Barclay was convinced (UR)

[steve]

Colin,

In your list, you did not provide any verses about the eternality of the punishment, other than the four verses I had listed. In addition, you had a couple of good ones. The one about eternal condemnation would seem (if eternal is taken as you understand it) to support either eternal torment or conditional immortality. The one in Daniel only says that these people will be an eternal object of contempt or abhorrence (the same noun used in Isaiah 66:24). Again, if eternal is taken as you take it, this would support one of the alternative views—eternal torment or conditional immortality—and would not fit easily the universal reconciliation view (though it does not speak of the conscious experience of the condemned, but only of the perpetual abhorrence felt about them by others). On the whole, if eternity must mean what you say, then you have expanded our list from four to six reasonable passages.

As for your question about the instances of aionios referring to Jonah, eternal doors, the duration of a bondslave's bondage, etc., the ones from scripture are from the LXX. In the Hebrew, the word would be Olam. I mentioned that others have listed these previously, with references. I am currently pressed for time and cannot be looking them up at the moment. No doubt someone else will post a link to the threads that contain them.

I believe that Todd has a case for interpreting "eternal" as that which proceeds from God (as I mentioned earlier). There are verses where this idea works best in the passage, and there is no excellent reason for disallowing it.

[Todd]

I'd like to interject into this thread something that has been brought up previously in other threads for the sake of those who have not participated very long in these discussions. I alluded to it in my previous post.

There is an alternative way to view the term "eternal life". I think the vast majority of Christians equate this term with "living forever in heaven". However, the Bible has another term for this; it is "immortality". When we are resurrected, we put on immortality (1 Cor 15:53-54). So, you may ask, how is this different from "eternal life"? I will explain.

Aionios can be defined as "that which pertains to an age". Here is a quote from Aaron (from another forum) who explains it very well.

Robin Parry himself acknowledged in his book that the Greek expression translated as "eternal life" in most English translations (zoen aionion) "may be better translated as 'the life of the age to come'" (p. 147). I agree with him. Moreover, as I'm sure you're aware, aionios is an adjective form of the Greek noun aion, and means "pertaining to, or belonging to, an age" (again, Parry notes on the same page that "there seems to be a strong case for maintaining that [aionios] means 'pertaining to an age'"). Like all adjectives, aionios cannot pertain to something other than the noun from which it was derived. If the Greek noun aion means "age," then the Greek adjective aionios (and any other derivative of aion) cannot pertain to something other than or greater than an "age." So, the question that should then be asked is, "To what age does the 'life of the age' pertain or belong?" Answer: it can be none other than the age of the Messianic reign, which is the age that began when the age in which Christ and his disciples were living (i.e., the age under the Law of Moses) ended (Matt 24:3; cf. Matt 16:28). It is the age of the Messianic reign that was referred to as "the age to come," and associated with "the life of the age" (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; Heb 6:6; etc.).

And while Parry goes on to say that "the age to come is everlasting" (p. 148), I would argue that, while the kingdom of God is certainly endless, the age during which Christ reigns over the kingdom is not. For we are told by Paul that Christ's reign is in fact to come to an end when (or shortly after) the dead are raised (1 Cor 15:21-28). Just before God becomes "all in all" we are told that Christ is to deliver the kingdom back to God (which he received from the Father at the commencement of his reign). So if Christ's reign over the kingdom is not endless, it follows that the age which, in the NT, is identified with his reign, cannot be endless either. And I submit that the "life" that may be enjoyed by believers during the age of the Messianic reign is a blessing that can only be enjoyed by faith (which includes the obedience that faith produces). This spiritual blessing cannot be enjoyed any longer than the age lasts with which it is so closely associated, nor can it be enjoyed when faith is no longer possible to exercise. This, of course, doesn't mean there will no longer be any more joy or peace or righteousness after the resurrection; it simply means that the enjoyment of these blessings won't be called "the life of the age" any longer, because both the age in which this blessing may be enjoyed, as well as the condition for receiving this blessing, will have ceased to be.

So eternal life can be understood to refer to the life one enjoys through faith in Christ during the age of the Kingdom of God.

John 5:24
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.


Romans 14:17
for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

This verse gives a little description of what the life of the age is like, and is experienced only through communion with the Holy Spirit. Understanding it this way makes the following verse make more sense.

John 17:3
And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

Therefore, if eternal life can be understood to mean the life of the age, then it would follow that eternal punishment could also refer to the punishment of the age, which would be God's wrath against the ungodly in this life. One example of this is described in Rom 1:18-32 which starts out with these words, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men...".

So, to be clear, eternal life may not refer to the duration of the life, rather it refers to a certain quality of life enjoyed through communion with the Holy Spirit during Christ's reign over the Kingdom of God. The term the Bible uses to describe "living forever in heaven" is immortality.

Todd

[Colin]

Moreover, as I'm sure you're aware, aionios is an adjective form of the Greek noun aion, and means "pertaining to, or belonging to, an age" (again, Parry notes on the same page that "there seems to be a strong case for maintaining that [aionios] means 'pertaining to an age'"). Like all adjectives, aionios cannot pertain to something other than the noun from which it was derived. If the Greek noun aion means "age," then the Greek adjective aionios (and any other derivative of aion) cannot pertain to something other than or greater than an "age."

Based on the Lexicons I have looked at, I don't think that would be correct. Aionios is not an adjective form of aion. It is an adjective (i.e. it describes a noun), but it is a different word entirely, although one that does originally (i.e. Classic Greek) have aion as the root source. Aion can mean "an age" (i.e. limited period of time), but aionios, as an adjective, can't describe something as being "like an age" or "similar to an age" or "with age-like qualities". The NT use of aionios, based on my research, would only mean "eternal" or "forever" or "never ending".

I'm not trying to be critical, but we need to be a little careful about relying on "factual" statements that are posted (including my own). We need to examine these ourselves and see if there is adequate support that they are correct. That's why it is best to cite texts that are quoted, etc. so we can all go look them up and see what we think.

And Steve, thank you for clarifying that the uses you were referring to were from the LXX. I guess in my mind I have never thought of the Septuagint as being the inspired Word of God, merely a translation that, although done with the utmost of sincerety, may not completely translate words any more than our modern English translations do (I know some may disagree with this, as some historical scholars did believe it was divinely inspired, and it is quoted in the NT in places)(Not to add any confusion, but yes I do believe the NT quotes are divinely inspired). So when considering "what did God really say" I generally look to the original language and take translations with a grain of salt (my own translation receiving the largest grain available ).

That being said, the folks who have created most of the modern English translations are true experts who know more about historic Hebrew and Greek than I ever will. I can't do much more than look up words in a dictionary and see what a literal translation is. They can take into account word use in many hundreds of contemporary documents and the research of translators covering many hundreds of years, and add to it entire careers of study. There are exceptions, of course (The Living Bible, anyone?) but my bias is that a translation such as the NKJV or ESV will be 99.9% accurate due to the expertise of those doing the translating.

[darinhouston]

And Steve, thank you for clarifying that the uses you were referring to were from the LXX. I guess in my mind I have never thought of the Septuagint as being the inspired Word of God, merely a translation that, although done with the utmost of sincerety, may not completely translate words any more than our modern English translations do (I know some may disagree with this, as some historical scholars did believe it was divinely inspired, and it is quoted in the NT in places)(Not to add any confusion, but yes I do believe the NT quotes are divinely inspired). So when considering "what did God really say" I generally look to the original language and take translations with a grain of salt (my own translation receiving the largest grain available ).

Then, we should stop worrying about what aionios means, and start considering the range of meanings for olam, no?

I found this interesting...

In the ancient Hebrew words that are used to described distance and direction are also used to describe time. The Hebrew word for east is qedem and literally means "the direction of the rising sun". We use north as our major orientation such as in maps which are always oriented to the north. While we use the north as our major direction the Hebrews used the east and all directions are oriented to this direction. For example one of the words for south is teyman from the root yaman meaning "to the right". The word qedem is also the word for the past. In the ancient Hebrew mind the past is in front of you while the future is behind you, the opposite way we think of the past and future. The Hebrew word olam means in the far distance. When looking off in the far distance it is difficult to make out any details and what is beyond that horizon cannot be seen. This concept is the olam. The word olam is also used for time for the distant past or the distant future as a time that is difficult to know or perceive. This word is frequently translated as eternity or forever but in the English language it is misunderstood to mean a continual span of time that never ends. In the Hebrew mind it is simply what is at or beyond the horizon, a very distant time. A common phrase in the Hebrew is "l'olam va'ed" and is usually translated as "forever and ever" but in the Hebrew it means "to the distant horizon and again" meaning "a very distant time and even further" and is used to express the idea of a very ancient or future time.

[Roberto]

Colin says "Aionios is not an adjective form of aion". What is the adjectival form of aion? It is a word that cannot have an adjectival derivative? How do you know that?
R

[steve7150]

It appears there are different opinions about "aionios". If it is an adjective it seems to mean "pertaining to the age" but if it is not an an adjective it seems to mean "age-lasting". Really all these meanings of "aion" and "aionios" boil down to an undefined period of time.
It seems that "aionios" means eternal if it pertains to God or life with God but otherwise if it does not pertain to God it means a finite time so in Matt 25.46 i think life with God is eternal life but life away from God need not and is not eternal, but an undefined time. I think this idea that it must be a contrast is an assumption and inaccurate.

[Roberto]

It appears there are different opinions about "aionios". If it is an adjective it seems to mean "pertaining to the age" but if it is not an an adjective it seems to mean "age-lasting". Really all these meanings of "aion" and "aionios" boil down to an undefined period of time.
It seems that "aionios" means eternal if it pertains to God or life with God but otherwise if it does not pertain to God it means a finite time so in Matt 25.46 i think life with God is eternal life but life away from God need not and is not eternal, but an undefined time. I think this idea that it must be a contrast is an assumption and inaccurate.

" I think this idea that it must be a contrast is an assumption and inaccurate." Contrast between what and what?

[RICHinCHRIST]

I found this interesting...

In the ancient Hebrew words that are used to described distance and direction are also used to describe time. The Hebrew word for east is qedem and literally means "the direction of the rising sun". We use north as our major orientation such as in maps which are always oriented to the north. While we use the north as our major direction the Hebrews used the east and all directions are oriented to this direction. For example one of the words for south is teyman from the root yaman meaning "to the right". The word qedem is also the word for the past. In the ancient Hebrew mind the past is in front of you while the future is behind you, the opposite way we think of the past and future. The Hebrew word olam means in the far distance. When looking off in the far distance it is difficult to make out any details and what is beyond that horizon cannot be seen. This concept is the olam. The word olam is also used for time for the distant past or the distant future as a time that is difficult to know or perceive. This word is frequently translated as eternity or forever but in the English language it is misunderstood to mean a continual span of time that never ends. In the Hebrew mind it is simply what is at or beyond the horizon, a very distant time. A common phrase in the Hebrew is "l'olam va'ed" and is usually translated as "forever and ever" but in the Hebrew it means "to the distant horizon and again" meaning "a very distant time and even further" and is used to express the idea of a very ancient or future time.

Thanks Darin! This is a wonderful explanation of the possible hyperbole of such statements. I looked up the phrase "forever and ever" in the OT. Many times it is referring to an endless duration (since it is in reference to God's future or heritage), but there are some times when it is clearly not speaking of endless duration:

Here is a prophecy against Edom.

Clearly, the smoke of Edom is not still ascending today. This sounds eerily familiar to Rev. 14:11 and 20:10! Could they also be speaking hyperbolically? I don't think it's a far-fetched possibility.

Here, it is said that God gave the land to Israel "forever and ever". This is debatable (if we're talking to dispensationalists), but if we can conclude biblically that genetic Israel no longer has God-given rights to the land due to their disobedience, we can also classify this as a hyperbolic use of the phrase "forever and ever". Jeremiah 25:5 also uses this terminology in the same context.

Forever and ever seems to consummate at the day of death in this verse. (This is ambigious, though... I'm not sure we know how thorough the writer's understanding of the afterlife was at this point).

Now for the word, "forever"....


Surely, we will not say that the slaves of Israel are still serving their earthly masters, even on into eternity!! I cannot list all of the references, but there are dozens in the Torah that speak of clearly finite durations of time. Many refer to the Jewish feasts and festivals, but others in the context of judgment or individual's earthly lives (which are no longer than 70-80 years, but can be hyperbolically referred to as a 'good, far off time from now' (Such as in 1 Sam 1:22).

The phrase, "May the king live forever!" was a common hyperbolic statement. They were not implying immortality (I don't think), but rather a long, healthy, successful reign and life.


I could go on forever with this, but I'm really only skimming through my concordance, picking out the ones that stick out to me. I only got about halfway through all the uses of these terms. I'm not saying every time the term is used it does not refer to eternity, but it is interesting to note that this terminology is not emphatically one-sided. Why should we assume, therefore, that aionios could not have a similar usage (especially in the epitome of hyperbolic texts such as REVELATION)? Remember, the New Testament writers were mostly Jews, and I wouldn't be surprised if there use of "aionios", through their understanding of 'olam' and the LXX, reflected their Jewish hyperbolic heritage.

[Homer]

Antithetical statements are devices that draw a contrast between two ideas. With similarly structured phrases/clauses the reader's attention is drawn directly to the contrast. Antithesis seems to be frequently used by Jesus and the apostles to describe the final judgement, Matthew 25:46 being a prominent example:

And these will go away into everlasting punishment,
but the righteous into eternal life.”

It is easy to see that we have two parallel clauses that make sense if the nouns (punishment, life) are opposites and the adjectives are the same. The explanation that the word aionios means two different things in the same sentence, and especially a sentence of this sort, makes nonsense out of what Jesus meant.

[mattrose]

I've never cared about the translation of aionios in that passage (though I may be wrong for not caring). To me the passage points toward the CI view b/c of the contrast b/w life and punishment (punishment seen as the opposite of life).