DBT

The Universalist claim that the orthodox christian belief in an eternal punishment, an eternal hell, damnation, etc, is false appears to me to hinge on the seemingly difficult task of interpretating the word 'aionos'

As my knowledge of Greek is, err...poor... perhaps someone can point out possible flaws in this interpretation of 'aionos' being a fixed period of time?

As an example;

TonyN

Hi DBT, you wrote: The quotes DBT posted are by me, TonyN. I appreciate you wanting to get to the truth of all this. At least I am guessing that is what you are trying to accomplish.

I too would be interested in someone trying to find flaws in what I have written above. No one has proven me wrong yet on this so it would be interesting to find someone that could.

Ben C Smith

This exchange is a little bit confusing to me. Let me step back from it and just talk about the two words that seem to be at stake.

The Greek word aiwnos (assuming the o in the original transliteration by DBT represents an omega) is the genitive of the noun aiwn, αιων, usually translated age in contemporary English. The Greek word aiwnios (again assuming that an omega was meant) is an adjective, αιωνιος, usually translated eternal or everlasting in English.

As a noun, αιων often appears in what I call expressions of eternity, as the object of a preposition in phrases that are usually translated as forever. An example of this is John 6.51, in which Jesus promises that anyone who eats this bread will live forever, literally unto the age.

As an adjective, αιωνιος should modify a noun. An example of this is the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels in Matthew 25.41, in which it modifies fire.

These two words, of course, are related to each other. They generally translate the Hebrew עולם, again translated age or, within an expression of eternity, forever.

Theologians who question whether the expression unto the age really means forever like to use Deuteronomy 23.3, in which never (the negative of forever, and using the same Hebrew and Greek expression that I am rendering as unto the age) seems parallel to the tenth future generation, which would decidedly not be eternal. On the other hand, maybe the tenth generation was just a colorful way of expressing eternity.

I do not think that any analysis of nouns or adjectives will resolve this debate. It is not as if the noun means one thing and the adjective quite another; refer to Mark 3.29, which says that the blasphemer against the holy spirit has no forgiveness unto the age (that is, never has forgiveness), but is guilty of an eternal sin. Here the noun (rendered as age in my wooden translation) and the adjective (rendered as eternal) clearly refer to the same stretch of time, whatever timespan that may be, and I myself am inclined to think that it usually means exactly what we think it means, forever in the sense of unending or everlasting.

I have more information on my website about this word group as it is used in the biblical literature:

1. The two ages.
2. Expressions of eternity.
3. The consummation of the age.
4. The two ages in 4 Ezra.

Please note: Your debate appears to be theological in nature, and I would make a very poor theologian. My interest here is in the history of ideas behind these various expressions.

Ben.

TonyN

Ben, how can aionios be eternal? That would disassociate it from its nounal form "aion." In the Bible, no aion is eternal. Since aionios is the adjective giving us the idea of "pertaining to the eon(s)" and since no eon is eternal, it does not follow that eon's adjectival form could possibly be eternal. That being the case, your word "eternal" in Matthew 25:41 above is inappropriate. It is the eonian fire or the fire pertaining to that eon.

In the Bible the adjective pertains to the noun from which it is derived. A few cases should suffice:

Heaven= noun
Heavenly = adjective
The heavenly angel visited Mary. The angel's origin pertains to heaven.

Soul (psuche) = noun
Soulish (psuchicon) = adjective
Now the soulish man is not receiving those things which are of the spirit of God, (1 Cor. 2:14). That which is soulish is that which pertains to the soul.

eon (aion) = noun
eonian (aionios) = adjective
Mat 25:46 And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian" (Mat 25:46). Both the chastening and the life are pertaining to that 1000 year eon.

Again, that would be a contradiction in terms if a word in the Bible can mean two completely different meanings; one being a period having a beginning and an end and the other being that of endlessness.

You are absolutely correct that olam/aion here in 23:3 cannot be eternal. The tenth generation was not a colorful way of expressing eternity but of an age or an olam.
"No Ammonite or Moabite shall come into the assembly of Yahweh. Even the tenth generation from them shall not come into the assembly of Yahweh for the eon," (Concordant Literal)

Mar 3:29 yet whoever should be blaspheming against the holy spirit is having no pardon for the eon, but is liable to the eonian penalty for the sin-"

Mat 12:31-32 Therefore I am saying to you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be pardoned men, yet the blasphemy of the spirit shall not be pardoned." (32) And whosoever may be saying a word against the Son of Mankind, it will be pardoned him, yet whoever may be saying aught against the holy spirit, it shall not be pardoned him, neither in this eon nor in that which is impending."

It is really simple. The person will not receive a pardon in the eon in which we are living "nor in that (eon) which is impending" which is the 1000 year long eon. Since it is not pardonable, they must do the full time for the crime. In the American legal system should a man commit a crime landing him in prison he can be pardoned and set free. President Clinton pardoned quite a few criminals before he left office. But what if they are not pardoned? They must stay behind bars until their sentence is fulfilled. Let's suppose they must stay behind bars for ten years. That would be a decadian offense. Let's say everyone knows if you do a certain crime that they are liable to the decadian penalty (just as one who commits the blasphemy of the spirit is liable to the eonian penalty). If they are not pardoned, they must do the full ten years. Likewise, those who commit the crime Jesus spoke of must do the time pertaining to this eon and the impending eon neither of which are said to be eternal.


Dear Ben,
I appreciate what you have written. By the way, I went to your web page on the two ages and noticed this: "Phase 1: One eternal age." But if an age is eternal then that is a contradiction in terms. That is like saying "an unending inch." The word "inch" has lost its meaning under such a construction. Likewise, "age" has lost its core meaning if it is said to be unending.

partial plate

The link doesn't seem to work reliably, but when it loads this page has some comments on this word's usage:

For whatever that's worth. The author also points out that other words available to the author could exclusively be interpreted as "eternal", but maintains that age-long is an appropriate translation of this word.

TonyN

Partial plate, thanks for the fine quote.

Ben C Smith

In the most literal sense, if aiwnos means age, then aiwnios means age-long. If the age is temporal, then to last as long as the age is to be temporal. If the age is everlasting, then to be age-long is to be everlasting.

I do not know whence you got this notion. The age to come (or, if you will, eon to come), in Jewish and Christian thought, is eternal.

What of Psalm 45.17? It places all generations in parallel with forever (unto the age).

The word in question has a sense of perpetuity. It does not always necessarily imply what we mean when we speak of eternity, as I have already noted, but when applied to the age to come (which is the age of resurrected saints) it means, I think, a never-ending span of time (unless those resurrected saints are supposed to die again at some point).

Ah, this may be the root of the misunderstanding. The 1000 years are, I think, the messianic era, and the messianic era is not an age. There are only two ages in Judeo-Christian thought, the present age (which is supposed to end in disaster and then the resurrection of the dead) and the age to come (which comes after the general resurrection). The years (or days) of the messiah are a separate notion. There are plenty of Jewish texts that are quite explicit on that point.

A note here. I thought about listing a few of those texts here, but I want to make certain in advance that this is the kind of evidence that you would find persuasive. I have found that some people engaged in eschatological discussions do not wish to discuss any text outside the Bible. But the NT authors never explain themselves on this matter very fully; they seem to assume that their readers will know what the age to come is. This is why we have to turn to the Jewish texts to see what they are talking about; the NT authors are in dialogue with current Jewish concepts of the end.

So please let me know if you have any interest in what the Jewish conception of the two ages was.

Again, this kind of statement seems quite strange to me. When Jewish and Christian authors speak of the age to come, they generally have in mind the endless span of time that follows after the general resurrection and (if applicable) after the millennial reign.

For example, G. E. Ladd (italics mine):

For the first time, Scripture teaches that there is to be an interregnum, a temporal earthly kingdom, which precedes the final eternal age to come of the new heavens and the new earth.

The age to come is never supposed to end. Again, there are Jewish texts that are pretty explicit on this point. Even the NT, though not explicitly mapping out the structure of the ages, leads us to this conclusion in Matthew 12.32 = Mark 3.28-29 = Luke 12.10:

And whoever should speak a word against the son of man, it shall be forgiven him, but, whoever should speak against the holy spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in that to come.

Amen, I say to you that all things shall be forgiven the sons of men, sins and as many blasphemies as they might blaspheme, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit has no forgiveness unto the age, but is accountable for an eternal sin.

And everyone who will speak a word against the son of man, it shall be forgiven him, but, for him who blasphemes against the holy spirit, it shall not be forgiven.

Matthew says that this sin will not be forgiven, neither in this age nor in the age to come. Luke says that this sin will not be forgiven. Period. These two statements mean the same thing, because the phrase neither in this age nor in the age to come covers all time. That is how Luke can get away with the absolute statement that this sin will simply not be forgiven.

(BTW, your objection to using eternal as the adjective is noted; but it comes from the Latin aeternus, a contraction of the more specific aeviternus, which is the adjectival form of the noun aevum, which translates the Greek aiwn. So eternal is connected with aiwn, through the Latin.)

Ben.

DBT

Yes of course, that's why I sent you the PM in regard to this thread.
I left your username out of the OP quotes in case you declined to participate.
I am interested to see if the problem can be resolved, but due to my limitations with Greek, I don't think I can contribute any more than I have in GRD.

EthnAlln

I'll have a look at the Greek, although I'm only just competent in that language, hardly an expert.

But as an aside, I'm interested in your interpretation of Matthew 25:31--46. Why "nations"? Doesn't it strike you as absurd and indeed immoral to judge nations? I know it is said to be the nations that will be gathered for judgment. But it has to be individual people who are judged. Surely it is individual people who are capable of acting well or ill. A nation is not capable of suffering or moral responsibility. Only individual people can suffer and take responsibility for their actions. This passage is one of the most powerful and inspiring statement of the highest Christian morality. Making it into a matter of good and bad groups of people drains it of all its significance.

TonyN

Tony's reply: Dear Ben, it is refreshing to correspond with you on matters such as these, especially when it is done in a non-combative style.
Aiwn does not mean "age." Aiwn means "duration." We know what that duration is by definitive verses. I imagine that by "everlasting" you mean "unending"? If that is the case then "age" is no longer an age. The Bible knows no such critter as an "unending age." Also, aiwnios does not mean "age-long." God is not an age-long God. In Romans 16:26 where aionios is connected with THEOY (God) it is "the eonian God" which is the God pertaining to the eons. It is not telling us of God's duration but rather the relational aspect He has with the eons: He is over them, directing them, subjecting humanity to the goal He has for each eon.

Tony: As long as Jewish and Christian thought is counter to the Sacred Scriptures their thought should be discounted. According to the Scriptures, the eon to come is the 1000 years kingdom. It is not eternal because it lasts, well, you know, 1000 years. Please see Revelation 20.



But Ben, why must it be that should the eon to come not be eternal that the saints resurrected into the eon must die? For instance, Please note Revelation 20:4 where it states that those resurrected saint and Christ live for 1000 years. In verses 5 and 7 it states that that 1000 years end. Surely you are not suggesting that Christ and those with Him will die when the 1000 years end.


I do not believe Psalm 45:17 places all generations in parallel with forever.
The Hebrew I think is "olam va ad" or "for the eon and further"
"I will make Your Name remembered in every generation after generation; Therefore the peoples, they shall acclaim You for the eon and further." The Septuagint states it thusly:
eis ton aiwna kai eis ton aiwna tou aiwnos
for the eon and for the eon of the eon.

The "and further" should conclusively prove that the olam is not eternal for if it were why add "and further" to it? Also "and further" need not be eternal for this olam in which we are living is not and neither is the impending olam eternal.

I like reading Jewish and Christian thought from time to time but I do not base my faith upon their thoughts. I do not feel I need to go above what is written in the Sacred Scriptures (1 Cor.4:6). There are just too many issues where Jewish and Christian thought are not in agreement with the Sacred Scriptures.
I believe there are two eons to come (1000 years eon and the new earth eon). I also believe the Scriptures state that prior to this eon in which we presently live, also called "the present wicked eon) Galatians 1:4, was preceeded by a plurality of eons (Colossians 1:26) in which the secret Paul announced was hid from the eons yet manifested now. So there must be more than just two eons.

Here is a simple chart of the eons in the past and future:


Tony: As I already stated, the blasphemy of the holy spirit will not be pardoned in this eon or in that (eon) which is impending." And as you pointed out, Luke says it just will not be forgiven or pardoned (Concordant Literal New Testament uses "pardoned"). And it won't. They must do the full time for the crime. But just because they are not pardoned for the duration of this eon does not mean we must stretch this eon out into endlessness just so we can keep the offender in jail. Likewise neither should we take the impending eon and cause it to be unending so this person remains incarcerated. He won't be pardoned (Luke). He won't be pardoned in this eon or the impending eon (Matthew, Mark).

The impending eon cannot be unending for the Scriptures state (in spite of what the Jewish and Christian divines state) that all the eons end. Therefore none of them can be eternal. I can also cite quite a few examples where aeternum was not used to accord with our present day theologically biased idea of "eternity" but was used of one's life. But I'd rather stick with the Scriptures.
I appreciate the irenic and pacific nature of your posts, friend. May we always show leniency, though to be sure, I at times do fail in this endeavor.

Peace,
Tony