Ben C Smith

Well, I was trying to keep the conversation focused on the actual structure of the ages. In fact, I had part of a response typed up and deleted it because I thought it would take us off track.

But, since you insist, in Matthew 24.3, the disciples ask about the consummation of the age, and you mention that Jesus does not answer with a particular point in time (his crucifixion); that is true. In fact, Jesus answers with a span of time, not a point, and describes false prophets, persecutions, and natural disasters leading up to the end. This is natural. The consummation of the age is equivalent to the end times, and it is a span of time.

I think that the early Christians thought the consummation of the age, or the end times, had indeed begun with the career or death of Jesus (it is not always clear exactly when). But, as everybody and his cat knew, there was supposed to be much more to the end times than that. The end times were supposed to bring great trouble followed by the end of it all; Jesus knew that was what his disciples were asking about, and that is the question he answered. He detailed events leading up to the end.

You write that those predicted events have not yet occurred. I think that there is only one event on the list that cannot be said to have occurred, and that is the parousia. The persecutions, the disasters, the false prophets... those all happened in the time leading up to the fall of Jerusalem.

But let me try to bring this back to the matters at hand. The consummation of the ages in Hebrews 9.26 and the ends of the ages in 1 Corinthians 10.11 are only two examples of the conviction written all across the NT that the end times had arrived. It is one of the most common features in the NT.

Your chart does not appear to make any provision for the NT period being the end of something. You place the NT period right in the middle of the middle eon; it does not appear to be the end of anything in particular.

I agree. He did not appear at the conclusion of the eons. But even your way of wording this sentence implies that the conclusion of the eons is in our past. How could it not be, after all, if it was present for the writer of Hebrews?

This is a problem for the theologians to wrestle with, and I do not envy them; the texts say what they say, and are not ashamed to say it.

Everything is okay right up to Matthew 24.29. The events of Matthew 24.4-28 fit nicely between 30 and 70.

Yes, I think that is hyperbole. Actually, it is not really hyperbole, since it is hard to hyperbolize eternity. But what I mean is that the language of this age and the age to come reflects the two-age structure that was prevalent, while expressions of eternity reflect... well, eternity. The writers get pretty creative sometimes trying to express that concept.

On my webpage I divided these expressions into six categories. They were:

1. Unto the age.
2. Unto the ages.
3. Unto the age of the age.
4. Unto the age of the ages.
5. Unto the ages of the ages.
6. Miscellaneous.

By all appearances (to me), these expressions seem to mean the same thing. What you have done is to give each expression its own concrete meaning, drawing out the singulars and the plurals and taking them literally.

Now, I had asked how you took the simplest expression, unto the age. Does that mean for the rest of the present age, or does that mean for the rest of the present age and the entirety of the next? Also, I have noticed that you take unto the ages of the ages as unto the [last two] ages of [all] the ages. Presumably you would take unto the age of the ages as unto the [last] age of [all] the ages (please correct me if I am mistaken here). How, then, would you take unto the age of the age?

Now, now. Watch your language.

In order to pull this structure off you have had to turn the era of the new heavens and the new earth into a finite time. You also noticed that during the era between Noah and the parousia there was a lot of talk about past eons, plural. So you had to invent an eon to precede Adam in order to account for the plural, an eon for which you have not (yet) produced any hard evidence other than the plural itself.

I am not trying to be disrespectful or any such thing; I just do not find it convincing.

Ben.

DBT

So is it fair to say that αιωνιος, can, in context, be interpreted as meaning eternal?

TonyN

Context does not determine the meaning of aiwnios. What determines the meaning of that adjective is its noun aiwn.

Just as the noun America determines the meaning of the adjective American and the noun Heaven determines the meaning of the adjective Heavenly thus the noun aiwn determines its adjectival meaning of aiwnios.

It is impossible, in the Bible, for aiwnios to be greater than the noun aiwn.

Context determines the durative nature of aiwn. Aiwnios just does the duty of telling us that which pertains to the aiwn (singular) or aiwnas (plural).

By the way, Ben, I haven't forgotten you. I'm trying to get my ftp client to work properly so I can upload another chart that might help you to better see what I am trying to show relating to the eons.

Chris Weimer

This is bullshit pseudo-linguistics.

So when Le Monde printed the headline, "We are all Americans", does that mean they were literally Americans? When I describe pasta as heavenly, does that mean that it's in the sky? Where'd you take your linguistic courses at, again?

Pure and utter bullshit.

Take aetas, for example. It literally means "an age", i.e. a lifetime, or a limited period. However, numerous authors have used aeternus to mean "eternal".

In short, you're just wrong.

Clivedurdle

Should not this thread ask if the concept of eternal existed at the time we are discussing?

Zero is a definite invention. Why is not eternal? Is infinite the same thing?

Over the last few hundred years mathematics have defined different sizes of infinity! For example prime numbers and natural numbers seem to be different sized infinite series!

So do we not need to clearly define how eternal was understood before we attempt translation?

Ben C Smith

Just wanted to clear this up. I got decontextualized. In the sense that Jesus did not appear again (as in his second coming or parousia), my statement is true. But the context of Hebrews 9.26 is his first appearance. In that sense, yes, Jesus did appear at (what the biblical authors called) the consummation of the age.

At any rate, either way, the NT period was known as the end times or consummation of the age by the NT writers.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Yes, that is fair to say. 2 Corinthians 4.18 even defines this adjective by its antonym, temporary.

Ben.

DBT

That's an interesting question. As far as I understand it, αιωνιος is the only word the ancient Greeks had that could be enterpreted to mean eternity.

DBT

Yes, it appears that Tony is wrong on that point.

Quote;
"Adjectives may be used in three distinct ways in Greek: attributively, predicatively and substantively. The attributive use of the adjective is that use in which the adjective attributes a quality to the noun modified. In the attributive construction there are two possible positions of the adjective in relation to the noun:
either before the noun as in the passage on the previous page: tou aioniou Theou
or after the noun which would then look like this: tou Theou tou aioniou
Note that the adjective aioniou is immediately preceded by the definite article tou in this second possibility of the attributive case.
In the attributive case therefore the adjective aioniou strongly modifies Theou in whichever position the adjective is placed. Since God is an eternal God the adjective aioniou must be translated eternal or everlasting in the above two examples."

TonyN

Dear Ben,
No one really likes to be told they are wrong unless of course they are the wise man of proverbs who, when corrected, will kiss the corrector.

I trust you are that wise man and will be able to benefit from what I am about to say.

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, yet what is not being observed is eonian."

In the above verse 18 "proskaira" is "toward-season" where "pros" is "toward" and "kairw" is "season."

The contrast is not between that which is temporary and eternal. The contrast is between that which is seasonal or for a season, a short time and that which is eonian or pertaining to the eons which are vastly longer than that which is lasting a season.

The affliction of 4:17 which is for a season is producing in us a burden of glory pertaining to the eons.

I will try to post a rejoinder to a post you made a couple days ago later on today if I can work it in my busy schedule.

edit: I thought I would add that even though we are receiving affliction for a season, what we are not observing is pertaining to the eons. We have not entered into those eons which are yet future and so have not observed at first hand the glories they have in store for us, but we will!

Peace brother,
Tony