Clivedurdle

So the distinction might be between seasonal and a longer period?

As there are allegedly examples of counting systems of one two three more what exactly were the counting systems in place? Was there a concept of eternity or infinity or was it the equivalent of several life times?

At the beginning of the twentieth century Darwin was looking ropey because it was thought the earth was not old enough. Radioactivity changed that.

When we track back to writings of two thousand years ago surely it is fundamental to be sure what was in the heads of the people at that time and not backread concepts that might not have existed at the time.

We are still discussing if the universe is eternal or not!

TonyN

My very dear Ben,
Thanks for brightening up my day with your funny note on my word "Heck."

Dear Ben,
When Christ died, this did not usher in the end of the eon nor the end of the eons per Hebrews 9:26 (as you agree also). Likewise, Christ's discourse as to when the eon would be ending which the disciples enquired was to be proceeded by all the horrors He told them of. All of those horrors occur AFTER His death. In other words, when He died, the eon nor the eons had yet ended. The man of lawlessness had not yet been revealed therefore the end of the eon had not occurred yet. Neither has Matthew 24:29 occurred to which John, in Revelation chapter 6 as late as 96 A.D., tells us is still future. Therefore the eon has not ended yet nor the eons of Hebrews 9:26.

Would you not agree that this eon in which we live is wicked (Galatians 1:4)? Would you not agree that wickedness marks this eon from the days after the flood to today? Can you agree with me that the 1000 years will be marked by being a righteous eon or if you cannot say "eon" at least righteous 1000 years? Satan will have been bound during the 1000 years and the nations no longer deceived. Is this the case today? If not, how has the eon ended which the disciples enquired? It has not. Nor have the eons ended which Hebrews 9:26 writes about.

Tony's reply:
The chart should not make any provision. The eons were adjusted, not ended:
Heb 11:3 "By faith we are apprehending the eons to adjust to a declaration of God, so that what is being observed has not come out of what is appearing."

In 1 Corinthians 10:11 where it is stated that the consummations of the eons have attained to us . . .

"The eons are divided into two classes, the first three, which are preparatory, and the last two, called the "eons of the eons", which turn the evil of the first class into good. The last two eons, including the thousand years' reign and the reign of the saints in the new heavens and new earth, are the fruit and consummation of the evil eons. In spirit, Paul brought those under his ministry into the new creation, which is the spiritual counterpart of the eon inaugurated by the new heavens and new earth. It is only thus that the consummations of the eons had already reached the Corinthians" (Concordant Commentary).
In the Hebrews 9:26 passage Christ was manifest so that sin would be repudiated at the conclusion of the eons.

There is another option available to us for a differing view than the one I have held to for quite a number of years as it concerns the Hebrews 9:26 verse for the "consummations of the eons." It is this:

"The latter, or "last" days to which Paul refers are days which would include some portion of Timothy's lifetime. For it is "these," the men of that period who are characterized by the failings which Paul here enumerates, whom Timothy is to "shun" (2 Tim.3:5). The Greek word eschaton ("last") signifies "the concluding member of a series" (KEYWOD CONCORDANCE, p.172). Since no article is present in the Greek (it is simply "last" or "latter" days), and yet the
reference here is to a period which would concern Timothy, it is evident that the claim that Paul's words here necessarily refer to the final days just before Christ's descent with a shout is a gratuitous one.

"These last days have already covered nearly two thousand years. It seems strange to us that God would designate such a long period of time as "the last days." However, our difficulties stem from popular English connotation, not from the meaning of the Greek words themselves. For the thought inherent in the text is simply that of the concluding member of a series (apart from its relative length or relation to other future events). Hence these days would begin at a later time, a time subsequent to the writing of 2 Timothy (cf "in subsequent eras," 1 Tim.4:1).

"Perhaps a consideration of a similar passage will prove to be helpful. The words "(the) conclusion of the eons" (Heb.9:26) evidently have in view the time from which it could be said that the eons had begun their protracted conclusion (at the time of Christ's sacrifice). This was so though their consummation remains in the distant future even today. Thus also it is likely that the "last" (or "latter") days in view here, though beginning their course during Timothy's lifetime, will continue on throughout this present administration until its consummation, when we meet the Lord in the air" (James Coram, Unsearchable Riches vol.75 p.172).


I'm sorry, I just don't see how I put the conclusion of the eons in the past especially when I have stated from the get go that that conclusion is yet future. Since we both agree the world did not end when Christ was manifest (KJV) and neither did the eons end (if they had we would not have a new earth to look forward to) it seems to me we need to see that sin will be repudiated when the eons end.


30 and 70?


I see no reason not to take the 5 statements above literally. They certainly cannot be meant as meaning "eternity" for if that is the case then eternity must end. And we would not want that to happen, now would we?

Tony: Dear Ben, If we look at the Mosaic Tabernacle we see certain terms which correspond with "the eons" "the eons of the eons," "the eon of the eon." These parts of the Tabernacle are "The Holies of the Holies" which are the two holiest parts in the Tabernacle in relation to the former Holy parts the high priest had to go through to get to the place to talk to God



Concerning "eon of the eon" or "the age of the age":


Psa 45:6 Your throne, O Elohim, is for the eon and further; A scepter of equity is the scepter of Your kingdom."

"for the eon and further" is "olam va ed" in the Hebrew.

The holy spirit inspired the writers of the LXX to make "olam va ed" this:
"eis ton aiwna tou aiwnos" or "for the eon of the eon."

The writer of the Hebrews manuscript brought the LXX over thusly:

Heb 1:8 Yet to the Son: "Thy throne, O God, is for the eon of the eon, And a scepter of rectitude is the scepter of Thy kingdom."

The eon of the eon is the final eon of or derived from the previous eon. Christ will reign for the final eon which is of orderived from the previous eon which previous eon would be the 1000 year eon.

As for the phrase "for the eon":
Please note John 6:47-58 and see how repeatedly Christ assures His followers that those who ate the heavenly bread should live "forever." Yet, we see that He tells them that He would raise them up at the last day (John 6:54). This is all straightened out when using "for the eon" rather than "forever." For the eon in this instance refers to the 1000 year eon to come. When He raised them up from the dead they will live for the whole duration of the thousand years.


In the "Old Testament" the phrase "for the eon" is understood, if possible, by its contextual setting. For instance concerning Jonah we have:
Jonah 2:6 "I go down to the fashioning points of the mountains; the earth, its bars are about me for the eon, yet You wilt bring up my life from ruin, Yahweh, my Elohim." "for the eon" in this instance can be no longer than three days/nights.

However, in Psalms 9:5 it is stated:
Psa 9:5 You rebuke the nations; You destroy the wicked; You wipe out their name for the eon and further.
If we apply this to the book of life and if the LXX is correct, and I believe it is, ("for the eon and for the eon of the eon" LXX) then I believe that the Jews would see this as being for the 1000 years eon and the eon of the eon which is the final new earth eon which flows out of the 1000 year eon.

Now that's funny. Thanks.


Dear Ben, I didn't have to invent anything. As shown on the chart in the previous post, every eon ends by a world-wide cataclysmic event. Since we are in the third or middle eon called "the present wicked eon" (Gal.1:4) and since, according to the Scriptures, there were eons (plural) before the one we presently live in (Colossians 1:26) it must be that there were at least two eons before this eon. The eon just before this eon ended with the world-wide flood. The eon before that eon ended by the great katabole or disruption of the world in Genesis 1:2. This eon in which we live ends with the great world-wide earthquake destroying the cities of the world. The eon after that ends with the world being destroyed by fire.

I guess one can just add another 'F' to my report card. I have once again failed to make my points understandable. I don't blame you. I am sorry I have failed you as well.

Clivedurdle

There is another option - understood, failed to understand, not yet understood.

Ben C Smith

Hi, Tony. Quick question.

On the one hand, you say that eon simply means duration. Presumably, then, it can be the duration of a relatively short timespan, such as the three days in Jonah. On the other hand, however, the contrast that you outline above absolutely depends on an eon being a long stretch of time. If it were not, then it would hardly contrast with a short season.

Is it accurate, then, to say that you have (at least) two different working definitions of the term eon? The first definition being duration, the second being one of the five principal divisions of world history?

Thanks.

Ben.

Julian

Hmmm, this is entirely incorrect or, at least, highly inadequate. Let's look at the adjective:

It can appear substantivally, adjectivally (i.e. in a relationship to a noun) or adverbially.

In adverbial form:
zhtei/te de. prw/ton th.n basilei,an tou/ qeou/
Here 'first' is used as an adverbial complement to 'seek.'

Substantive:
r`u/sai h`ma/j avpo. tou/ ponhrou/
Here it is independent of a noun, it acts as a noun, 'the evil one.' We see this in English, as well, 'The good, the bad, the ugly,' or 'The rich must give their money to Julian,' and other such useful phrases.

And finally in a relation to a noun, either attributively or predicately:
There are four attributive positions and two predicate. The attributive positions can be looked at as arthrous and, obviously, anarthrous.

1st attributive: article adjective noun
2nd attributive: article noun article adjective
3rd attributive: noun article adjective

1st attributive (anarthrous): adjective noun
4th attributive (anarthrous): noun adjective

1st predicate: adjective article noun
2nd predicate: article noun adjective

For much more detail, check out Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. For example, I didn't list comparative, superlative and elative use which is not overly relevant to this discussion.

Julian

TonyN

Ben, quick answer:
Aiwn's basic meaning as well as Olam in its nounal form is just "duration."
To the person who is living within an aiwn, that person does not know how long that duration is unless of course one lives withing the 1000 year long millennial kingdom eon. They know it is of a 1000 year duration. The duration of this present wicked eon is predicated upon the supposition that specific events must occur. When those events occur is anybody's guess. The final duration of the new earth eon is also anybody's guess. But we are told by definitive scriptures that all the eons end, therefore none of them have an endless duration.

There is only one basic idea/meaning to the term aiwn. However, I will say this; in the NT all usages of aiwn that I know of are of epochal durations and not that of a generation or a very circumscribed time as was the case of Jonah. In the passage in question to which you allude, however, it is not aiwn that is in contrast with a season but "eonian." Eonian pertains to the two remaining eons to come.

2Co 4:17 For the momentary lightness of our affliction is producing for us a transcendently transcendent eonian burden of glory,
2Co 4:18 at our not noting what is being observed, but what is not being observed, for what is being observed is temporary (toward-season), yet what is not being observed is eonian."

Do I understand your question aright?
Tony

TonyN

Dear DBT,
you are reversing the role of the adjective and noun. The adjective modifies the noun. You have the noun "God" modifying the adjective "aiwonios." Whether God is eternal or not is beside the point. The adjective is not like a cameleon that changes color with the change in surroundings. It's meaning is set. It has the duty of informing us of that which is pertaining to the eons. Since God is the eonian God (Romans 16:26) this is telling us God's relationship to the eons. He is the God pertaining to the eons. He is over them, directing them, subjecting humanity to the goal He has in each eon.

When the eons end, and they surely will, God will cease to be the eonian God since there will no longer be eons to be God over. He will then be God All in all (1 Cor.15:28).

Julian

Errrr, did you entirely neglect to read my post? Have you not read Wallace? Do you actually know Greek? A noun cannot modify an adjective. The two constructions shown by DBT are entirely valid, both are attributive. Scroll back up and read my post. In the meantime, your eisegesis is entirely uncalled for since you are not backing up any of your statements in your post with anything factual.

You ignore the facts, make up arbitrary and highly personal 'interpretations' and your argumentation is just getting sillier. Study more Greek and less theology and your arguments would carry more weight. Especially since, in that case, you wouldn't be making arguments like these in the first place.

Sigh.

Julian

Roger Pearse

Without getting into the details of this argument, I would only point out that presuming that JG needs to take a few language courses is rather unfortunate... <hint>.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

TonyN

I agree with you on this part in bold above. That is my major premise. So why are you raking me over the coals as if I did not adhere to the above?