF) and put it in front in the phrase, as in “the Bethelian God”. And this renders who God is “OF” not who God “IS”, as you are trying to force it to be. So an “Egyptian God” is not god “OF” the Bethelians. To do this with the word ‘eternity’ is what is confusing you. Because there no adjective for Olam.
To do what you want with this ‘noun’, you would have to translate it as something like “Eternian God” (hence: God OF eternity, or God OF the eternity. NOT “God IS Eternal” which uses an adjective). The way the Septugant rendered it is correct “aionian God” (hence: “God of the aion” or aions), but it still a style of translating that can lose the plurality of a noun.
On Point 3) …see point number 2 and everything else that I have posted on this thread.
On Point 4) …see point number 2 and etc…..hence again: “eternal” is an adjective and “olam” is a noun. The sense to read it in is “God OF the AGES or ERAS or EONS that had limited duration”.
On Point 5) …see point number 1 (ya lets trust the translators….even you have admitted they butchered it). And…Aion doesn’t mean eternal either, it too means an age or a time period with a beginning and an end. Thus they rendered it correctly as describing “aionian God” which means “God OF the age(s)”. But if you will, you can have it your way, but you would have to say He is the “Eternian God”, hence “God OF eternity (Olam noun)”, rather than “God IS eternal (no adjective for Olam)”
On Point 6)…see point number 1….also there is no doubt that these where good Christians, but that doesn’t mean that God, Himself, didn’t blind, deceive, or slumber them from the truth (Rom 11:8, Isa 6:10, Due 29:4, Eze 14:9), because of an “Idle of the heart” like “eternal hell” they had (Eze 14:2-10). They didn’t know they were doing it, nobody is saying they did it purposely.
On Point 7)…see ALL explained points above and reread all of the thread.
Thus as you say, “your entire argument falls down” because you have an “idle of the heart” called “eternal hell” and you want “at least someone” if not MOST of humanity to be burned and tortured in it for eternity, but again as I keep saying “hell is thrown into the Lake of Fire”, I guess along with its “eternalness”. And also see …On point 2
On your LAST post)….The Hebrew and Greek TRANSLATORS (who wanted to keep “eternal hell” alive) just didn’t quite know how to handle these words to keep there “idle”, so they translated a word that they wanted to mean “eternal” into “world”, “old”, “ages”, “worlds”, “END”, etc…and we both know this is true because its right in front of our eyes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
