Barclay was convinced (UR)

[Roberto]

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.

I still am undecided on the issue. But I do not agree with your argument. If aionios means "pertaining to the age" or "the life (or punishment) of the age to come", this doesn't sound like nonsense to me. It simply means that the life and punishment are both occurring in and befitting of, the age to come..........

[Homer]

Matt,

You wrote:

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).

I can see the sentence as consistent with either a traditional or CI viewpoint without appearing contrived in either case.

[Colin]

It is clear from reading through this thread again that we can't seem to agree on the correct meaning of certain words, or even if certain words are nouns or adjectives. This is not a new issue, of course, people have debated over the meaning of words for a long, long time. But I would recommend that each of us read the following:

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/aionion.htm

It is an excellent, expert analysis of the words and passages that we have been discussing. You are free to accept the accuracy of the content, of course, but if you take the time to read it all the way through I think you will see that it is very thorough and exhaustive.

[mattrose]

Matt,

You wrote:

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).

I can see the sentence as consistent with either a traditional or CI viewpoint without appearing contrived in either case.

Yeah, I think it is an interesting verse b/c all 3 views can look at it and argue their case

ET can emphasize the word eternal
CI can emphasize the word punishment is in contrast to life
UR can emphasize their understanding of aionios

But I'd actually agree with you here. Even if we grant that aionios doesn't necessarily mean eternal, this only causes problems with the 'life' side of the equation. It would seem to me the verse most readily supports either ET (which is why they use this as one of their key verses) or CI (which is how I read it, emphasizing that it says 'punishment' rather than 'punishing' and is in contrast to life). If I were in the UR camp, I'd be able to tolerate the verse, but it wouldn't be a verse I have to deal with, not a verse I use to support my view.

[steve]

Colin,

I am not prepared to say that the translators of the LXX were inspired. The point I was making is not related to the question of inspiration, but of Greek usage. We are being told that, whatever otherwise may have been the case in earlier centuries, in the apostolic age aionios was used secularly only to convey the idea of endlessness.

It is clear that the LXX consistently rendered the Hebrew olam as aionios. Whatever we may think about the inspiration of the LXX translators, we can fairly assume that they were experts in two languages: Hebrew and Greek—and that (unless they were greatly mistaken) aionios must have been the Greek equivalent for olam in the usage of their day.

Now, whether the secular Greeks had begun to use aionios in a more-restricted sense by the time of the apostles, I do not know or care. My point was that, just as English speaking preachers and theological writers used certain words in their KJV sense, long after the English language had moved on beyond those usages, so also, words commonly used in the Bible that the apostles read (that would be the LXX) may well have been (and probably would have been) used in the same sense by the apostles when discussing the same theological concepts.

In other words, we might not learn so much about the apostolic usage of a word from that word's usage in the secular writers of their day as we would from the way in which it was used in the Bible, which they regularly studied and from which they preached. The examples I gave (some of which reappeared in Rich's discussion of olam) are examples of LXX usage. It would be amazing if the apostles, when using a word that occurred so frequently in their Bible (when discussing the same concept) would imbue the word with entirely different meaning from that which they found there. In particular, they would have found the very phrase "aionios life" in Daniel 12:3, where the word aionios was translating the word olam. We have seen (from both Darin and Rich) that the Hebrew word does not carry the meaning of "endless."

It would be as if we would use a word like "atonement" frequently in sermons and theological treatises, and would use such a term in some modern sense, rather than in the sense that the Bible uses it. It would be wise to assume that the apostolic vocabulary—especially when discussing specifically theological subjects addressed in the Old Testament—was more likely to be informed by their Bible than from secular current usage.

The value of the lexicons is to tell us what the range of meaning of a word may have been in secular literature as well as in the Bible. However, if the biblical writers were deliberately using words as they had been used in an earlier era (e.g., when the LXX was translated), and if the lexicographers failed to recognize this, they might fail to correctly represent the thinking of those New Testament writers. It is true that New Testament usage is included in the data the lexicographers take into consideration—but the New testament usage is the very thing that is proving so controversial, and they might make a mistake in reading the apostles' minds as readily as would anyone else. This would especially be the case if they are simply assuming that the apostles followed contemporary conventions in this matter.

It is one of my personal idiosyncrasies that I do not allow "experts"—whether translators, commentators, lexicographers, or others— to do my thinking for me. They can gather data and present it for my analysis—and I greatly appreciate their doing so. But once they have laid-out the data, I have no reason to trust that they can analyze it logically better than can a layman, like myself. It is clear that any lexicographer that limits the use of aionios to "endlessness" is being influenced by something besides the biblical data, since we have provided multiple biblical cases of the word not even having the possibility of bearing that meaning.

[steve7150]

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.







Homer
I have to disagree regarding your conclusion that "aionios" meaning two different things makes the statement nonsense. I think "aionios" is in fact used differently depending to who it applies to. When it applies to God or the kingdom of God it seems to usually mean eternal and when it applies to a mortal being or period of time it seems to mean age-lasting. This is how the word is used in the bible , over and over. The unrighteous in Matt 25.46 are not immortal but the righteous are immortal so the application is different to each group based on the nature of immortality verses mortality for the two different groups.
"Aionios" is an odd word and it is flexible and it does have different meanings depending on who or what is it being applied to as one can see by finding out how it is used in the NT.

[Todd]

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.

So, let's use the same idea to apply to these scriptures and see what conclusions can be drawn.

Rom 5:18
Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

Todd

[Homer]

Hi Todd,

That is an easy one. All people are condemned to die, even before they are born, because of Adam's (and Eve's) sin. All will be resurrected because of what Jesus did. Where they go next is the issue.

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

You wrote:

In other words, we might not learn so much about the apostolic usage of a word from that word's usage in the secular writers of their day as we would from the way in which it was used in the Bible, which they regularly studied and from which they preached. The examples I gave (some of which reappeared in Rich's discussion of olam) are examples of LXX usage. It would be amazing if the apostles, when using a word that occurred so frequently in their Bible (when discussing the same concept) would imbue the word with entirely different meaning from that which they found there. In particular, they would have found the very phrase "aionios life" in Daniel 12:3, where the word aionios was translating the word olam. We have seen (from both Darin and Rich) that the Hebrew word does not carry the meaning of "endless."

Perhaps I misunderstand you here, but are you saying that in Daniel 12:1-3 those whose names were written in the book were resurrected to temporal life?

Perhaps you missed both my posts regarding your post on kolasis. I was hoping you would respond:

http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3858#p50281

[Homer]

steve7150,

I have to disagree regarding your conclusion that "aionios" meaning two different things makes the statement nonsense. I think "aionios" is in fact used differently depending to who it applies to.

I think you missed my point. In communicating with someone if you use a word twice in one sentence and mean very different things in each case, such as "temporal" and "eternal", then you are doing a very poor job of making your sentence understandable. I think the scriptures are better than that.