This article is the 2nd part of a 9 part series on Universal Restoration vs Eternal Torment (hell). I recommend reading the introduction first if you haven’t already. (link below)
- Universal Restoration vs Eternal Torment (hell) introduction
- The Biggest Hole in Hell: Aion, Ages and Eternity (You are here)
- Can you be saved after you die?
- So let’s talk a little bit about the word “hell”
- Scriptures That Support Universal Restoration
- Scriptures In Revelation That Support Universal Restoration
- So why did Jesus die if not to save us from hell?
- The Early Church Fathers on Universal Restoration
- Universal Restoration vs Eternal Torment Conclusion
As I said in the introduction, The existence of Eternal Torment rests on two pillars: The translation of a single word (Aion, and its adjective form aionios), and the example of “hell” being a burning trash heap. In this article, we’re going to look at the Greek word “αἰών” (Aion), and it’s adjective form “αἰώνιος” (aionios). Both of which are often translated “forever” or “eternal”.
(We’ll also look at the “unforgivable sin” and see how the verse changes completely when you put back the three words that most Bible translations completely remove.)
To give an example of a verse using aion/aionios to support Eternal Torment (hell):
Matthew 25:46
46 “These will go away into eternal (aionios) punishment, but the righteous into eternal (aionios) life.”
The obvious conclusion is that if the life is eternal – and we know Christians will live forever – then the punishment must be eternal also. However, the obvious solution isn’t always the correct one. In fact, everyone agrees that aion and aionios do not mean eternal… but they still translate them that way.
(Curious huh?)
We’ll start by looking at aion’s definition.
The Definition Of Aion
Let’s first look at the definition of aion according to BibleHub.com:
Aion: an age, a cycle (of time), especially of the present age as contrasted with the future age, and of one of a series of ages stretching to infinity
Aion is sometimes used to indicate forever, but more on that in a moment. Another definition from the HELPS Words studies:
165 aiṓn (see also the cognate adjective, 166 /aiṓnios, “age-long”) – properly, an age (era, “time-span”), characterized by a specific quality (type of existence).
And according to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:
Aion: age (Latinaevum, which is αἰών with the Aeolic digamma), a human lifetime (in Homer, Herodotus, Pindar, Tragic poets), life itself (Homer Iliad 5, 685 με καί λίποι αἰών etc.).
And now Strong’s Concordance:
#165 properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future)
And now the Abbot Smith Lexicon:
αἰών A space of time, as, a lifetime, generation, period of history, an indefinitely long period; in NT of an indefintely long period, an age, eternity… …the ages or world-periods which when summed up make eternity
According to Everyone, Aion definitely means “Age”.
Age here means a (long) span of time with a beginning and an end. There’s no disagreement about this from anyone that I can see. You can look at every time Aion is used in the New Testament and see for yourself. That link points to a page where you can see every single time Aion is used in the New Testament (in a few different translations).
Please pay special attention to the translation abbreviated “INT:”. INT stands for “Interlinear”, which gives a literal meaning of the word. You’ll notice the Interlinear says “age” (or “ages”) virtually every single time. However, some of the other translations say “forever” or “eternal” even though everyone agrees the word means “age.”
Why?
Because of the construction of the sentence.
How The New Testament Uses Aion
There are three Primary ways Aion is used. (I’ll give examples in a minute.)
- To indicate a literal Age, or span of time with beginning and an end.
- To indicate “the Ages”
- To indicate “all of time.”
- Revelation 14 (unique in it’s construction)
We’ll cover each in turn.
Use #1: To Indicate a Literal Age With a Beginning and End
A good example of this is the end of the parable of the wheat and tares.
Matthew 13:40
40 “So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age (Aion).
Jesus clearly means that Aion (the age) has an end here. The translation of Aion in such cases is undisputed by anyone. Sometimes it’s translated “world”, or another similar word. (I wish they’d stick to the actual Greek, but I digress).
Use #2: To Indicate All Of “The Ages”
A good example is the end of the Lord’s Prayer.
Matthew 13:40
13 And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever (Aion). Amen.
In the Greek, It doesn’t say “forever”. There is a Greek word that means “forever” or “eternal”. (we’ll get to it in a bit) However, the Bible only uses it twice and this verse isn’t one of those places. Instead, Jesus used the word “Aion” which means ages. Further, the translators have removed the Greek definite article (equivalent to our word “the”), which is before the word aion in the original Greek.
A more literal reading would look like this:
Matthew 13:40
13 And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil, for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory for the ages. (plural) Amen.
Two things to notice:
First, the word Aion there is plural. Not singular (one), but plural (more than one). Jesus – being God – was doubtless aware of the Greek word that means “eternal” or “forever”, but he chose not to use it.
Second, Jesus’ meaning is quite clear even though He doesn’t use the word for forever/eternal. The Jews and Greek always thought of the world as divided into different ages. We still think of it like that today. For example, there’s the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, The Dark Ages, The Middles Ages, and most recently the Information Age.
Jesus was saying the the kingdom, power and glory of ALL those Ages belong to God.
In this context, when the Jews/Greeks said “The Ages” they literally meant “The Ages.”
I realize this might sound a little strange to our modern ears, but that’s how they thought of things in those days. The disciples even asked Jesus when the “end of the age (aion)” was. They recognized that there would be another “Age” (Aion) after theirs.
God certainly is the God of “the Ages”, and throughout all those ages the power and glory rightfully rests with Him. The Greek way of phrasing it might be strange to our modern English ears, but it’s perfectly consistent with Ancient Greek phrasing.
Another example:
Luke 1:33
33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever (aion), and His kingdom will have no end
Again, while Forever is one way of looking at it, it doesn’t actually capture the Greek. For starters, they had to eliminate a two Greek words to make “forever” fit. They removed the Greek word “eis“, which basically means “into”, “unto”, “through”, etc; and the Greek Definite article, which is equivalent to our word “the”. Further, the word Aion here is plural.
So here’s how it reads in a more literal Greek translation with the two removed words included and Aion translated properly and in plural:
Luke 1:33
33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob
foreverthrough the Ages, and His kingdom will have no end
That makes a lot of sense to me, but “through the forevers” sounds nonsensical. Why didn’t the translators simply translate the words that are there instead of removing some words and changing others? (a common problem I’ve found in many passages.) I suppose the effect is similar and the meaning of the passage doesn’t change much, but it’s not quite accurate.
*sigh*
C’est La vie.
Use #3: To Indicate “all of time”
A good example of this is the closing of Philippians.
Philippians 4:20
20 Now to our God and Father be the glory forever (aion) and ever (aion). Amen.
Again, there is only one Greek word for “forever” and it’s not used here (though we’ll get to it soon). A more literal translation of that passage would read:
Philippians 4:20
20 Now to our God and Father be the glory to the ages (plural) of the ages (plural). Amen
Two things to notice here:
First, the Greek word for “and” (καὶ) appears only once in this passage (connecting God and Father) and it’s not between the two uses of Aion. So this can’t be “Ages and Ages” because the word “and” isn’t there.
Second, Both instances of the word Aion here are Plural. It’s can’t be “Forevers of the Forevers” because that simply makes no sense. Forever by definition is singular. There’s only one forever because – by definition – forever can’t end.
So what does “Ages of the Ages” mean?
Exactly what it says: “Ages of the Ages”?
Remember, the Jews and Greeks of the day divided time into ages. (much like we do today). Further, they could divide Ages into smaller ages (just like we do today). For example, We divide the Middle Ages into the early, middle and late middle ages. So you have Ages within Ages.
So “Ages of Ages” sounds to me like they are going out of their way to say “all of the (sub) ages in all of the ages“. That is, every Age and every subdivision of Ages.
It’s a poetic way of saying “all of time”.
(Notice that the Greek phrasing includes past times as well as future times. Our typical English phrasing only includes the future.)
This jives with the typical usage of of the Greek phrase “Ages of the Ages” (αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων). It’s almost exclusively used to talk about God’s power or glory, which is certainly throughout all the Ages.
However, please notice that aion STILL means “Age” not “Forever”.
(Just like all the Greek lexicons agree it does.)
#4: Revelation 14:11
(Note: I don’t think – and can prove – that this verse in Revelation isn’t even talking about punishment in the afterlife. For a complete understanding of why, you’ll need to read most of my ~25k word article on Revelation. I’m only treating this for those who don’t share my view on Revelation.)
The Greek construction of Revelation 14:11 is unique and not found anywhere else in the Bible. Here it is in the NASB
Revelation 14:11
11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever (aion) and ever (aion); they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”
Now, more literally in the Greek:
Revelation 14:11
11 And the smoke of their torment goes up to ages of ages; and those worshiping the beast and its image have no rest day and night, and if anyone receives the mark of its name.”
The Greek there simply says “Ages of Ages”, and lacks the word “the” present in #3 above. This verse is used to support the eternal torment position, but I honestly find that position slightly comical for several reasons.
First, those statements lack a proper context of smoke and it’s use in the rest of the bible. More than any other book of the Bible, Revelation requires an understanding of the rest of the Bible to understand it’s meaning. (You can read my article on Revelation if you disagree) The scripture the John References here is found in Isaiah:
(It’s a prophecy about the destruction of Edom)
Isaiah 34:10
9 Its streams will be turned into pitch, And its loose earth into brimstone, And its land will become burning pitch.
10 It will not be quenched night or day; Its smoke will go up forever. From generation to generation it will be desolate; None will pass through it forever and ever.
Edom was located directly south of Israel, in the northern part of modern day Jordan. Have you heard of a fire that’s been burning there for ~2500+ years?
I thought not.
So then did Isaiah lie?
Of course not.
Like Revelation, Isaiah is primarily apocalyptic literature. This was a popular form of writing at the time and it used grand symbols to convey important ideas. (I have a whole section explaining apocalyptic literature in my article on Revelation)
Just like the smoke from Edom didn’t go up “forever”, so also the smoke in revelation isn’t meant to be taken literally.
Second, even if the smoke goes up forever, that doesn’t mean the torment goes on forever. Or to quote another author:
The reason eternal torment is read from this passage is from the following line of reasoning:
- The burning alive of the worshippers of the beast creates smoke that rises.
- The smoke rises for ever and ever.
- If the smoke rises for ever and ever, then the source, the burning, continues for ever and ever.
- The burning causes torment.
- Therefore, the unsaved are tormented in fire for ever and ever.
Of course, I should point out that many traditionalists today who appeal to this passage don’t believe there is literal fire in hell (which causes its own set of problems).
But we just saw from Isaiah that smoke going up forever doesn’t mean the burning continues forever. Further, the Bible has other things to say about smoke. (Remember, context is crucial in Revelation)
Exodus 29:18
9 You shall offer up in smoke the whole ram on the altar; it is a burnt offering to the LORD: it is a soothing aroma, an offering by fire to the LORD.
The smoke is a “soothing aroma” to God. Just like with Edom, the punishment was dealt out and it was terrible. However – according to Exodus – the smoke from a sacrifice is a “soothing aroma” to God. The punishment was dealt and God’s wrath was appeased. And while the torment isn’t explicitly stated to be forever, the smoke is (which indicates God is appeased) does go up for a long time.
(For the sake of argument, we’ll pretend I think this phrasing means “ages of the ages”. For the actual reason I don’t think this verse applies to Eternal Torment you’ll need to read most of my ~25k word article on Revelation. )
How The New Testament Uses Aion’s Adjective Form
In the Greek language, words can have a different form depending on how the are used. For example, the word “aion” has an adjective form: “aionios” It’s the same word, but this form is only used as an adjective. It adds the properties of Aion to the word it’s modifying.
For example, “rock” is a noun in English. Its adjective form is “rocky”, which means “of or relating to rocks; rocklike”. The noun rock and the adjective rocky are very similar to each other for obvious reasons. It’s the same with Greek nouns and adjectives. Since Aion means “age” (and everyone agrees on this) Then aionios adds “of ages” or “relating to the ages” or “age-like” to any word it’s modifying.
Let’s look at some of the places it’s used.
1 Timothy 1:17
17 Now to the King eternal (Aion), immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever (Ages of the Ages). Amen
It seems conclusive that the adjective form (aionios) must mean eternal here right? I mean, God is eternal and since aionios is used to describe Him, aionios must mean eternal right?
Well, not really.
How many times have you heard the phrase “Rock of Ages?”
The Bible uses that phrase to describe God. It means He is the greatest/best rock throughout all the ages. We still use this terminology today.
In English, we talk about “the game of the century“, “the fight of his life” or the “bell of the ball“. By “Game of the Century” we mean the greatest/best game that could be found in the entire century. By “fight of his life” we mean the worst or most dangerous fight of his entire life. By “bell of the ball“, we mean the most beautiful woman who attended the ball.
So with this understanding, let’s look at the verse again:
1 Timothy 1:17
17 Now to the King
eternalof ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever (Ages of the Ages). Amen
God certainly is the “King of Ages” wouldn’t you agree? Not only is He the greatest King in all the ages, He rules over all the ages. Let’s look at another place.
1 Timothy 6:16
17 who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and
eternaldominion of ages! Amen.
I could be wrong, but doesn’t God having the “dominion of ages” make perfect sense? He has dominion over all the ages so it makes perfect sense.
Hebrews 9:14
14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal (aionios) Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
I certainly think the Holy Spirit is the “Spirit of Ages” in the sense of being the greatest Spirit throughout all the ages. I’ll admit the phrasing is a little odd to our modern ears. Again though, this was a perfectly natural way to phrase things for the time.
There are tons of other scriptures that fall into this category.
If you exchange “eternal” or “forever” with “of ages” it makes perfect sense in nearly every instance. The few that aren’t immediately obvious (Luke 1:33 for example, which we’ve already covered) are usually clarified by putting back words translators removed in order to make forever or eternal fit.
Perhaps one more example?
Eternal (aionios) Life
John 3:16
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal (aionios) life.
Yes I know, shocker right? The phrase most often translated “eternal life” doesn’t actually mean “eternal”. There are other places to go in the Bible where it says Christians will spend an eternity with God. (I would read Revelation chapters 21 and 22 if you are in doubt.)
But that’s not the point of eternal life, and it never has been. Lets go back to the definition of Aion (noun form) to clarify:
165 aiṓn (see also the cognate adjective, 166 /aiṓnios, “age-long”) – properly, an Age (era, “time-span”), characterized by a specific quality (type of existence).
And now the adjective form:
166 aiṓnios (an adjective, derived from 165 /aiṓn “an age, having a particular character and quality“) – properly, “age-like” (“like-an-age”), i.e. an “age-characteristic” (the quality describing a particular age); (figuratively) the unique quality (reality) of God’s life at work in the believer, i.e. as the Lord manifests His self-existent life (as it is in His sinless abode of heaven).
…
[166 (aiṓnios) does not focus on the future per se, but rather on the quality of the age (165 /aiṓn) it relates to. Thus believers live in “eternal (166 /aiṓnios) life” right now, experiencing this quality of God’s life now as a present possession.
“Eternal life” has never been about the duration of life – which happens to be infinite – it’s always about the quality of the life. This would be obvious if you looked at the tenses of the words. It’s a little more obvious in the Greek, but it carries over to the English too, we just miss it most of the time.
John says that we “have” – present tense – “eternal (aionios) life.
“Eternal life” isn’t something we get in the future; it’s something we have right now. If you look at it that way, “eternal life” doesn’t make a lot of sense. It makes some sense (because we will live forever) but not a lot because “eternal life” starts right now.
I want to be clear; I’m not teaching a “prosperity gospel” or “word of faith” theology.
God’s idea of a higher quality life is one that more accurately reflects His character. He is far more concerned with our character than our comfort. However, living a moral life according to God’s commands will make you happier. It may not be easier, but it will be better.
EDIT: I recently found this video by The Bible Project that sums up this understanding quite well. Notably, the presenter does believe in eternal conscious torment (hell), though he has a softer and more nuanced view of hell, notably shaped by C.S. Lewis’s book “The Great Divorce”. (He re-frames it as C.S. Lewis did, focusing on God respecting our choice not to have a relationship with Him, and thus saying we “create” our own hell by rejecting God.)
His understanding is spot-on with the word definitions we’ve been looking at. Eternal life starts right now, the moment you become a Christian, not at some future point in time. Anyway, edit over and back to the article.
Understanding that Eternal life starts right now changes things. So does understanding it’s primarily about the quality not the duration. Remember, the definition specifically says it’s about the quality/type of life (one that reflects God more). With that understanding, reading John 3:16 as the “life of ages” makes a LOT of sense.
Just like like “Rock of Ages” refers to the greatest rock in all the ages, so too “life of ages” refers to the greatest life in all the ages.
That’s what Jesus gave us on the cross.
Through his blood, we have access the most high God of the universe and are saved from His wrath. Plus, we have His Holy Spirit living within us all day, every day. He gives us “the peace that passes understanding”, He gives us the fruit of the spirit (love, joy, peace, etc) and protects us from the works of the flesh. Not only that, but when we die we get to spend forever with Him in paradise.
Doesn’t that sound like the “life of ages”?
Sure, life is hard sometimes, but that doesn’t make it less good. In fact, the “life of ages” is so amazing that we know God will take our worst trials and recycle them to make us more like Himself. Could it get any better?
So let’s look at it again with that understanding in mind.
John 3:16
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have
eternal lifethe life of ages.
Not only does that understanding make more sense in light of the tenses (in both English and Greek), but it’s a more accurate translation too.
Further, the Bible spends a LOT of time telling us how to have a better life, but very little time telling us we’ll live forever. You can see where God’s priorities are, it’s always on the quality/type of life we live, not the duration of the life we live.
(otherwise martyrs would be in trouble)
You can hardly open a single page of the Bible (especially in the New Testament) without instructions for how to live better.
By contrast, finding verses that tell us we’ll live forever (in heaven) are much rarer. They exist, but verses telling us how to live better are at least 100x more common. Again, you can see where God’s priorities are.
Literally every single time you see the phrase “eternal life” in your Bible, it’s not “eternal” life in the Greek. It’s “Aionios life” or the “life of ages”. (ζωὴν αἰώνιον). And at the risk of beating a dead horse, it’s about the quality/type of life, not the duration.
Back to the Universal Restoration vs Eternal Torment Discussion
Let’s go back to the verse we started with:
Matthew 25:46
46 “These will go away into eternal (aionios) punishment, but the righteous into eternal (aionios) life.”
Hopefully the true meaning of this passage jumps out at you from what we’ve already discussed. But just in case I’ll clarify.
The phrase “eternal life” here is “aionios life”, which refers to the type/quality of the life not the duration. Just like like “Rock of Ages” refers to the greatest rock in all the ages, so too “life of ages” refers to the greatest life in all the ages. “Rock of Ages” doesn’t tell you about the duration of the rock; it tells you about the quality/type of rock.
So it is with the “life of ages”.
So too it is with the “punishment of ages”.
The judgement in view here is certainly the “punishment of ages”, meaning the “worst punishment in all the ages”. To say there’s a worse punishment ignores large chunks of the Bible. This is the righteous judgement of God on unrighteous sinners to bring them to repentance.
Again, I’ll remind you that almost everyone agrees that aion/aionios mean “Age”.
This fact isn’t in dispute.
You can go back to the beginning of this article and re-read the definitions I copy/pasted from five different well-respected sources. However – despite this near universal agreement – nearly every translation insists on translating aion/aionios as “eternal” or “forever”.
Why?
Just a guess, but I’d say “Doctrinal bias”. And I’m not saying there’s any malice on the part of the translators. Unfortunately, most of us (myself included) often aren’t aware of our own biases.
As I said in the introduction to this series (and will prove in another article) Eternal Torment didn’t become popular until the original Greek fell out of common use. It wasn’t until the original Greek was abandoned and Latin became the common tongue that Eternal Torment began to rise to prominence.
Looking at some of these verses, it’s easy to see why.
Let’s look at the verse again
Matthew 25:46
46 “These will go away into
eternal(the) punishment of ages, but the righteous intoeternal(the) life of ages.”
Makes sense to me. Let’s try the other good “hell verse”.
2 Thessolonians 1:9
9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power
Again, the “destruction of ages” is certainly the worst in all the ages because it meas you’ll be separated from God Himself. Also, the definition for the word translated destruction is interesting here:
3639 ólethros (from ollymi/“destroy”) – properly, ruination with its full, destructive results (LS). 3639 /ólethros (“ruination”) however does not imply “extinction” (annihilation). Rather it emphasizes the consequent loss that goes with the complete “undoing.”
The “loss of ages” makes sense here. Further, you’ll be “ruined” in the sense of abandoning all chance of a reward in the afterlife.
The “Unforgivable” Sin
Mark 3:29
29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin “
Until I looked at the Greek in this verse, I had several contenders in my head for the “worst translation of a Bible verse” award category. I though those few verses were as bad as it got.
I was wrong.
Hands down, Mark 3:29 wins the award for most consistently HORRIBLY translated verse in the entire Bible.
This might take a minute to unravel. And just so you know I’m not blowing smoke, you can double check everything I’m saying on the interlinear version of Mark 3:29. (which has both the Greek and English so you can compare)
Mark 3:29
29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin “
The word translated “never” does NOT mean “never.” It’s the Greek word “οὐκ” (ou) and it means “not”. Here’s the definition:
Short Definition: no, not
Definition: no, not.3756 ou – no (“not”). 3756 (ou) objectively negates a statement, “ruling it out as fact.”
The Greek word “ou” is used over 1600 times in the New Testament. Nearly every time it’s translated as “no” or “not”… because that’s what it means.
There is a Greek word that means “never”, and it’s the word “οὐδέποτε” (oudepote). Its only meaning is “never” but the Bible doesn’t use it here. So while your English translation tells you that this sin will “never” be forgiven, that’s not what the Greek says.
But worse, virtually every single translation eliminates – leaves out completely – three whole Greek words!
And they aren’t stylistic words either; the verse with these words COMPLETELY changes the meaning.
And just in case you’re wondering, yes these verses are in the source text that virtually all new Testament versions are translated from. The overwhelming vast majority of Bible translations use the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece for the New Testament. If you can read Greek, you can check Mark 3:29 in the Nestle-Aland 28th edition to see that these three words are indeed present. (If you can’t read Greek, just look for the words in verse 29 that look like the words in the picture below.)
For some reason, these words were removed – presumably intentionally – by the Bible translators. Maybe they thought they didn’t belong, but they are in every single reputable Greek New Testament. Everyone agrees they belong, but no one puts them in.
How can we know what God said if the translators change the text!!!
Their job is translating, not editorializing what God Himself said. (Makes me wonder if anything else pointing to Universalism has been removed. I’m currently going through the New Testament in Greek, and if I find anything I’ll update this article.)
But I digress.
Below is a screenshot of the interlinear Bible I linked to above. I’ve highlighted the words that translators have removed.
(Note:Greek words always have several different endings depending on how they are used. It’s one of the features of the Greek language, which I explain in this article. So while I’ve been using the “naked” version “aion” and “aionios”, in Greek it will always have a suffix to tell you what part of speech the word is. In the verse below, it’s “αἰῶνα” (aiōna) instead of the “naked” version)
Here’s the verse again in the NASB, and most other translations render it almost identically:
Mark 3:29
29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin “
Do you see the problem? If you translate the word “not”correctly and include the three missing words the verse completely changes its meaning.
Notice, the word “eis” – which we’ve already talked about in Luke 1:33 (through the ages) – is one of the removed words. Also, in this verse – unlike Luke 1:33 – the word aion is singular, not plural. So “through the Age” would be an appropriate translation.
Here it is with a more correct translation:
Mark 3:29
29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit does not have forgiveness through the age, but is guilty of the sin of ages.”
That has a completely different meaning. It lines up much better with Jesus’ words in Matthew
Matthew 12:32
29 “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
Nowhere does it say the sin can’t be forgiven.
In Mark, Jesus says it won’t be forgiven “through the age”, which was presumably Jesus’ current “age”. In Matthew, Jesus said blasphemy against the Spirit won’t be forgiven “in this age” (which was His current age, at the very end of the age of the Jews); or the “the age to come” (The church age)
But what about the age(s) afterward?
In Matthew 24:3, the disciples ask when is the “end of the age”, so there’s certainly other ages coming. The last 2000 years have been the “church age”.
At the very least, sometime after the church age is the “age” of the New Heavens and New Earth described in Revelation.
Why couldn’t the “unforgivable” sin be forgiven then?
According to Jesus word’s here – when translated fully and without omission – that’s a possibility.
The Hebrew Word Typically Translated Forever/Eternal
We’ve spent a long time discussing the word Aion/aionios. However, there is one passage from the Old Testament that leans on this also. It could be considered a parallel passage to Matthew 25:46 (some go to aionios punishment, others to aionios life).
Daniel 12:2
2 “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting (olam) life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting (olam) contempt.
The word most commonly translated forever or eternal in the Old Testament is the word “olam“, sometimes spelled “owlam”.
The definition of the word olam is a little incomplete from my usual source (Biblehub.com, which typically has at least three different lexicons on one page). They only include a short definition of “forever” and a long definition of “long duration, antiquity, futurity“. Therefore, I had to dig a little deeper to discover the full meaning.
Here is the meaning of the word olam from according to Jeff Brenner of the Ancient Hebrew Research Center: (he doesn’t believe in Universal Restoration to my knowledge)
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.
So olam mean “a very distant time” which is far enough away you can’t see it. Jeff Brenner also talk about olam in the second half of the video below. (it’s only ~4 1/2 minutes)
Olam means simply that it’s concealed. It’s “at or beyond the horizon“. By definition, the word olam means we can’t know how long it lasts; we can only know it’s “a very distant time”.
This makes a lot of sense if we look at a few of the place olam is used.
Exodus 12:24 (referring to the Passover)
24 “And you shall observe this event as an ordinance for you and your children forever (Olam).
and also
Exodus 28:43 (referring to the priestly robes)
43 “They shall be on Aaron and on his sons when they enter the tent of meeting, or when they approach the altar to minister in the holy place, so that they do not incur guilt and die. It shall be a statute forever (olam) to him and to his descendants after him.
That’s two place where God said something would be Olam, that clearly don’t mean forever because they ended.
Further, I left out over a dozen verses where God says something that’s part of the law will last “olam”. If Olam means “forever” then we would still need to obey the Mosaic law. If you think we need to obey the Law, I suggest you read Galatians chapter 3.
Even more convincing are verses where Olam is applied to the past:
Joshua 24:2
24 Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘From ancient (olam) times your fathers lived beyond the River, namely, Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, and they served other gods.
Terah was a a long time ago from Joshua’s perspective. However it certainly wasn’t “forever” ago.
Another verse:
1 Samuel 27:8
8 Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites and the Girzites and the Amalekites; for they were the inhabitants of the land from ancient (olam) times, as you come to Shur even as far as the land of Egypt.
There are other places where olam is used of past events, but that should suffice for now. The point it olam does not mean forever. If it did, then how would you explain the Amalekites being inhabitants of the land from “forever”. Olam literally means “a very distant time” (either past or future).
(It’s worth noting that in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures – the Septuagint – olam was most often translated as “aion”.)
So if we return to Daniel…
Daniel 12:2
2 “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting (olam) life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting (olam) contempt.
Olam means simply that it’s concealed in duration. It’s “at or beyond the horizon“. By definition, the word olam means we can’t know how long it lasts; we can only know it’s “a very distant time”.
In the context of those who get “olam life” truly, we can’t know how long “forever” is. By definition, the meaning of forever defies all attempts to put an exact number of days/years on it. Thus, a “very distant time” where we can’t know when it ends fits.
For those who get olam contempt, (from the perspective of Universal Restoration) we can’t know how long it will take those in the lake of fire to repent for their wickedness; we only know it will be a long time.
Here’s another verse some people say disproves Universal Restoration.
1 Samuel 3:13-14
14 “Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever (olam).”
If olam meant “forever” then perhaps this would be definitive proof that Universal Restoration is wrong and Eternal torment is right. However – as we’ve just seen – olam doesn’t mean forever. The priestly robes and the Passover celebration were also described as lasting for “olam” and they ended with the cross. Perhaps this statement ended when the others did (at the cross).
(The Jews believed that some sins were so grave, only the death of the one who committed them could atone for them. Yes, the Jews believed your sins could be forgiven after you die based on Isaiah 22:14, which we’ll get to in a future article.)
Likewise, past times were describe as olam, and they certainly weren’t an “eternity” ago.
Olam simply means “at or beyond the horizon” which is “a very distant time“.
You can even use this word to describe “forever” (sort of) because it’s a very long time with no end in sight. (like the horizon) But saying it must mean forever has no linguistic support or scriptural basis.
The Greek Word For Forever: Aidios
The Greek word that means “forever” or “eternal” is the word “ἀΐδιος” (aidios). Both the short and long definitions are “eternal, everlasting“. The Bible only uses it twice, so I’ll copy/paste both verses below.
Romans 1:20
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal (aidios) power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Jude 1:6
6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal (aidios) bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
There is no dispute of any kind what this word means. Everyone agrees it means eternal. The reason this is useful is how aion and aidios are contrasted outside the Bible.
Aidios & Aion Outside The Bible
More uses of both aion and aidios occur outside the Bible in classic Greek literature.
While it’s not a common word, aidios always used to denote the idea of Eternity or forever. In fact, Aristotle uses both aidios and aion in the same sentence, which is very interesting. Obviously we don’t care what Aristotle says about God, but his use of words tells us something about what they mean.
Aristotle wrote about “An eternal age pertaining to God.”. Now to add the Greek words so you can see his use…
An eternal (Aidios) age (Aion) pertaining to God.
Aristotle uses similar language elsewhere. In de Cælo, Aristotle writes:
“The entire heaven is one and eternal (Aidios) having neither beginning nor end of an entire age (Aion)
Obviously we aren’t looking to Aristotle for doctrine. But notice his use of aion and aidios. Aidios is clearly eternal, and while aion is clearly temporary.
Aion/aionios appears quite often in classic Greek literature. Homer used aion 13 times in the Illiad and the Odyssey, but never in the sense of forever or eternal. It’s often used to describe a man’s time (or lifespan = age) on earth. These uses of aion are consistent with their use in the Bible. Nowhere does aion appear to mean forever, as in a “time without end”. However, aidios means exactly that.
If God wanted to say “eternal punishment”, why didn’t He?
The words in Greek certainly exist, He just didn’t use them.
Conclusion
I hope you see that the word aion does not mean eternal/forever. The opinions of five respected Greek Lexicons, it’s usage in the Bible, plus its usage outside the Bible all bear this out.
Even if aion could sometimes mean forever/eternal, that poses no problem for the Universal Restoration position. It’s obvious from it’s usage that it doesn’t have to mean eternal. (for instance, Jesus talking about the “end of the aion”) There are many places the Universal Restoration people go to to prove their position.
However, the Eternal Torment (hell) position requires aion to always mean forever or eternal.
As I said before, the entire existence of Eternal Torment rests on only two pillars. One of them is aion meaning eternal. If aion doesn’t always mean eternal – every single time – then Eternal Torment rests on a very shaky foundation indeed.
The next article in this series is: Can you be saved after you die?
Hi,
Could you discuss Judith 16:17 for me? I see some infernalists citing it in their favour as and as argument against universalism and I’m wondering what you make of the translation of the Greek there?
So first, I don’t consider Judith to be scripture so what the book says won’t make a difference to me. I have an article entitled The Bible: 66 books vs 73 and Why (the “Apocrypha” Explained) if you want to know more/why.
That said, Judith 16:17 is… interesting. The phrase that’s translated as “and weep for ever” in Greek is: “καὶ κλαύσονται ἐν αἰσθήσει ἕως αἰῶνος”. Notice the words I highlighted? They aren’t translated but instead are left out completely. Here they are with the translations after them, and links to word definitions so you can confirm. (I got the Greek text from here btw)
καὶ (and) κλαύσονται (they will weep) ἐν (in) αἰσθήσει (perception/understanding/discernment) ἕως (until) αἰῶνος (age).
I would probably translate it something like this: “and they will weep in understanding until [the] age.”
To me, that doesn’t sound like eternal torment. In fact, the use of “until” rather seems to argue for the opposite. Again though, I don’t consider Judith to be scripture.
1. I’m with you 100% on the meaning of Aion.
2. I know you’re trying to defend universalism because you want god to appear a certain way. Albeit for your own comfort and security.
3. It doesn’t matter how god appears to you or I or anyone else. It doesn’t matter if god is good or bad by our sense of the words. There’s nothing we can do it about it. If god wants to burn everyone at the stake or let everyone ride cloud and play tambourines it won’t matter because there’s nothing you or I can do about it.
4. All things belong to god. He owns all things. We don’t even own ourselves. God will get whatever outcome he desires.
5. Your understanding of Greek is far better than hebrew. Avoid talking Hebrew until you properly understand it. And with that knowledge you can’t understand the new testament properly until you understand hebrew.
6. Whenever someone says “you don’t have to obey the law” they indicate they are so ignorant of the bible that no one should ever listen to anyone they teach about any subject related to the bible. The entire new covenant is based upon god making you obey his instructions. You even referring to all things old testament as jewish and god’s instructions as law proves to me that you are so misinformed that it makes your words used to digest.
7. Due to your desire to emotionally feel secure by creating a god who saves all so you’re guaranteed a spot in the world to come clouds your mind of the meaning and plan of God.
My advice is to learn Hebrew and the culture before you even open the new testament.
I just want to add the “end of the age” in Matt 24 happened in 70ad with the destruction of the temple and priesthood.
Yup, you would would probably enjoy my article on revelation then…
With regards to “aidios” please see the late Ray Smiths answer to an email question below.
Dear Mel:
Actually I have answered this numerous times. The Greek word translated “eternal” in Rom. 1:20 and “everlasting” in Jude 6, is aidios, and is very similar
to the word “hades” translated “hell” in many English Bibles. Hades is a compount of ha and des. Ha means not or no–it is a negative. And des means to see or perceive.
When put together it means “unseen” or “imperceptible.” Same is true of the word aidios. It is a compount of “a or ha” and “idios.” Once again, “a or ha” is a negative meaning no or not, and idios likewise means to see or perceive. When put together the word means to not be able to see or imperceptible. This is further verified by its usage in Rom.
1:20. Notice that verse 20 starts off with, “for the INISIBLE things of Him [that would be things that are NOT made, NOT visible] from the creation of the world are clearly SEEN, being understood by the THINGS THAT ARE MADE [that would be things that ARE visible], even His IMPERCEPTIBLE power, and Divinity; so that they are without excuse.”
There is little sense in telling us that God is eternal. If He weren’t eternal, He wouldn’t be God. No, Paul is telling us that we can understand some of God’s great power even though it is invisible by itself. And we can do this by looking at the things God made, that ARE VISIBLE. The visible universe points to God’s INvisible (imperceptible) POWER and DIVINITY. Hope this helps your understanding. There is no word in Scripture which means by definition: “eternal,” or “endless time.”
God be with you,
Ray
Hi there. Just about to start reading your post ‘The Biggest Hole in Hell: Aion, Ages and Eternity’.
You begin the argument looking at Mth 25:46 and the use of the word, ‘Aion’. I believe the actual word should be, ‘Aionios’. Does that matter?
Kind regards Rob
Fixed, and thank you for pointing that out. Fortunately, it makes essentially no difference to the point, and I did reference the correct form later in the article; I just missed it there at the beginning. Again, thanks for pointing that out.
Wow, I’ve been going through this since reading George Sarris book on the subject, then went to Jon Wesley’s research, then started in verse by verse like you’ve done here. You pinpointed the same exact verses and translation arguments that I have. I only took two semesters of Greek at university, but this is all pretty cut and dry as far as translating goes. Which is why I’ve been so shocked studying it, there is zero reason for these objectively poor translations except for an attempt to force their theology on the word.
As I’m sure you know from your study of Revelation, to add or remove from the Word is a great sin with serious consequence. The fact that the entire western church has been knowingly doing it is extremely concerning. I know a lot of this isn’t taught in seminary, but the translators know, that’s for sure. The whole thing makes me sick to my stomach.
And that right there is exactly why I started learning Greek.
Your Strong’s definition is not full and oddly truncates the remaining part.
Strong’s 165: “properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future) — age, course, ETERNAL, (for) EVER(-more), (n-)EVER, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, WITHOUT END).
Same for your Thayer’s:
1. age, a human lifetime, life itself
2. an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity,
It just seems disingenuous to leave these out of your discussion. It leaves you with the false conclusion that “everyone agrees that aion and aionios do not mean eternal…”. That is just a false statement – all the Lexicons allow aion to mean “eternal”.
It’s also incorrect to say “Age here means a (long) span of time with a beginning and an end”. As I noted before, Thayer’s third definition of ages is
“3. WITHOUT END, never to cease, everlasting”
So an age DOES NOT need to have an end. Look at 2 Cor 4:18. Paul uses Proskaira to mean “temporary” and opposes that to Aionios being “eternal”. That is, without end. Here an Aion IS without end – for are we to think that the things unseen (non-material, spiritual world) will come to and end? Surely it will not because that would mean GOD would come to an end!
Beyond this, Aion is used as to mean “an age without end” when describing God’s glory in 2 Cor 4:17, 2 Peter 1:11, 2 Tim 2:10….and at least a dozen more.
Surely, you don’t think God’s glory will come to an end, do you? So clearly there are countless times in the NT that Aion has no end.
So then your statement “You can look at every time Aion is used in the New Testament [and it has a beginning and and end]” is again, false. Clearly there are numerous places in the NT where Aion is endless.
So then your 3 ways in which Aion is used is completely lacking in the usage which has no end.
I think when you read Matt 13:40 in your example, you must realized that when Jesus says “yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory for the AGES” he definitely means “all ages without beginning or end”. To deny this would mean you think his power and glory is finite and will end. If you agree with this, you have a definition of Aion which includes and endless time.
Lastly, reinterpreting all of these passages to mean “the ages of human history” and not including the age of the afterlife is a mistake. The lexicons do not mention that “age” is confined to the worlds existence (as if it was Middle Ages, Primordial Ages, etc, etc). Strong’s 165 definition makes it clear the ages can stretch to INFINITY, which earth ages do not.
Strong’s 165: “an age, a cycle (of time), especially of the present age as contrasted with the future age, and of one of a series of ages stretching to infinity.”
I think you can see the difficulty it takes to reinterpret these verses to say they are teaching UR. Your argument essentially rests on thinking that all bible scholars translated the Bible wrong and that you are better at interpreting the Bible than these scholars are. Not saying this is proof you are wrong, but it sure is interesting that dozens upon dozens of independent, scholarly translations of the original manuscripts through time have translated this as “eternal”.
I’d say if you’re already at the point of “For some reason, these words were removed – presumably intentionally – by the Bible translators. Makes me wonder if anything else pointing to Universalism has been removed” why stop at UR. This is probably just the tip of the iceberg! The bible we have today is probably FULL of translation errors! Maybe they intentionally mistranslated texts about other important doctrines, or worse – Jesus being the Messiah. My point being, when your fallback for your entire belief on something is “all 58 translations are wrong” it just seems like a weak argument.
*Sigh* Strongs is in fact NOT a lexicon. It’s a concordance, and it makes an extremely poor lexicon. It has incorrect word definitions all over, as anyone who knows Greek well will attest. The only reason I use it is because I know people would ask. Strongs is NOT a good source for word definitions.
I have the advantage of having translated well over half of the New testament from Greek to English. Every verse you mentioned makes perfect sense as “ages”, and most of the them are plural. Not singular (age), but plural (ages). For example, 2 Cor 4:18: “For the things we see only last for a season; but the things we don’t see last for ages” and “yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory through the ages” It’s plural, and look it up if you don’t believe me. Notably, “through the ages” does mean all of time; past, present, and future… that despite the proper meaning of “ages” remaining intact.
To translations removing words, I showed the screenshot. You can look up the UBS, NA, TR, MT, or any other NT text or manuscript and you’ll see the same. The translators removed words. I’m sorry if you don’t like it, but that’s a fact. Anyone who cares can double-check the texts I just mentioned. That is proof positive that the vast majority of translations removed words. I don’t even ascribe malice, but I do ascribe fault.
Your statement about Strong’s being good or not is beside the point. You chose to include Strong’s but you chose to only happened to give the HALF of it that supports your view. If you want to reference Strong’s, give the FULL definition. If you don’t want to reference it, don’t reference Strong’s at all!
Same goes for Thayer’s.
You are making an incorrect assumption based on what I assume is a misunderstanding of how Strong’s works. (You did ask me about how lexicons work before, so I’ll assume this is similar). On the page I linked to, Strong’s has a definition and then a list words that it is interpreted as. I quoted the definition, which is exactly what I said I was going to quote. Yes I left off the list of word its translated as because I was only interested in the definition.
Notice the “–” in the middle of the quote below. That’s the divider between between the definition and the list of ways its translated. (Because again, Strong’s is a concordance, NOT a lexicon.)
I gave the whole definition.
Your point on Strong’s is well-taken. I was unaware of this split in the Strong’s wording. Thanks for teaching me that! Actually, more to your point, what comes after the “:–” isn’t how the greek is necessarily translated or defined, but other ways the KJV itself ONLY translates the word.
However, I would still point out that all of your definitions in the article except the HELPS involves translations as “without end/eternal”. So you can’t just assume it means “a temporal age” everywhere it’s used without justification. Additionally, from my research on Thayer’s there is no “primary” or “secondary” etc definitions. They are all equally valid standard definitions of the greek word. So I still don’t understand why you pick only half the Thayer’s lexicon. In fact, if you look at the rest of Thayer’s he goes on to describe why aion and aionios are translated as “eternal” many times in the NT and how the plural (aionios) isn’t superfluous as you’ve mentioned, but rather the plural denotes the individual ages whose sum is eternity…hence why this often gets translated as “eternal”.
Thayer also notes how aion can refer to the future age AFTER the return of Christ. This is clearly what Jesus is talking about in Luke 20:35, Luke 18:30, Mark 10:30, and Eph 2:7. (Strangely enough, none of these verses where aion refers to ages AFTER Christ’s return ever show up in your analysis of the NT use of this word). In your article, you only limit your understanding of aion to ages before Christ which is one of the main mistakes of your interpreting UR.
Lastly, your three new testament uses of aion is still not complete because you never mention that aion can be used to describe a time without end. You simply assume these 3 are the only possible meanings of aion in the NT without reason for doing so. It rather leaves the reader with a False Trilema because you don’t include the fourth valid option of “eternal”.
So, here’s another thing you might not know about lexicons.
Notice in Thayer’s that it specifically states that only the phrase — not the word, but the phrase — “εἰς τούς αἰῶνας” and “εἰς τόν αἰῶνα”, mean “as long as time shall be (the plural denotes the individual ages whose sum is eternity)“. That was exactly the point of the heading “Use #2: To Indicate All Of The Ages” in the article. I literally devoted a whole section of the article to explaining Thayer’s understanding of how the phrase — not the word, but the phrase — means something akin to forever/eternal.
Remember, a phrase sometimes means something different than the sum of its parts. (an idiom)
(As a quick example, when you see the word “except” and/or “unless” in an English Bible, it’s almost always two Greek words which roughly mean “if” and “not”, that when used together means unless or except)
Lexicons recognize this, and thus usually include detail on such phrases. Again though, it’s the phrase not the word that (sort of) means forever/eternal. However, even today we still say “through the ages”, and everyone knows what you mean. And notice that the word still means “ages”, not eternal/forever, even if the phrase means something different.
That said, the phrase “through the ages” — which is the only context in which aion can mean forever/eternal — isn’t used of punishment or reward in the afterlife in the Bible. In fact, it’s almost exclusively used as an emphatic declaration of of God’s glory and/or concerning Jesus’ role as permanent high priest. So when we talk about reward and punishment, since the word still means “age”, and the phrase isn’t used of reward/punishment, then the proper definition of aion is “age/ages” in that context.
1. Are you saying you left off Thayer’s second definition because you think he (and everyone else) have this definition wrong?
2. Going STRAIGHT off of the Greek-to-English
AIONIOS (166):
Strong’s – “age-long, eternal”
Strong’s Exhaustive – “eternal, forever, everlasting”
Thayer’s – “without beginning or end; without beginning; without end, never to cease, everlasting”
Bullinger – “eternal, everlasting, ever(for)”
Matt 18:8 – “and be cast into AIONIOS (166) fire”
Matt 25:41 – “accursed ones, into the AIONIOS (166) fire”
Matt 25:46 – ” will go away into AIONIOS (166) punishment”
Reading the Bible isn’t rocket science…
I spent an entire section of the article explaining Thayer’s “second definition”; that’s hardly leaving it off. Further, I was talking about aion (165), not aionios (166), as I explicitly said.
That said, we can talk about aionios if you wish.
The early Greek speaking church fathers — who actually spoke Greek — seem in hearty agreement that aionios doesn’t mean “eternal”. (See article 8 in this series, and those were just the short and easy to understand quotes. There’s plenty more.) I’m more willing to trust native/ancient Greek speakers than modern ones.
The lexicons usually admit that eternal/forever isn’t the correct sense. (Thayer’s being a notable exception here.) Look at the HELPS word studies, especially the second paragraph. Even Strong’s gets this one right, as the first word even in your quote is “age-long”, and the longer definition under “usage” focuses on the same. I’ve lost count of the number of lexicons that I’ve looked at over the years, partially because people sometimes send me an obscure one. Almost all — not all, but most — have a few lines in there somewhere admitting the same thing: eternal/forever isn’t right. Most specify that it refers to the quality of the age, or the characteristics of the age, rather than the time aspect.
Further, with every singe Greek word that I’ve seen, and every single English one too, the adjective form of a word is related to the noun form. Consider rock > rocky. “Rocky” means “like a rock” (in various ways). There is no word that I’m aware of that completely flips the meaning when going from noun > adjective. None. That would be like “rock” still meaning a rock, and “rocky” meaning “soft and fluffy”. It doesn’t happen, not in English, and not in Greek either that I’ve seen. (And again, I’ve translated near 2/3 of the New Testament, so I speak from experience.) So why then would the noun form aion mean “a time with a beginning and end“, and aionios mean “a time without a beginning and end“?
It doesn’t.
Most lexicons will admit this, though again not all. The early Greek speakers obviously thought the same thing. It flies in the face of the noun/adjective association in linguistics. Further, the only way I see to harmonize verses like Romans 5:19 with aionios punishment is the “age-long/age-quality” understanding of its meaning. An understanding that was near unanimous among the early Christian church fathers whose primary language was Greek, and which most (but not all) lexicons that I’ve seen say as well.
You may have talked about Thayer’s second definition later on, but in your upfront definitions you leave Thayer’s second definition out which still isn’t right. I don’t understand how you see partial definitions as ok.
Unless I’m mistaken, you’ve been updating your article to add to the definitions this whole time. I see you have a HELPS definition for aionios (166).
Here is what you put:
“(an adjective, derived from 165 /aiṓn “an age, having a particular character and quality“) – properly, “age-like” (“like-an-age”), i.e. an “age-characteristic” (the quality describing a particular age); (figuratively) the unique quality (reality) of God’s life at work in the believer, i.e. as the Lord manifests His self-existent life (as it is in His sinless abode of heaven).
…
[166 (aiṓnios) does not focus on the future per se, but rather on the quality of the age (165 /aiṓn) it relates to. Thus believers live in “eternal (166 /aiṓnios) life” right now, experiencing this quality of God’s life now as a present possession.”
Seriously now. You gave all of the HELPS definition EXCEPT you literally substituted “…” for the part of the definition that shows it means ETERNAL. You make it really hard to think this is something you did on accident and it just comes across as if in every Greek definition you list, you intentionally try to prevent “eternal” from ever showing up. Here’s the part of the definition you left out via your “…”:
“ETERNAL (166 /aiṓnios) life operates simultaneously outside of time, inside of time, and beyond time – i.e. what gives time its EVERLASTING MEANING for the believer through faith, yet is also time-independent. So no – HELPS is not rejecting the “eternal” definition of aionios. It is CONFIRMING it, contrary to what you list in your definition.
I really see no point in continuing to discuss this – I’m not going to change your mind. You get out of hermeneutics, what you put into it…in your case a one-sided-analysis. It doesn’t matter how the early church fathers may have or have not understood something – Origen, Creedal believers, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus, etc etc are all fallible just like anyone else not writing as part of inspired biblical canon and this is nothing more than an Argument From Authority on your part (another logical fallacy). I pray you would open your heart to what clearly is the true reading of these texts, and may God help you as you continue on your journey for truth!
I haven’t been editing the article while we were discussing as you accuse me. The fact that you think I have suggests that you haven’t been reading carefully. (Many of your issues would’ve been avoided if you had.)
What HELPS says about aionios in that section is theological application of a phrase, not a word definition. That section begins with “Eternal (166 /aiṓnios) life” to make this clear. Notice, they were describing only the phrase “aionios life”, and not the definition of aionios in general. Again, they were talking about a specific phrase, not the word in general. I didn’t include the section because we were talking about the word’s definition, not the phrase’s definition.
You missed this “word vs phrase” issue before before, as I pointed out above. Again, please read things carefully.
(And then during the course of the article, I did explain about aionios life being somewhat “time independent”. So even if I didn’t quote the lexicon on it, I covered that issue)
It seems clear to me that you don’t know how to use a lexicon. That’s fine and there’s no shame in that at all; I didn’t know how to use them either at one time. 🙂 However, please consider learning to properly read a lexicon, and learning to read it carefully before you make accusations based on a misunderstanding of how lexicons work, or based on a careless reading of a lexicon.
Oh, and just in case you doubt me about the editing, here’s a screenshot of the editing page which includes the revision history. The edit 2 weeks ago was in response to a comment made by “Robert Craggs”, who pointed out that I made a small mistake, and I fixed the mistake. Otherwise, it’s been two years since I updated this article.
Image link: https://www.bereanpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/aion-article-revision-history-screenshot.jpg
Thank you for such an indepth look at this subject. Ok, so I get now that Matthew 25:41 reads Depart from me you cursed into the fire of the ages prepared for the devil and his angels. Does this imply that that the punishement of the devil and his angels will eventually end also? What about Judas whom it was better that he had never been born?
To the angels, I won’t speculate. The Bible really doesn’t give us much to go on about that and so I’d be fine either way. My inclination is that they don’t get to repent based on Jude, but that’s a weak argument at the best of times.
To Judas, I’m not sure why Jesus said that. It could be a reference to the severity and/or duration of his punishment, or perhaps something else. I’m not sure.
why are you putting a plural adjective with a singular noun? “Life Ages” Over and over and over in the NT it is following the basic grammer rule – the Adjective MUST agree with it’s noun in Gender NUMBER and Case. It is not Life Ages – it is age-lasting life. See Young’s Literal translation
You aren’t wrong about Greek, but remember that the duration isn’t the primary focus; the primary focus is quality. “age-lasting” speaks entirely of time and says nothing about the primary meaning of quality. Granted, “life of ages” is an imperfect translation, but I would argue that — despite being incorrect in plurality — “life of ages” captures both the time and quality aspects better. Thus, I would say that “life of ages” is a better translation for that reason. Plus, “age-lasting” is somewhat non-sensical in its meaning in many places. Take John 3:16 for example:
Someone reading that would likely think “Age lasting life? What is that? Does it end at the end of the age like in Matthew 24?“. That’s the impression I get and I know the Greek words/phrase well.
“Life of ages” capture both the primary meaning of quality and the secondary meaning of time. “Age-lasting” captures only the secondary meaning of time, and doesn’t say anything about quality at all. Thus again, I think “life of ages” is a superior translation, even considering the singular/plural mismatch. If you have a better translation for that phrase, do please share it and I’ll be happy to edit my translation.
I would say it is not about the quality of life at all. It it conconcerning the upcoming age. Jesus made this really clear in Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30.
Mark 10:30
but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the PRESENT AGE (AION), houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the AGE (AION) to come, AGE-LASTING (AIONON) life.
We are in an age now. The present age will end at Jesus Parousia (return) Then the Millennial Age begins (the age to come) and being rewarded with AGE-LASTING Life means you get to participate in the Millennial Age. Matt 24:3
If you don’t think it’s about quality, you’ll have to take it up with the lexicons. You might want to re-read the section that begins with the heading “Eternal (Aionios) Life”.
As for eschatology, I don’t think we agree: see my article on revelation.
In Is 40:28 we have
Have you not known? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting(Hebrew – Olam) God,
In Daniel 12:2 we have
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting(Olam) life, and some to shame and everlasting(Olam) contempt.
So if YHWH is the everlasting God ? Then how does not Daniel 12:2 which uses the exact same word mean everlasting ?
Which seems to also fit with what’s being spoken about in Isaiah 66:24
Is 66:24 – And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”
Because words rarely translate that neatly. The idea isn’t “XYZ word in Hebrew means ABC word in English.” It’s just not that simple. The word means “in the far distance time-wise”, and we don’t have an English word that means that. The closest we can come is “forever”. Please watch the video again, as it explains this in some detail. It’s worth noting the in the Septuagint, (an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew “Bible”), olam was often translated aion.
I’m not using the Greek and I appreciate the meanings of words do not always translate to english. When using the masoretic Hebrew and the complete Isaiah scroll from the dead sea scrolls – Isaiah 40:28 means
– YHWH is the “everlasting” or “eternal” elohim.
He existed before the creation of the universe and time and space. The english translation of his name is I AM.
Either YHWH is eternal or he isn’t.
The exact same hebrew text occurs in the usage of hebrew-Olam in Daniel 12:2.
I appreciate Hebrew word’s can change their context depending on the words that surround it and the associated grammar but this piece of text in Daniel does not change it’s meaning from that which is written in Isaiah.
What linguistic justification would you have to claim that the word used in the same context and the same grammar does not mean the same thing ?
Two things. First, I’m not claiming the word means two different things in different contexts, though that’s often true of Hebrew words. I would argue that the word never means eternal/forever/everlasting. (Even though God is all of those things) Olam simply doesn’t mean those things. I realize that it’s usually translated as them, but that doesn’t mean the translation is ideal; it simply means we don’t have a word that captures what olam means. Look at the examples in the article of Exodus 12:24, Exodus 28:43, Joshua 24:2, and 1 Samuel 27:8; eternal/forever/everlasting makes sense in none of them.
Notice that the Septuagint translators understood this. They could’ve translated olam as ἀΐδιος (aidios, covered in the article), which does mean eternal/forever/everlasting, but instead they chose to translate it as aion, which roughly means “age” of “of ages”. The people who understood Biblical Hebrew when it was still a spoken language did NOT think that olam meant eternal/forever/everlasting. That should tell you something. You could also translate it “the God of ages” in Isaiah, which is effectively what the Septuagint translators did.
I hope that all makes sense because it’s hard to convey nuance well over the internet.
Second, the Hebrew grammar is different in Isaiah 40:28 versus Daniel 12:2. Yes it looks the same in English, but it’s different in Hebrew. However, I won’t belabor this point because point #1 is the more important one.
So If we agree that it’s ages not forever , by what Gospel can the dead be saved ?
The gospel of the circumcision .. follow the law , be baptised for the forgiveness of sins , forgive those who have wronged you so the father can forgive you, repent and believe in that name of Jesus the Christ ? Seems tough in death.
The gospel of the uncircumcision – declare with your mouth Jesus Christ is lord and believe in your heart that he was raised from the dead by the father ? Seems even tougher in death
The mechanism for salvation doesn’t appear to exist in scripture for the dead. Yes I read your article that included 1 Peter 3:19 and for all the studious greek study on eternal / ages you didn’t apply the same rigour to that passage. πνεύμασιν is never used in scripture ever for dead men.
It’s used once more in scripture (doesn’t appear in the Septuagint either) – Luke 4:38
“And they were all amazed and said to one another, “What is this word? For with authority and power he commands the unclean πνεύμασιν-spirits, and they come out!””
The spirits in prison from Noah’s age are the ones locked in chains in gloomy darkness until the judgement of the great day. There was no preaching a gospel to these spirits in that passage there was a proclaimation to the πνεύμασιν.
You said: (emphasis mine)
It might seem tougher, but it’s also explicitly prophesied:
Notice that “under the earth” is included, which I assume you know is a euphemism for the place of the dead. Thus, those in the place of the dead — i.e. dead men — will confess Jesus as Lord; Romans 10:9-10 looms large here….
To πνεύμασιν, that’s the dative neuter plural inflection of πνεῦμα, which is used nearly 400 times in the New Testament. (And if you don’t know what an inflection is, I recommend you read my article on Koine Greek) Now, πνεῦμα is simply the Greek word for “spirit”; nothing more, nothing less. It’s context that tells us it refers to men, not the word itself. Further, scripture does occasionally speak about the spirit (πνεῦμα) of a man, so absolutely it’s applied to men elsewhere. Again though, I would appeal to context not word definitions to make the case in 1 Peter 3:19
You forgot AND believe in your heart..
Many will confess what is painfully obvious when they kneel before the Christ in submission for the glory of God the father, many who did not believe will still confess him as Lord they will have no choice.
And the basis for your assertion that they can’t believe in their heart is… what?
Faith is not by sight, there is no faith required when Jesus Christ has literally just raised an unbeliever from the dead to be judged at the great white throne.
And yet it’s written:
If Thomas could believe because he has seen Jesus, why couldn’t others?
Thomas wasn’t saved by belief in the resurection of Jesus from the dead, Thomas was saved by believing on the name – belief that Jesus was the promised Christ of Israel. Read the following verses after Jesus convesation wih Thomas.
John 20:29-31 “Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”
Israel was a witness to the resurection – Peter at Solomons portico ..
Acts 3:15-16 “and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. And his name—by faith in his name—has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus[b] has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all.”
The resurection mattered to Israelites because it meant the death of the Christ was further proof he was the holy one of Israel and that he could still setup the promised Kingdom.
Acts 3:17-22 “And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 1But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. ”
Belief that Jesus was the promised Christ of Israel was the gospel of the circumsion committed to Peter.
The Gospel of the uncircumsion of which Paul was entrusted had not yet been revealed.
That message required belief in the resurection as it was delivered mostly to the gentiles those who had not seen or witnessed what happened.
2 Cor 5:6-8 “Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: For we walk by faith, not by sight:We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.”
I’m happy to accept that ages not eternal is the literal translation, it makes more sense in a lot of places too. I don’t see any message in scripture suggesting there is any way for them to be removed from their separation regardless of the period of time it is for.
I’ll skip right past the (problematic) idea you seem to be proposing that there are two different ways to get saved depending on if you are Jewish or not. I’ll ignore that for now.
Romans says confessing and believing, and we agree that the confessing will definitely happen. You said that belief can’t happen because they will see Jesus, which why I responded with the verse I did. It states quite plainly that faith/belief can result from seeing. So if they will all confess Jesus as Lord, and they can all believe after seeing, why can’t they be saved? Especially in light of verses like Isaiah 22:14:
You’ve based an entire theology on the translation of a couple of words and you find the literal translation of Pauls words problematic ?
There’s one way to be saved, but the method of Salvation has changed on God’s timetable over the years. Noah was made righteous in a different manner to Peter.. Others were found righteous before Christ , before the cross and others found righteous after the cross.
Jesus preached what message for salvation ?
Be baptised for the forgiveness of sins, follow the law, forgive others before the father could forgive you and believe on the name of Jesus. The passage of John you gave me was consistent with this message.
Peter preached this message to Israel, for only Israel could accept their messiah and they didn’t they were the heirs to the promises and the kingdom..
The resurection from the dead as a means to Salvation was never taught by Jesus Christ while he walked the earth or the apostles (Peter accepted the message in Acts 15).
Pauls message of Salvation was mostly to gentiles.
Declare Jesus is lord , believe the father raised him from the dead, faith alone apart from works
You think these are the same messages or you think that they somehow blend into each other ? Paul was pretty clear the Gospel he preached was given to him directly by the risen Christ he called it HIS gospel many times.
Pauls “gospel” was a secret kept from all men and from the beginning of time. Revealed to him by no man but directly by the risen Christ.
Acts 20:24:
“But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.”
Romans 16:25 – “Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began.”
Ephesians 3:3-11 – “how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations.”
Galatians 1:11–12 – “For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”
1 Corinthians 15:1-2 – “Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.”
2 Timothy 2:8:
“Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel”
Gal 2:7 “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter”
Your the native greek reader Paul clearly shows you 2 evangels .
The definitive article being τῆς – OF is the correct translation.
Paul wasn’t commited to taking a gospel TO a group he was committed to pronouncing the gospel OF.
It’s also called the Gospel of Jesus Christ, The Gospel of the Grace of God, The Gospel of God.
Jesus Preached the Gospel of the Kingdom.
You haven’t addressed the substance of what I said. If everyone will confess, and if faith/belief can result from seeing, then why can’t someone be saved after death? That goes double in the light of the Isaiah verse I quoted, which talks about sins not being forgiven “until you die”…
Your reading your own context to Into Isaiah 22:14..All that passage says is your sins wont be forgive / forgotten / let go / gone until you die..
It doesn’t say when you died and the sin is forgotten/forgiven you’ll be justified and found righteous or your name is written into the book of life. Both the Gospel of the circumcision and the Gospel of the Uncircumcision state there is far more to salvation than just the forgiveness of sins.
Only Paul taught that “believe in your heart that the Father raised him from the dead” saved. Paul also taught the body of Christ that
We beleivers in the resurection- walk by faith not by sight.
2 Cor 5:6-8 “Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: For we walk by faith, not by sight:We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.”
Actually, Isaiah 22:14 was used by the Jews for centuries (even before the NT) to argue that someone’s sins could be forgiven after he dies. I got it from them and didn’t come up with the idea myself.
Further, I think we would need to get into why you think there’s more than one way to be saved to have a productive discussion. I have a question to better understand your views on that: “Does Romans 10:9-10 work as a method of salvation for everyone who is currently living?”
“Actually, Isaiah 22:14 was used by the Jews for centuries (even before the NT) to argue that someone’s sins could be forgiven after he dies”
Which is great for the Jews who got many things wrong, who also missed their messiah the first time and who have now been blinded to the Gospel(Rom 11:25). The Jews also never taught that their souls would be raised to heaven but expected a bodily resurection to earth. To be fair Paul’s gospel that taught a heavenly destiny had been kept secret from all sons of men and all ages of the earth until Jesus Christ revealed it to him.
“Further, I think we would need to get into why you think there’s more than one way to be saved ”
I don’t it doesn’t appear you read my previous responses – I’ve said categorically theres only one way to be saved.
There were two gospels messages at the time Peter and Paul walked the earth one passing away and one taking over. Two entirely different messages and audiences.
Gal 2:7 “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter”
Your the native greek reader Paul clearly shows you 2 clearly defined Gospels.
The definitive article used here is τῆς – that’s possessive as you well know.
OF is the correct translation because the Gospel Paul preaches , his gospel belongs to the gentiles.
Romans 10:9 Is Pauls Gospel. The method of salvation by which Gentile or Jew can now be saved. Jesus Christ when he walked the earth never taught this message, the 12 never taught this message either. Paul tells you why ..it was
Romans 16:25 – “Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began.”
Ephesians 3:3-11 – “how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations.”
That Gospel message was a μυστηρίου . Your the Greek expert mystery is a transliteration – secret is more closer to a translation.
It doesn’t matter how Israel expect to be raised or how they expect to be saved or when they expected these things, they missed the messiah and now their earthly kingdom and their salvation must wait until the fullness of the gentiles.
You said I was reading into Isaiah, which is why I mentioned the Jewish perspective that predates my own. I was only saying the view is old and not original to me, not that the Jews believing it makes it right.
Regardless, since you agree that both Gentiles and Jews can be saved by the Romans 10:9 formula, what prevents this from happening after death? We know they will confess, and the Bible is clear that faith can result from sight. Therefore, what prevents the dead from being saved?
Only that Paul’s statement is that we walk by Faith not by sight and I’m also not entirely sure that Pauls gospel and the body of christ lasts after the fullness of the gentiles. For at some point the body of christ will depart.
Rev 20:4
“And I saw thrones and they that sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them. And I saw the souls of them that had been beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the Word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast, nor his image, nor had received his mark upon their foreheads or on their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”
Not worshipping the beast or his image and not taking the mark. Appears to be works not grace. Not entirely sure how you can be saved by grace and convicted by works if the Gospel of grace is still active.
And yet it is written of the gates of heaven:
And also:
Which is interesting if you consider the previous verse.
The gates of heaven will never be shut, the wicked will remain outside, but those who “wash their robes” (an obvious reference to salvation used in many other places in the NT) may “enter by the gate… Did you read the article on Revelation in this series?
Thanks I haven’t read the revelation series yet but will, your articles aren’t light reading which is a good thing but they need some time to do them appropriate justice to the effort and detail you have put into them.
I really appreciate the discourse and the engagement , it’s not a perfect forum to have a simple discussion but you make it work. You’ve sold me on ages I’m happy to apply that meaning to the greek and hebrew equivalents, they make more sense in other unrelated passages too.
The mechanism of hope for the presently unsaved I don’t think can be Paul’s gospel as that seems to be for specific period of time only , it may well in your revelation article and other passages in the old testament. I’m open to continuing this conversation with time to dig 🙂 Thank you again
You’re welcome. 🙂 Please feel free to comment on the other articles in the series, though I would suggest you finish reading it before doing so to avoid covering the same ground more than once.
Hey there, just a note on subheading Use #2 of Aion. You quote Matt 13:40 but I believe you mistakenly copied the reference to the source previous and are instead trying to allude to the Lord’s Prayer in Matt 6. But even then, the Lord’s Prayer doesn’t end in the line “for yours is the kingdom, the power and the glory now and forever”, it might in the KJV but most translations (including your BOS.com one) don’t have this line.
Thanks for all the hard work you doing researching and writing these I do love reading your blogs and want you to keep doing the Lord’s work!
It’s a tricky thing when a word is defined as limited time (an age) and unlimited time (eternal). This makes aion its own antonym/opposite. Seems to me that if the word aion and its derivatives are not translated correctly that one could infer the complete opposite of what the author intended.
First, I completely agree that we cannot give a derivative more meaning than the noun from which it is derived. That’s illogical. For example, hourly is a derivative of the noun hour. We can expand its meaning by saying “hours” or “hour after hour”, but an hour doesn’t mean a day, or a week, etc, and it certainly doesn’t mean eternal. The way I understand aion is that its meaning functions in the same manner. It can be expanded upon based on context.
I think “forever more” or “for ever and ever” makes zero sense in English, as we cannot add “more” or “and ever” to a word that means endless duration. What we can add to…are ages.
I further agree that aion can be used to describe a quality of life, and that some verses that appear to be talking about eschatology, are about how we live here and now.
For example, take Matt 25:46. I see where so many people believe this parable is about eschatology, but I do not. As we read, Jesus will divide nations. The first question I have is…are whole nations going to hell for eternity? What happened to grace via faith? Speaking of this concept, it’s no where to be found in this parable. That is because the parable is about humanitarianism.
To believe that Matt 25:46 is a parable about eschatology, one would have to conclude that nations that do not practice humanitarianism are going to be damned, and so right of the bat we must conclude an individual’s grace via faith is eliminated.
Rather, nations who practice humanitarianism will live an age of life (quality) for as long as they do, and nations that do not will live an age of punishment/correction until they do. I believe the parable is akin to “we reap what we sow”, but on a grander scale.
I feel the duration is the same in both cases of life and punishment, because the parable is about reciprocity.
It appears to me that Matthew, John, Luke and Paul all used aion in a limited scope to mean an age. Matt 24:3, Luke 20:34, John 9:32, and Romans 12:2. There are others, I just wanted to point out that all of these authors used aion as an age. I find it highly unlikely All of these authors would vacillate in their usage of this word when they had a word that meant eternal (aidios). As you pointed out, Paul separated the two and used aidios in Romans 1:20 proving he had access to the word.
I believe aion can be stretched to imply eternity when God is the noun being modified. God gives weight to the word. For instance, great doesn’t mean forever, but when God is the noun being modified it can be implied because being eternal is one of the characteristics that makes God great. That said, it seems clear to me that kolasis does not force eternity onto the definition of the word aion.
I’m not a linguist, nor do I speak Koine Greek. I’ve simply studied a few words and attempt to see how they fit with my understanding of Romans 5:18-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:22. In short, these passages put me in checkmate on eschatology.
Do you mind to see if what I present functions in English the same way it does in Koine Greek? What I’ve done is attempt to break down the parallel structure of Paul. Paul often writes compound sentences in English, and I know there are rules to grammar.
When we use the word “all” in a compound sentence, the first use of all must be synonymous and coextensive with the second. In other words, to form a logical sentence the use of “all” cannot be broken mid compound sentence.
Here is the parallel structure of Paul broken down so you can see the points of correlation.
1 Corinthians 15:22
1) For even as / thus also
2) in Adam / in Christ
3) all are dying / shall all be made alive
When I break this down I see that the “all” who is dying in Adam is everyone, therefore the scope of this definition must be carried over to the second half of the thought/sentence. I understand Koine Greek does not have punctuations, but the structure is similar enough to have word for word translations. In English, it would take an entirely different sentence to break the scope of the first use of all. However, Paul makes this impossible by stating “thus also” thereby linking his thoughts/sentence. Does this pattern function the same way in Koine Greek?
Romans 5:18-19 Has nine points of correction and they read as compound sentences in English.
Romans 5:18
1) Consequently then/thus also (links his thoughts)
2) by the offense of one/by the obedience of one
3) judgement came upon/ the free gift came upon
4) all men / all men
5) to condemnation/unto justification
Romans 5:19
6) For as by /so by (links his thoughts)
7) one man’s offense/ the obedience of one
8) the many were made/ shall the many be made
9) sinners / righteous
What is the scope of the first use of all in verse 18? Everyone, as Adam is the progenitor of the human race. This definition cannot be broken mid compound sentence. It would take an entirely different sentence in English to break the scope of the all, but Paul states “thus also” thereby linking his thoughts.
Same for the many. Who are the many made sinners by one man’s offense? Literally, everyone. This definition cannot be broken mid compound sentence.
This appears to me to be as rock solid of an understanding for ultimate reconciliation as anything I’ve ever read because this pattern works for every word for word translation I can find. What I want to know is if this pattern holds true in Koine Greek as well.
Very short reply to a very long comment: It says in Greek exactly what it says in English. There’s a reason that most (good/literal) English translation punctuate it the same way, and that’s because it means what you have noticed: the parallelism is part of the point and punctuating it differently by breaking up obvious sentences doesn’t really work. So to answer your question directly, yes the patterns hold in Greek as in English. 🙂
Sorry for being long-winded. I’ve been waiting for several years to present this to someone who knows Koine Greek. Thank you tremendously. I felt like the pattern would hold true because the parallel structure worked for every word for word translation. Many thanks for the validation.
There can be only one view of eschatology that is correct and as far as I’m concerned this is checkmate.
Your understanding of aion aligns with ultimate reconciliation and so does Paul.
There’s no need to apologize. 🙂 Sometimes it takes a lot of words to make a point, which I obviously know because lately I struggle to write an article shorter than 10k words.
My son died at an early age of 38 just two weeks ago. I just started reading Dr Lorraine Days book Who Rewrote the Bible. I have read many articles of hers on the internet before I purchased her book. She is a believer in Universal Restitution. Some of her beliefs don’t align with what you are saying and are also disturbing to me. She thinks there is no 3rd person of the trinity, e.i. holy spirit (she calls it the holy ghost, maybe to make it sound ridiculous) she also states that when we die we are in the grave, that’s it, we don’t have a spirit that goes to heaven, it’s Gods breath of life that returns to God until the 2nd coming. She also states that the millenium is a 1000 year resting time for the earth. I don’t know how she came to these conclusions. Allot of what she states makes sense. Allot of what your stating she has stated , but some of the things she says sounds ludacris. I have studied the bible for 30 years and by no means am I anything near a scholar, but for many years I have had many many unanswered questions that no body seems to have an answer for. It’s either they skirt around the answer or state that it’s a mystery well find out when we see Jesus again or it was meant not to be revealed. That doesnt make any sense to me. After all, isn’t that what the bible was written for. To know who Christ is and our role in all of this. It’s been gnawing at me for decades. I truly believe in God and that Christ died for our sins but I still to this day can’t grasp a God that would send people to a lake of fire for eternity because they don’t know or love Him. I wouldn’t do that so why would God!