"Aionios" NEVER means "eternal"

[Guest]

Could you please inform us of what you know of this "age to come" that is not part of eternity? Not just AN age but THE age. I am ignorant about it (as with many things)

I am not sure how much I know about the age to come, but as one who believes in a millenium of peace following Christ's return, I have no doubt that the millenium itself constitutes that age.

Unless I misunderstand you, you do not dispute that the statement is an antithesis, you take aionios punishment and aionios life to be both of an indeterminate period, neither one being eternal or forever.

Close, but not quite. I have not been saying "neither one being eternal or forever" in actuality. I have been saying that implicit in the meaning of "aionios" is neither the concept of a period of time that has an end, nor a period of time that goes on forever, but rather the concept of time going on from age to age. Future ages themselves may go on forever.

What happens to the saved when they come to the end of eternal life, or is it eternal probation?

I don't fully understand this question, but I hope I have answered in my reply to the previous one. You speak of the "end of eternal life." Eternal life, of course has no end. But if you mean "aionios life", that is, "life which goes from age to age", the meaning does not tell us that it is eternal. That which goes from age to age may come to an end or it may not. I believe, with you, that "aionios" life does not come to an end. I believe it "goes from age to age" and that there is no end to future ages.

I believe, with you, that our Lord's statements about the aionios life of the sheep and the aionos correction of the goats are parallel statements.
Augustine, the first in the church to promote the concept of everlasting punishment, also used the same argument against the majority in the church who did not hold to this belief.

Augustine probably got the idea from the Manicheans with whom he associated in his younger years. The Manicheans held that there is an eternal struggle between good and evil. When he returned to the catholic church with its teaching of the victory of Christ, it would be a small step to think of Christ being the victor by punishing his enemies eternally.

However, to get back to my own position. Those who are lost, whether in this life or in the next, can be found. Christ came to save those who are lost. The "goats" will be corrected in Gehenna, the Lake of Fire, for ages and ages. Their correction will be "aionios", that is, it will go from age to age. Yet it will come to and end when they are reconciled to God.

For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. Colossians 1:19,20

So that which "goes from age to age" may come to an end, that is, not continue throughout the unending ages, as is the case with those who will be corrected in The Lake of Fire, or that which "goes from age to age" may continue going from age to age forever, as in the case of those who are learners and followers of Christ. There is nothing inherent in the meaning of "aionios" which determines which of the two it will be.

[Guest]

Greetings Paidion,

I have been busy but have continued to puzzle over your position. I have a few comments and questions.

You said:

The Greek word “aiōnios” is the adjectival form of the word “aiōn”. Interestingly enough, this word has come into our English language from the Greek as “aeon”. In most dictionaries you will find that the meaning of the word is given as “an indefinitely long period of time, an age”, not “eternity”. So, if the noun means “age”, why should the adjective mean “eternal”?

Also interesting aion came into the English language as "aye", as in "they pledged their love for aye", meaning always, which is the root of aion, "always being". This meaning of aye has become archaic.

You also said:

The true Greek word for “eternal” is “aidios.” It is used in the New Testament to refer to God’s “eternal power and deity.”

I do not know what basis you have for asserting that aidios means eternal any more than aionios. My TDNT lists the meaning of aidios as "eternal" and aionios as "without beginning or end, eternal, forever". Both share the same root, aie. Both aionios and aidios are used in reference to God in the same sense, although aidios only once, Romans 1:20; "...His eternal power...".

Interestingly, the only other place aidios is used in the NT is Jude 6; "And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own habitation, He has reserved in everlasting (aidios) chains under darkness for the judgement of the great day." And so the scriptures inform us that the Supreme Judge will say to wicked men, Matt. 25:41; "Depart, you cursed, into the everlasting (aionios) fire prepared for the devil and his angels". So on your own account, the chains bind the angels in their eternal punishment, the punishment shared by the wicked in the disputed passage in Matthew 25!

Enough of our logomachy regarding aion, aionios, and aidios. I can see why it is so important to the universalist cause, but we are getting nowhere.

I do have a question with your overall belief system. You deny imputed rightousness. Unless I misunderstand your position, we are judged in the end on our own righteousness as exhibited by good works. You believe the condemned will be reformed in hell (lake of fire? outer darkness?). On what basis will they then be saved? Absent imputed rightousness, "Without rightousness no one will see God", where do they obtain righteousness? Will they do good works in the place of punishment or do they become rightous by some other means? Or will they be judged differently than you believe will be the case for the saved?

The restorationist camp among universalists seems to have a high regard for the efficacy of punishment in reforming the wicked. Why the confidence in punishment as a means of reformation? It has a poor record in this life. Many wicked people are repeatedly punished in prison and yet die in their wicked state. Punishment failed with the children of Israel who wandered in the desert for 40 years. It failed with Pharoah. How are you sure it will work in the age to come? Only if given enough time it will be successful? I believe the work of sanctification to be the work of the Holy Spirit rather than the work of punishment.

Do you confound chastisement with punishment? Punishment may be for the benefit of the authority (His honor; justice), for the benefit of others (the punishment of the Israelites who wandered in the wilderness 40 years was for our benefit, I Cor. 10:1-12), and may be for the benefit of the one punished, but not necessarily so.

[Guest]

The restorationist camp among universalists seems to have a high regard for the efficacy of punishment in reforming the wicked. Why the confidence in punishment as a means of reformation? It has a poor record in this life. Many wicked people are repeatedly punished in prison and yet die in their wicked state. Punishment failed with the children of Israel who wandered in the desert for 40 years. It failed with Pharoah. How are you sure it will work in the age to come? Only if given enough time it will be successful? I believe the work of sanctification to be the work of the Holy Spirit rather than the work of punishment.


Let's not forget Homer that the devil is the god of this age and blinds the minds of unbelievers but in the age to come he won't be able to deceive people. Therefore without the devil's deception and knowing that Christ is real i think that quite possibly that track record of rehabilitation might improve.

[Guest]

Also interesting aion came into the English language as "aye", as in "they pledged their love for aye", meaning always, which is the root of aion, "always being". This meaning of aye has become archaic.

The dictionaries which I have consulted do not give the Greek word "aiōn"
as the origin of the word "aye", but rather "aye" is the form of the German word "aiwō", which means "ever" or "always". It's not exactly archaic. It is still widely used in Scotland.

So on your own account, the chains bind the angels in their eternal punishment, the punishment shared by the wicked in the disputed passage in Matthew 25!

Reread the passage, and this time without an "eternal" bias.
It is not the angelic punishment which is eteral. It is the chains that are eternal. How can you have an "eternal" punishment that lasts "until the judgment of the great day"? (The RSV translates "eis" as "until")
The translation from which you quoted translates "eis" as "for". In my opinion that translation is more literal. It is correct, if we understand it as "for the purpose of the judgment of the great day." In that case the
angels are in these everlasting chains for the purpose of the judgment.
Perhaps you suppose that after they are judged, they will be put back into the eternal chains. That does not necessarily have to be the case.

Did you read the next verse?

... just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Jude 7 RSV

This time, the word "aiōnios", not "aidios" is used. You think they have the same meaning "eternal". The RSV translated it this way, too. But did Sodom and Gomorrah and the other cities undergo a punishment of eternal fire? If there is eternal fire in that region, it surely would be one of the wonders of the world! No, that fire of destruction eventually went out.

I do have a question with your overall belief system.

I've run out of time. I'll answer your question in my next post.

[Guest]

Paidion,

In that case the
angels are in these everlasting chains for the purpose of the judgment.
Perhaps you suppose that after they are judged, they will be put back into the eternal chains. That does not necessarily have to be the case.

To me they are bound and never unbound. What would be the purpose of referring to the chains as everlasting (aidios) if those bound by them are only bound temporarily? That the chains permanently bind them would seem to be the sense of it, otherwise the adjective "everlasting" is irrelevant.

This time, the word "aiōnios", not "aidios" is used. You think they have the same meaning "eternal".

A. T. Robertson, "Word Pictures in the New Testament", says of aidios "it is synonymous with aionios. Mayor terms aidios an Aristotelian word, while aionios is Platonic." (J. B. Mayor authored The Epistle of Jude in "The Expositor's Greek Testament".)
Another authority (may have been TDNT or Kittle) I read said aidios is concerned with quality, while aionios speaks of duration.

But did Sodom and Gomorrah and the other cities undergo a punishment of eternal fire? If there is eternal fire in that region, it surely would be one of the wonders of the world! No, that fire of destruction eventually went out.

Are not Sodom and Gomorrah metonyms for the inhabitants thereof? Whether a fire continued to burn where they once lived would seem to be irrelevant. And what would be the meaning of "eternal fire", other than that their (the people, not the geographical locations) punishment was permanent? Otherwise, no need to mention the fire was eternal in duration if all that is meant was that they were burned to death. The duration of the fire would be relevant if the punishment continued.

Blessings, Homer

[Guest]

Homer, I said my next post would answer your questions about my basic beliefs, but your last post demands a response.

Paidion,

Quote:
In that case the angels are in these everlasting chains for the purpose of the judgment. Perhaps you suppose that after they are judged, they will be put back into the eternal chains. That does not necessarily have to be the case.

To me they are bound and never unbound. What would be the purpose of referring to the chains as everlasting (aidios) if those bound by them are only bound temporarily? That the chains permanently bind them would seem to be the sense of it, otherwise the adjective "everlasting" is irrelevant.

But what about the purpose of the future judgment? The Greek preposition “eis”, literally “into” usually implies a goal or purpose. If the future judgment is the purpose of the binding, the goal,of the binding, then why would their binding continue forever? If it does, then isn’t this everlasting binding itself their judgment, which entails no further purpose.

Quote:
This time, the word "aiōnios", not "aidios" is used. You think they have the same meaning "eternal".

A. T. Robertson, "Word Pictures in the New Testament", says of aidios "it is synonymous with aionios. Mayor terms aidios an Aristotelian word, while aionios is Platonic." (J. B. Mayor authored The Epistle of Jude in "The Expositor's Greek Testament".)
Another authority (may have been TDNT or Kittle) I read said aidios is concerned with quality, while aionios speaks of duration.

I could quote several "experts" to support my position that “aiōnios” never means “eternal”. But that will get us nowhere. One can always find “experts” on both sides of virtually any issue. What we must do to resolve the issue is to see how the word is used in Greek manuscripts.
Very frequently, we find that the word is used in a way which certainly does not mean “everlasting” or “eternal.” Here are some passages from the Old Testament Greek Septuagint. In these passages I have used “everlasting” for each occurrence of “aiōnios”. I suggest that in not one of these occurrences does the word mean “everlasting.”

Genesis 9:12 And the Lord God said to Noah, This is the sign of the covenant which I set between me and you, and between every living creature which is with you for everlasting generations.

Exodus 31:16 And the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, for an
everlasting covenant.

Job 3:18 And the everlasting ones have together ceased to hear the exactor’s voice.

Job 22:15 Will you not mark the everlasting way, which righteous men have trodden?

Job 41:4 And will he make a covenant with you? And will you take him for an everlasting servant?

Psalms 78:66 And he struck his enemies in the hind parts: he brought on them an everlasting reproach.

Isaiah 54:4 Do not fear, because you have been put to shame, nor be confounded, because you were reproached: for you shall forget your everlasting shame, and shall no more at all remember the reproach of your widowhood.

Jeremiah 18:15 For my people have forgotten me, they have offered incense in vain, and they fail in their ways, leaving the everlasting tracks, to enter upon impassable paths

Jeremiah 18:16 to make their land a desolation, and an everlasting hissing; all that go through it shall be amazed, and shall shake their heads.

Jeremiah 51:39 In their heat I will give them a draught, and make them drunk, that they may be stupified, and sleep an everlasting sleep, and not awake, says the Lord.

Ezekiel 35:9 I will make you an everlasting desolation, and thy cities shall not be inhabited any more: and thou shalt know that I am the Lord.

Jonah 2:6 … I went down into the earth, whose bars are the everlasting barriers: yet, O Lord my God, let my ruined life be restored.

Habakkuk 3:6 the earth stood at his feet and trembled: he beheld, and the nations melted away: the mountains were violently burst through, the everlasting hills melted at his everlasting going forth.

Of course, you can maintain that in each occurrence where the word clearly does not mean “everlasting”, it is used figuratively. For example, you might say that “everlasting hills” really means hills that will endure for a long time. If that is your position, how do you know that the word "aiōnios" in the phrase “everlasting punishment” is not used figuratively? How do you know it does not mean punishment “which will endure for a long time”?

Here is one where the Hebrew is “ad owlam” (to the age) and the Greek is “eōs to aiōnos” (until the age) are used. Most translators have translated these words as “forever”. For example:

For the palace will be forsaken, the populous city deserted; the hill and the watchtower will become dens forever, a joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks; until the Spirit is poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field, and the fruitful field is deemed a forest. Isaiah 32:14, 15

How can the hill and the watchtower become dens forever until the Spirit is poured from on high? Is there a time after “forever”?

[Guest]

Paidion,

You said:

Of course, you can maintain that in each occurrence where the word clearly does not mean “everlasting”, it is used figuratively.

This is exactly what I mean! Aionios means eternal either literally or figuratively. We speak this way all the time. Forever has a literal meaning but is probably most often used in a figurative sense. I might say a certain person is "forever" telling tall tales, or it takes another person "forever" to get a job done.

Our property has a lane on 10 feet of the northern edge, with 10 feet also on the adjoining edge of the neighboring property. A property owner down the lane has a permanent right to use of the lane for ingress and egress; the legal description describes this right as existing "forever". We know this is not a literal meaning of forever. In fact, if he were to abandon his use of the lane for seven years, it is my understanding that under the "Law of Adverse Possession", he would forfeit his right, and "forever" would have ceased in seven years. But the figurative use of a word does not change the literal meaning.

This brings us to:

If that is your position, how do you know that the word "aiōnios" in the phrase “everlasting punishment” is not used figuratively? How do you know it does not mean punishment “which will endure for a long time”?

As I said earlier, Matthew 25:46 is an obvious antithesis. The subjunctives, punishment and life, are polar opposites, while the adjective eternal, must be equal in extent. If eternal means an indeterminate period of time in the one case, it means the same in the other. Perhaps you believe our eternal happiness may end at some point?

[Guest]

Of course, you can maintain that in each occurrence where the word clearly does not mean “everlasting”, it is used figuratively.

This is exactly what I mean!

And this is exactly where you affirm a meaningless statement. Your statement is not falsifiable. It is impossible for me to demonstrate that the word has a different meaning, since in every instance I present, you maintain that the word is used figuratively.

Suppose I want to demonstrate that my dog will go and bring his feeding dish to me. Jim Schlim states that no dogs can do that. So I show him that my dog does in fact bring his dish to me. Jim says, "That doesn't prove a thing."

"Why not? You just saw my dog bring his dish to me!"

"That animal," replies Jim, "is not a dog."

"What makes you say that?" I ask.

"Because a dog cannot bring his dish to anyone."

So it is impossible for me to present a counter-example which will convince Jim, since his definition of "dog" includes "not being able to bring his dish to anyone."

Similarily with you, Homer, since your definition of "aiōnios" will not allow any meaning other than "everlasting". Thus I cannot present a counter-example that will convince you to show that it has a different meaning, since for every counter-example I present, you affirm that the word really means "everlasting" in that example, also, but in a figurative sense.

Statements which are not falsifiable in principle are meaningless.

[Guest]

Paidion,

Are you saying aionios has more than one literal meaning or that it means eternal only in a figurative sense? I am not saying it does not have a figurative sense.

You place great weight on being logical. Well and good. Tell me, can a effect destroy its cause? "The wages of sin (cause) is death (effect). In your system of punishment producing reformation, your effect destroys its cause, does it not?

[Guest]

Paidion,

Ran across this as part of an article on aionios. Comments?

[Philo]

The sentence is in De Mundo, 7, en aioni de oute pareleluthen ouden, oute mellei, alla monon iphesteken. Such a definition needs no explanation: in eternity nothing is passed, nothing is about to be, but only subsists. This has the importance of being of the date and Hellenistic Greek of the New Testament, as the others give the regular, and at the same time philosophical force of the word, aion, aionios. Eternity, unchangeable, with no 'was' nor 'will be,' is its proper force, that it can be applied to the whole existence of a thing, so that nothing of its nature was before true or after is true, to telos to periechon. But its meaning is eternity, and eternal. To say that they do not mean it in Greek, as Jukes and Farrar and S. Cox, and those they quote, is a denial of the statements of the very best authorities we can have on the subject. If Plato and Aristotle and Philo knew Greek, what these others say is false. That this is the proper sense of aionios in Scripture, is as certain as it is evident. In 2 Corinthians 4: 18, we have ta gar blepomena proskaira, ta de me blepomena aionia. That is, things that are for a time are put in express contrast with aionia, which are not for a time, be it age or ages, but eternal. Nothing can be more decisive of its positive and specific meaning.

[2 Cor 4:18]:
"Since we consider and look not to the things that are seen[temporal - temporary] but to things that are unseen [spiritual - eternal]; for the things that are visible are temporal (brief and fleeting), but the things that are invisible are deathless and everlasting
..............................................................[Grk] "aionios"

Here in this passage the contrast is between the temporal and the eternal - the material and the spiritual. The Greek word "aionios" could not be translated to mean "age" in this passage because that still portrays a temporary duration for spiritual things which are eternal. This meaning makes no sense in the context which Paul is establishing which is a permanence of spiritual things over the temporary nature of the material world.

Therefore the Greek word "aionios" must mean eternal or everlasting.

[Compare Ro 16:26]:
"But now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of
the....everlasting..........God,
tou ...aioniou ...............Theou
the ...everlasting ..........God
made known to all nations for the obedience of faith."

The Greek word "aioniou" in this passage is an adjective. An adjective is used here to modify the noun "Theou." Notice that "aioniou" agrees with "Theou" in gender, number and case. So the word "aioniou" is an adjective of duration which thereby describes the duration of God:
tou .............aion- iou .........The - ou
def article..stem .ending....stem .ending
article .......adjective .........noun
masculine .singular ...........genitive
If the adjective "aioniou" is restricted to refer to a time period called an "age," as some maintain, and if "aioniou" modifies "Theou" rendered "God,' as it does in Romans 16:26, then the time period of God, i.e., His duration of existence is an age. He is therefore not an everlasting God, but an 'age lasting' God.

To get around this problem of calling God an 'age lasting' God by insisting that "aioniou" means age, some maintain that Romans 16:26 is supposed to say "the God of the age." But the Greek would have to look like it does in 2 Cor 4:4, (referring to Satan):
(2 Cor 4:4 GREEK) "ho ......................theos ....................tou ................aiOnos"
..................................."the ....................god .......................of the ............age"
.....................................def article .........noun .....................def article .....noun
.....................................gen. sing .........................................gen. sing
Notice that the form of the Greek word "aion" is no longer an adjective but a noun, hence it no longer modifies the duration of God but What God is sovereign over.

Adjectives may be used in three distinct ways in Greek: attributively, predicatively and substantively.

Attributive case
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 Romas 16:26:
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" when it occurs after the noun.

In the attributive case the adjective "aioniou" 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. It cannot be translated to mean something limited to "age lasting" because the duration of the existence of God is not limited to an age. Nor can it be translated "of the ages" because "aioniou" is not a noun nor an adjective used as a noun as in the substantive case below.

Predicative case
The second case for adjectives is the predicative case. Romans 16:26 in the predicative case would have to look like -
1) this:
"tou Theou aioniou"
(Notice: no definite article before "aioniou.")
2) or this:
"aioniou tou Theou"
In the predicative case the adjective "aioniou" 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. It cannot be translated to mean something limited to "age lasting" because the duration of the existence of God is not limited to an age. Nor can it be translated "of the ages" because "aioniou" is not a noun nor an adjective used as a noun as in the substantive case below.

Substantive case
The third and final case for adjectives is the substantive case in which the adjective itself is used as the noun in order to be the subject of the sentence. But in Romans 16:26, the Greek word "Theou" rendered "God" is the noun and the subject. Since there already is a subject in the passage, then there is no need for an adjective to act as a noun. Therefore, in Romans 16:26 the Greek adjective "aioniou" is in the attributive case and it therefore modifies "Theou" and must be translated everlasting or eternal God and not 'God of the ages' or an 'agelasting (not eternal) God' because the grammar and the context does not support those interpretations. An 'agelasting' god makes no sense in this passage.