Php 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
On the list of things we should think about, according to Paul,
how does the doctrine of eternal damnation fair?
Supposing for a moment, that it is true, and honest and just, is it pure? Perhaps there is pureness to writhing cursing vile despondent creatures agonizing without hope and without respite, but it’s a bit hard to verify. How about lovely? I’d have to say lovely is out! Of good report? No. Is there any virtue? Well, they will never improve, or benefit. It would be difficult to ascribe virtue to this situation would it not? Certainly nothing I’d like to take part in. Any praise? You decide.
So even if the doctrine of Eternal Damnation is true, we are commanded not to think about it.
Lu 2:10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
This is something we can think on. First of all it’s true! Completely true! Good tidings of great joy which SHALL be to ALL people. Yeah! Unto you is born a savior which is Christ the Lord!
Whoo hoo!
It’s true and honest, it is just, and pure…. Most definitely lovely and it is the best report, not lacking in virtue and worthy of endless praise!
How is it that the gospel of today includes the damnation of most of mankind? No one, according to this “gospel” will be untouched by the eternal torment which if escaped personally, will certainly capture and destroy some of those who are loved by those who escape. Why did the angel say it is good news of great joy which shall be to all people? Those who teach eternal damnation would have to agree that it isn’t good news of great joy for some. In fact it isn’t good news of great joy for the myriads who are getting swallowed up in judgment, and for the remainder, who escape but are bereaved of so many that they love, it would surely be less than joyful to see the horrendous fate that their less fortunate loved ones are being subjected to. Bad news of unutterable terror and grief would better describe it.
So being objective, I either have to rule out the truth part of the angels proclamation and therby rule out the proclamation as something I can think about, or rule out the truth part of the doctrine of eternal damnation, which then makes it even less qualified to think about according to Php 4:8.
How shall I deal with this dilemma?
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Dr. Jones' Entry from 11/04/2009
How Eternal is Eternal?--Part 2
There are many scholars who tell us that no ancient language had a direct expression of "eternity" as we know it today. The Hebrew olam literally means "obscurity" and expresses the idea of an indefinite or an unknown period of time. Other languages follow similar patterns.
The Hebrew Old Testament began to be translated into Greek around 280 B.C., that is, about 40+ years after the death of Alexander the Great. His conquests made Greek the common and commercial language from Italy to the Euphrates. In the first century, Paul wrote a letter to the saints in Rome using the Greek language, knowing that it was the common language used there, which all would understand. There were many Latin dialects in Italy and North Africa, but Greek was the language that most of them had in common.
Alexander the Great built the city of Alexandria in Egypt and invited Jews to immigrate there. Many did, and within a generation many of them no longer spoke Hebrew. This created a need for a Greek translation of Scripture. Hence the Septuagint was produced by 70 Hebrew scholars.
When they came to the Hebrew word olam, they rendered it by the Greek equivalent, aion and aionian. So technically, it matters little how the Greeks actually used aion. What really matters is how the Hebrews used olam. The Greek term was only the closest word they could find to express a Hebrew concept. So even if one was speaking or reading Greek, it was necessary to think Hebrew.
Even so, aion was used by the Greeks to mean an eon, or age, a period of time that might vary widely, but in the end it was a limited period of time.
As Rome consolidated its empire, Greek remained the language of culture for a long time. Even so, there were many local Latin dialects throughout Italy and North Africa. In particular, the Latin spoken in North Africa was quite different from that spoken in Italy. The first Latin translation of Scripture (into "Old Latin") was of the "African" type, largely free of Greek influence.
From about 190-220 A.D., Tertullian of Carthage, who was a Roman lawyer, used this Old Latin version, which is how we even know of its existence. When it was introduced into Italy, its grammar broke many of the rules of more refined Latin and its roughness grated on their nerves. And so many took it upon themselves to make corrections and refinements. Soon there were a multitude of Latin translations, and it was said that there were as many translations as there were manuscripts!
This was the situation in the fifth century when Jerome decided to produce a standard Latin translation of the Bible. Up to that time, the Septuagint had been the most widely used version, but the need for a Latin translation was by this time quite apparent. So he spent considerable time learning Hebrew from the rabbis.
In the course of translation, Jerome had to translate the Hebrew olam and the Greek aion into Latin. Essentially, he had two Latin words to choose from, each being used in the various Latin dialects. These were seculum and aeternum.
Seculum, as defined in Latin dictionaries, meant a generation, an age, the world, the times, the spirit of the times, and a period of a hundred years (being the outer limits of a man's life span).
The more important question is how Jerome viewed the meaning of the word aeternum. Being fluent in Greek, Jerome certainly knew the meaning of aionian. He must have known that the Latin word aevum, which (letter for letter) was almost identical to aion, was used to denote "lifetime, life, an age." According to Alexander Thomson's book, Whence Eternity?, page 20, "Aevum is never found in Latin standing for endless time."
On page 17, Thomson writes,
"Farrar says that even the Latin Fathers who had a competent knowledge of Greek knew that aeternum was used in the same loose way, for an indefinite period, in Latin writers, as aionion was used in Greek."
Jerome appears to have compromised by using both seculum and aeternum interchangeably. Out of 130 occurrences of aion in the New Testament, Jerome translated it seculum 101 times and aeternum 27 times.
A thousand years later, when the Reformers began translating the Bible into the common languages of the people, they generally followed Jerome's lead. Where Jerome used seculum, the English translators used "world." Where Jerome used aeternum, Tyndale particularly used "for ever."
In the 16th century, Phavorinus' Etymologicum Magnum states with a certain irony,
"Aion is the imperceptible (aidios) and the unending (ateleutetos), as it seems to the theologian."
In other words, theologians were equating aion with other Greek words that were used in the New Testament to express the idea of unending time. Phavorinus decided not to contradict established Roman doctrine, but he softly registered his protest.
He knew, of course, that a thousand years earlier, the Emperor Justinian had taken it upon himself to extend the meaning of aionian in Church doctrine to indicate unending time. Justinian wrote a letter (about a century after Jerome's time), in which he says,
"The holy church of Christ teaches an endless eonian (ateleutetos aionios) life for the just, and endless (ateleutetos) punishment for the wicked."
It is obvious that Justinian had to add a word to aionios to make it truly mean "eternal." He is the emperor who called for the Church Council of Constantinople (548), where Origen and others were anathematized for the first time. Justinian objected to the long-held view of the Restoration of All Things and wanted to ban it officially. Even so, the Church Council merely condemned Origen's view that Satan and his angels would be saved in the end, without referencing the ultimate reconciliation of all men.
Universal Reconciliation was not actually condemned by a Church Council until 696 A.D.
The idea of never-ending torture for most of humanity came primarily out of the Latin Fathers: Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine. Their view was that evil was a force apart from God. Mankind was conspersis damnata, massa perditionis, "one damned batch and mass of perdition," and only a few would be saved out of it. With such a view, it is not surprising that they would have extended the meaning of aeternus to infinite time.
In the end, however, it does not really matter what the Latin words originally meant or how these words have changed in meaning over the years. All that really matters is what the Greek words meant when the New Testament writers used them. And more importantly, what matters is not what the Greek word means but what its Hebrew equivalent means (olam). The Septuagint had used Greek words to express Hebrew thought. Though the Greek meanings were usually near to the Hebrew thought patterns, certain words like hades did not adequately express the Hebrew concept of sheol.
In the case of olam, however, the Greek word aion was a near equivalent. Neither expressed the idea of endless time, but obscure or indefinite time. The Latin aeternum started out as a proper translation, but later it was extended to mean "eternity" as we know it today.
There are many scholars who tell us that no ancient language had a direct expression of "eternity" as we know it today. The Hebrew olam literally means "obscurity" and expresses the idea of an indefinite or an unknown period of time. Other languages follow similar patterns.
The Hebrew Old Testament began to be translated into Greek around 280 B.C., that is, about 40+ years after the death of Alexander the Great. His conquests made Greek the common and commercial language from Italy to the Euphrates. In the first century, Paul wrote a letter to the saints in Rome using the Greek language, knowing that it was the common language used there, which all would understand. There were many Latin dialects in Italy and North Africa, but Greek was the language that most of them had in common.
Alexander the Great built the city of Alexandria in Egypt and invited Jews to immigrate there. Many did, and within a generation many of them no longer spoke Hebrew. This created a need for a Greek translation of Scripture. Hence the Septuagint was produced by 70 Hebrew scholars.
When they came to the Hebrew word olam, they rendered it by the Greek equivalent, aion and aionian. So technically, it matters little how the Greeks actually used aion. What really matters is how the Hebrews used olam. The Greek term was only the closest word they could find to express a Hebrew concept. So even if one was speaking or reading Greek, it was necessary to think Hebrew.
Even so, aion was used by the Greeks to mean an eon, or age, a period of time that might vary widely, but in the end it was a limited period of time.
As Rome consolidated its empire, Greek remained the language of culture for a long time. Even so, there were many local Latin dialects throughout Italy and North Africa. In particular, the Latin spoken in North Africa was quite different from that spoken in Italy. The first Latin translation of Scripture (into "Old Latin") was of the "African" type, largely free of Greek influence.
From about 190-220 A.D., Tertullian of Carthage, who was a Roman lawyer, used this Old Latin version, which is how we even know of its existence. When it was introduced into Italy, its grammar broke many of the rules of more refined Latin and its roughness grated on their nerves. And so many took it upon themselves to make corrections and refinements. Soon there were a multitude of Latin translations, and it was said that there were as many translations as there were manuscripts!
This was the situation in the fifth century when Jerome decided to produce a standard Latin translation of the Bible. Up to that time, the Septuagint had been the most widely used version, but the need for a Latin translation was by this time quite apparent. So he spent considerable time learning Hebrew from the rabbis.
In the course of translation, Jerome had to translate the Hebrew olam and the Greek aion into Latin. Essentially, he had two Latin words to choose from, each being used in the various Latin dialects. These were seculum and aeternum.
Seculum, as defined in Latin dictionaries, meant a generation, an age, the world, the times, the spirit of the times, and a period of a hundred years (being the outer limits of a man's life span).
The more important question is how Jerome viewed the meaning of the word aeternum. Being fluent in Greek, Jerome certainly knew the meaning of aionian. He must have known that the Latin word aevum, which (letter for letter) was almost identical to aion, was used to denote "lifetime, life, an age." According to Alexander Thomson's book, Whence Eternity?, page 20, "Aevum is never found in Latin standing for endless time."
On page 17, Thomson writes,
"Farrar says that even the Latin Fathers who had a competent knowledge of Greek knew that aeternum was used in the same loose way, for an indefinite period, in Latin writers, as aionion was used in Greek."
Jerome appears to have compromised by using both seculum and aeternum interchangeably. Out of 130 occurrences of aion in the New Testament, Jerome translated it seculum 101 times and aeternum 27 times.
A thousand years later, when the Reformers began translating the Bible into the common languages of the people, they generally followed Jerome's lead. Where Jerome used seculum, the English translators used "world." Where Jerome used aeternum, Tyndale particularly used "for ever."
In the 16th century, Phavorinus' Etymologicum Magnum states with a certain irony,
"Aion is the imperceptible (aidios) and the unending (ateleutetos), as it seems to the theologian."
In other words, theologians were equating aion with other Greek words that were used in the New Testament to express the idea of unending time. Phavorinus decided not to contradict established Roman doctrine, but he softly registered his protest.
He knew, of course, that a thousand years earlier, the Emperor Justinian had taken it upon himself to extend the meaning of aionian in Church doctrine to indicate unending time. Justinian wrote a letter (about a century after Jerome's time), in which he says,
"The holy church of Christ teaches an endless eonian (ateleutetos aionios) life for the just, and endless (ateleutetos) punishment for the wicked."
It is obvious that Justinian had to add a word to aionios to make it truly mean "eternal." He is the emperor who called for the Church Council of Constantinople (548), where Origen and others were anathematized for the first time. Justinian objected to the long-held view of the Restoration of All Things and wanted to ban it officially. Even so, the Church Council merely condemned Origen's view that Satan and his angels would be saved in the end, without referencing the ultimate reconciliation of all men.
Universal Reconciliation was not actually condemned by a Church Council until 696 A.D.
The idea of never-ending torture for most of humanity came primarily out of the Latin Fathers: Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine. Their view was that evil was a force apart from God. Mankind was conspersis damnata, massa perditionis, "one damned batch and mass of perdition," and only a few would be saved out of it. With such a view, it is not surprising that they would have extended the meaning of aeternus to infinite time.
In the end, however, it does not really matter what the Latin words originally meant or how these words have changed in meaning over the years. All that really matters is what the Greek words meant when the New Testament writers used them. And more importantly, what matters is not what the Greek word means but what its Hebrew equivalent means (olam). The Septuagint had used Greek words to express Hebrew thought. Though the Greek meanings were usually near to the Hebrew thought patterns, certain words like hades did not adequately express the Hebrew concept of sheol.
In the case of olam, however, the Greek word aion was a near equivalent. Neither expressed the idea of endless time, but obscure or indefinite time. The Latin aeternum started out as a proper translation, but later it was extended to mean "eternity" as we know it today.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
How Did the Jews of Jesus Day Who Wrote in Greek Use Aionios?
Following is an excerpt from the book, Aion and Aionios by John Wesley Hanson:
Those Jews who were contemporary with Christ, but who wrote in Greek, will teach us how they understood the word. Of course when Jesus used it, he employed it as they understood it.
Josephus(50) applies the word to the imprisonment to which John the tyrant was condemned by the Romans; to the reputation of Herod; to the everlasting memorial erected in re-building the temple, already destroyed, when he wrote; to the everlasting worship in the temple which, in the same sentence he says was destroyed; and he styles the time between the promulgation of the law and his writing a long aión. To accuse him of attaching any other meaning than that of indefinite duration to the word, is to accuse him of stultifying himself. But when he writes to describe endless duration he employs other, and less equivocal terms. Alluding to the Pharisees, he says:
"They believe that the wicked are detained in an everlasting prison [eirgmon aidion] subject to eternal punishment" [aidios timoria]; and the Essenes [another Jewish sect] "allotted to bad souls a dark, tempestuous place, full of never-ceasing punishment [timoria adialeipton], where they suffer a deathless punishment, [athanaton timorian]."
It is true he sometimes applies aiónion to punishment, but this is not his usual custom, and he seems to have done this as one might use the word great to denote eternal duration, that is an indefinite term to describe infinity. But aidion and athanaton are his favorite terms. These are unequivocal. Were only aiónion used to define the Jewish idea of the duration of future punishment, we should have no proof that it was supposed to be endless.
Philo, who was contemporary with Christ, generally used aidion to denote endless, and always used aiónion to describe temporary duration. Dr. Mangey, in his edition of Philo, says he never used aiónion to interminable duration. He uses the exact phraseology of Matthew, xxv:46, precisely as Christ used it. "It is better not to promise than not to give prompt assistance, for no blame follows in the former case, but in the latter there is dissatisfaction from the weaker class, and a deep hatred and everlasting punishment [kolasis aiónios] from such as are more powerful." Here we have the exact terms employed by out Lord, to show that aiónion did not mean endless but did mean limited duration in the time of Christ.
Philo always uses athanaton, ateleuteton or aidion to denote endless, and aiónion for temporary duration.
Stephens, in his Thesaurus, quotes from a Jewish work, [Solom. Parab.] "These they called aiónios, hearing that they had performed the sacred rites for three entire generations." This shows conclusively that the expression "three generations" was then one full equivalent of aiónion. Now these eminent scholars were Jews who wrote in Greek, and who certainly knew the meaning of the words they employed, and they give to the aionian words the meaning that we are contending for, indefinite duration, to be determined by the subject.
Thus the Jews of our Savior's time avoided using the word aiónion to denote endless duration, for applied all through the Bible to temporary affairs, it would not teach it. If Jesus intended to teach the doctrine held by the jews, would he not have used the terms they used? Assuredly; but he did not. He threatened age-lasting, or long-enduring discipline to the believers in endless punishment.Aiónion was his word while theirs was aidion, adialeipton, or athanaton, -- thus rejecting their doctrines by not only not employing their phraseology, but by using always and only those words connected with punishment, that denote limited suffering.
And, still further to show that he had no sympathy with those cruel men who procured his death, Jesus said to his disciples: "Take heed and beware of the leaven [doctrine] of the Pharisees and the Sadducees" [believers in endless misery and believers in destruction].
Had aiónion been the strongest word, especially had it denoted endless duration, who does not see that it would have been in general use as applied to punishment, by the Jewish Greeks of nineteen centuries ago?
Those Jews who were contemporary with Christ, but who wrote in Greek, will teach us how they understood the word. Of course when Jesus used it, he employed it as they understood it.
Josephus(50) applies the word to the imprisonment to which John the tyrant was condemned by the Romans; to the reputation of Herod; to the everlasting memorial erected in re-building the temple, already destroyed, when he wrote; to the everlasting worship in the temple which, in the same sentence he says was destroyed; and he styles the time between the promulgation of the law and his writing a long aión. To accuse him of attaching any other meaning than that of indefinite duration to the word, is to accuse him of stultifying himself. But when he writes to describe endless duration he employs other, and less equivocal terms. Alluding to the Pharisees, he says:
"They believe that the wicked are detained in an everlasting prison [eirgmon aidion] subject to eternal punishment" [aidios timoria]; and the Essenes [another Jewish sect] "allotted to bad souls a dark, tempestuous place, full of never-ceasing punishment [timoria adialeipton], where they suffer a deathless punishment, [athanaton timorian]."
It is true he sometimes applies aiónion to punishment, but this is not his usual custom, and he seems to have done this as one might use the word great to denote eternal duration, that is an indefinite term to describe infinity. But aidion and athanaton are his favorite terms. These are unequivocal. Were only aiónion used to define the Jewish idea of the duration of future punishment, we should have no proof that it was supposed to be endless.
Philo, who was contemporary with Christ, generally used aidion to denote endless, and always used aiónion to describe temporary duration. Dr. Mangey, in his edition of Philo, says he never used aiónion to interminable duration. He uses the exact phraseology of Matthew, xxv:46, precisely as Christ used it. "It is better not to promise than not to give prompt assistance, for no blame follows in the former case, but in the latter there is dissatisfaction from the weaker class, and a deep hatred and everlasting punishment [kolasis aiónios] from such as are more powerful." Here we have the exact terms employed by out Lord, to show that aiónion did not mean endless but did mean limited duration in the time of Christ.
Philo always uses athanaton, ateleuteton or aidion to denote endless, and aiónion for temporary duration.
Stephens, in his Thesaurus, quotes from a Jewish work, [Solom. Parab.] "These they called aiónios, hearing that they had performed the sacred rites for three entire generations." This shows conclusively that the expression "three generations" was then one full equivalent of aiónion. Now these eminent scholars were Jews who wrote in Greek, and who certainly knew the meaning of the words they employed, and they give to the aionian words the meaning that we are contending for, indefinite duration, to be determined by the subject.
Thus the Jews of our Savior's time avoided using the word aiónion to denote endless duration, for applied all through the Bible to temporary affairs, it would not teach it. If Jesus intended to teach the doctrine held by the jews, would he not have used the terms they used? Assuredly; but he did not. He threatened age-lasting, or long-enduring discipline to the believers in endless punishment.Aiónion was his word while theirs was aidion, adialeipton, or athanaton, -- thus rejecting their doctrines by not only not employing their phraseology, but by using always and only those words connected with punishment, that denote limited suffering.
And, still further to show that he had no sympathy with those cruel men who procured his death, Jesus said to his disciples: "Take heed and beware of the leaven [doctrine] of the Pharisees and the Sadducees" [believers in endless misery and believers in destruction].
Had aiónion been the strongest word, especially had it denoted endless duration, who does not see that it would have been in general use as applied to punishment, by the Jewish Greeks of nineteen centuries ago?
Sunday, May 16, 2010
For Alfred Only
Alfred, following are six versions of the same passage using the word “aionios”. I’ve noted where the word is found. It seems that almost no translators were willing to find it to mean eternal in this instance.
Ro 16:25 Now to God who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages (aionios)26 but is now disclosed,…NRSV
Ro 16:25 Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past (aionios),26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him—NIV
Ro 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past,(aionios)26 but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, [leading] to obedience of faith; NASB
Ro 16:25 Now to him that is able to establish you, according to my glad tidings and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to [the] revelation of [the] mystery, as to which silence has been kept in [the] times of the ages (aionios),26 but [which] has now been made manifest, and by prophetic scriptures, according to commandment of the eternal God, made known for obedience of faith to all the nations—DARBY
Ro 16:25 To Him who has it in His power to make you strong, as declared in the Good News which I am spreading, and the proclamation concerning Jesus Christ, in harmony with the unveiling of the Truth which in the periods of past Ages (aionios) remained unuttered,26 but has now been brought fully to light, and by the command of the God of the Ages has been made known by the writings of the Prophets among all the Gentiles to win them to obedience to the faith— WEYMOUTH
Ro 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,(aionios)26 But now is made manifest, KJV
Here are more than a few Greek scholars who disagree with you regarding your understanding of aion and aionios.
Scarlett: "That aiónion, does not mean endless or eternal, may appear from considering that no adjective can have a greater force than the noun from which it is derived. If aión means age (which none either will or can deny) then aiónion must mean age-lasting, or duration through the age or ages to which the thing spoken of relates."
Maclaine, in his Mosheim: Aión or æon among the ancients, was used to signify the age of man, or the duration of human life."
Cruden: "The words eternal, everlasting, forever, are sometimes taken for a long time, and are not always to be understood strictly, for example, 'Thou shalt be our guide from this time forth, even forever,' that is, during our whole life."
Alex. Campbell: "ITS RADICAL IDEA IS INDEFINITE DURATION."
Whitby: "Nothing is more common and familiar in Scripture than to render a thorough and irreparable vastation, whose effects and signs should be still remaining, by the word aiónios, which we render eternal."Hammond, Benson, and Gilpin, in notes on Jude 7, say the same. Liddell and Scott also give to aión, in the poets the sense of life and lifetime, as also an age or generation.
Pearce (in Matt. vii:33) says: "The Greek word aión, seems to signify age here, as it often does in the New Testament, and according to its most proper signification." Clarke, Wakefield, Boothroyd, Simpson, Lindsey, Mardon, Acton, agree. So do Locke, Hammond, Le Clerc, Beausobre, Lenfant, Dodridge, Paulus, Kenrick and Olshausen.
T. Southwood Smith: "Sometimes it signifies the term of human life; at other times an age, or dispensation of Providence. Its most common signification is that of age or dispensation."
Even Professor Stuart is obliged to say: "The most common and appropriate meaning of aión in the New Testament, and the one which corresponds with the Hebrew word olam, and which therefore deserves the first rank in regard to order, I put down first: an indefinite period of time; time without limitation; ever, forever, time without end, eternity, all in relation to future time. The different shades by which the word is rendered, depend on the object with which aiónios is associated, or to which it has relation, rather than to any difference in the real meaning of the word."
J. W. Haley *says: "The Hebrew word 'olam' rendered 'forever,' does not imply the metaphysical idea of absolute endlessness, but a period of indefinite length, as Rambach says, a very long time, the end of which is hidden from us." Olam or olim is the Hebrew equivalent of aión.
Dr. Edward Beecher(11) remarks, "It commonly means merely continuity of action . . . all attempts to set forth eternity as the original and primary sense of aión are at war with the facts of the Greek language for five centuries, in which it denoted life and its derivative senses, and the sense eternity was unknown." And he also says what is the undoubted fact, "that the original sense of aión is not eternity. . . . It is conceded on all hands that this (life) was originally the general use of the word. In the Paris edition of Henry Stephens' Lexicon it is affirmed emphatically "that life, or the space of life, is the primitive sense of the word, and that it is always so used by Homer, Hesiod, and the old poets; also by Pindar and the tragic writers, as well as by Herodotus and Xenophon." "Pertaining to the world to come," is the sense given to "These shall go away into everlasting punishment," by Prof. Tayler Lewis, who adds(12) "The preacher in contending with the Universalist and the Restorationist, would commit an error, and it may be suffer a failure in his argument, should he lay the whole stress of it on the etymological or historical significance of the words aión, aiónios, and attempt to prove that of themselves they necessarily carry the meaning of endless duration. 'These shall go away into the restraint, imprisonment of the world to come,' is all we can etymologically or exegetically make of the word in this passage." [from John Wesley Hanson's Aion and Aionios]
As for Plato’s usage of the word, you base your dogmatic statement on a modern translation which is subject to the bias of the more recent definition. I have shown you that lexicographers didn’t apply the idea of eternity to aionios until long after the early church fathers were all dead in previous posts so I will not repeat that information here.
Finding it [aionios] in Plato, Mr. Goodwin thinks that Plato coined it, and it had not come into general use, for even Socrates, the teacher of Plato, does not use it. Aidios is the classic word for endless duration.
Plato uses aión eight times, aiónios five, diaiónios once, and makraión twice. Of course if he regarded aión as meaning eternity he would not prefix the word meaning long, to add duration to it.
In all the ... (Writers of the Greek Classics) extending more than six hundred years, the word is never found. Of course it must mean the same as the noun that is its source. It having clearly appeared that the noun is uniformly used to denote limited duration, and never to signify eternity, it is equally apparent that the adjective must mean the same. The noun sweetness gives its flavor to its adjective, sweet. The adjective long means precisely the same as the noun length. When sweet stands for acidity, and long represents brevity, aiónios can properly mean eternal, derived from aión, which represents limited duration. To say that Plato, the inventor of the word, has used the adjective to mean eternal, when neither he nor any of his predecessors ever used the noun to denote eternity, would be to charge one of the wisest of men with etymological stupidity. Has he been guilty of such folly? How does he use the word?
PLATO'S USAGE.
1. He employs the noun as his predecessors did. I give an illustration*- "Leading a life (aióna) involved in troubles."
2. The Adjective.(30) Referring to certain souls in Hades, he describes them as in aiónion intoxication. But that he does not use the word in the sense of endless is evident from the Phædon, where he says, "It is a very ancient opinion that souls quitting this world, repair to the infernal regions, and return after that, to live in this world." After the aiónion intoxication is over, they return to earth, which demonstrates that the word was not used by him as meaning endless. Again,(31) he speaks of that which is indestructible, (anolethron) and not aiónion. He places the two words in contrast, whereas, had he intended to use aiónion as meaning endless, he would have said indestructible and aiónion.
Once more,(32) Plato quotes four instances of aión, and three of aiónios, and one of diaiónios in a single passage, in contrast with aidios (eternal.) The gods he calls eternal, (aidios) but the soul and the corporeal nature, he says, are aiónios, belonging to time, and "all these," he says, "are part of time." And he calls Time [Kronos] an aiónios image of Aiónos. Exactly what so obscure an author may mean here is not apparent, but one thing is perfectly clear, he cannot mean eternity and eternal by aiónios and aiónion, for nothing is wider from the fact than that fluctuating, changing Time, beginning and ending, and full of mutations, is an image of Eternity. It is in every possible particular its exact opposite.
In De Mundo,(33) Aristotle says: "Which of these things separately can be compared with the order of the heaven, and the relation of the stars, sun, and also the moon moving in most perfect measures from one aión to another aión,"- ex aiónos eis eteron aióna. Now even if Aristotle had said that the word was at first derived from two words that signify always being, his own use of it demonstrates that it had not that meaning then [B.C. 350.] Again,(34) he says of the earth, "All these things seem to be done for her good, in order to maintain safety during her aiónos," duration, or life. And still more to the purpose is this quotation concerning God's existence.(35) Life and an aion CONTINUOUS AND ETERNAL, "zoe kai aión, sunekes kai aidios, etc." Here the word aidios, [eternal] is employed to qualify aión and impart to it what it had not of itself, the sense of eternal. Aristotle could be guilty of no such language as "an eternal eternity." Had the word aión contained the idea of eternity in his time, or in his mind, he would not have added aidios. "For the limit enclosing the time of the life of every man, . . . is called his continuous existence, aión. On the same principle, the limit of the whole heaven, and the limit enclosing the universal system, is the divine and immortal ever-existing aión, deriving the name aión from ever-existing [aei ón.]"(36) In eleven out of twelve instances in the works of Aristotle, aión is used either doubtfully, or in a manner similar to the instance above cited, [from one aión to another, that is, from one age to another,] but in this last instance it is perfectly clear that an aión is only without end when it is described by an adjective like aidios, whose meaning is endless. Nobody cares how the word originated, after hearing from Aristotle himself that created objects exist from one aión to another, and that the existence of the eternal God is not described by a word so feeble, but by the addition of another that expresses endless duration. Here aión only obtains the force of eternal duration by being reinforced by the word immortal. If it meant eternity, the addition of immortal is like adding gilding to refined gold, and daubing paint on the petal of the lily.
In most of these the word is enlarged by descriptive adjectives. Æschylus calls Jupiter "king of the never-ceasing aión," and Aristotle expressly states in one case that the aión of heaven "has neither beginning nor end," and in another instance he calls man's life his aión, and the aión of heaven "immortal." If aión denotes eternity, why add "neither beginning nor end," or "immortal," to describe its meaning? These quotations unanswerable show that aión in the Classics, never means eternity unless a qualifying word or subject connected with it add to its intrinsic value.
Says Dr. Beecher: In Rome there were certain periodical games known as the secular games, from the Latin seculum, a period, or age. The historian, Herodian, writing in Greek, calls these aiónian games, that is, periodical, occurring at the end of a seculum. It would be singular, indeed, to call them eternal or everlasting games. Cremer, in his masterly Lexicon of New Testament Greek, states the general meaning of the word to be 'Belonging to the aión.'" Herodotus, Isocrates, Xenophon, Sophocles, Diodorus Siculus use the word in precisely the same way. Diodorus Siculus says ton apéiron aióna, "indefinite time." [from John Wesley Hanson's Aion and Aionios]
So I hope this helps you see that the arguments in favor of aion and aionios being translated as Age and ‘pertaining to age” are far from baseless imaginations, but are well supported in history, lexicography and philology. If Plato meant aionios to be eternal in the poem you gave me, then he was apparently very inconsistent in his usage of the word at best.
As I have meticulously explained elsewhere - and you have still to respond…
I wish you truly were looking forward to my response with a hungry heart for truth instead of with the attitude of …”I got you here!”
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often WOULD I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and YE WOULD NOT! “ (Matthew 23:37)
How do you reconcile the “Jerusalem, Jerusalem verse with this?
Ro 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
In this passage of Scripture, I wish to point out several things, in case you missed them.
1. Verse 8 – “spirit of slumber” slumber is not permanent. “unto this day” again a reference to something that has an end.
2. Verse 11 – “have they stumbled that they should fall?” “God forbid.” (that would mean “no”.)
3. The purpose of this judgment is that the FULLNESS of the Gentiles might come in. (That’s everyone who isn’t a Jew.)
4. Verse 12 – “how much more their fullness?” Paul is expecting their full return to the Lord.
5. Verse (15- 24)-branches can be broken and replaced.
6. Ro 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (Blindness is until…)
7. 26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. (ALL Israel includes those that will need to be grafted back in. Which includes those in Jerusalem, Jerusalem. Jesus mourned that they had to go the hard way. He sympathized with the difficulty of their plight. He was subject to the Father’s will in this as well as to the Father's will regarding His own path which was not easy.)(For this is my covenant “when” I “shall” take away their sins. Not “if” but when I shall.)
8. 28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. (Here we have confirmation of exactly who this Israel is that Paul is speaking of. Not the spiritual Israel of God but the enemies of the gospel, those who are Israel by physical birth, and even though they crucified God’s son Jesus, He still loves them and they are still elect. All Israel shall be saved.
This should answer your challenge adequately. Just because Jesus, in time, lamented the stubbornness of Israel, did not mean that He would not have His way with them, and His way is the way of life. He still loves them and He always will. Thank God that He has also promised to bring the fullness of the rest of us unto Himself too, for if He doesn’t bring us solely by His power then you can be sure we will not make it at all.
11. Christian Union.
12. Lange's Ecclesiastes.
30. De Repub. Lib. ii.
31. De Leg., Lib. x.
32. Timæus.
33. Cap. 5, p. 609 C.
34. Cap. 5, p. 610 A.
35. Metaph., Lib. xiv, cap. 7.
36. De Cælo., i, 9.
Ro 16:25 Now to God who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages (aionios)26 but is now disclosed,…NRSV
Ro 16:25 Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past (aionios),26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him—NIV
Ro 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past,(aionios)26 but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, [leading] to obedience of faith; NASB
Ro 16:25 Now to him that is able to establish you, according to my glad tidings and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to [the] revelation of [the] mystery, as to which silence has been kept in [the] times of the ages (aionios),26 but [which] has now been made manifest, and by prophetic scriptures, according to commandment of the eternal God, made known for obedience of faith to all the nations—DARBY
Ro 16:25 To Him who has it in His power to make you strong, as declared in the Good News which I am spreading, and the proclamation concerning Jesus Christ, in harmony with the unveiling of the Truth which in the periods of past Ages (aionios) remained unuttered,26 but has now been brought fully to light, and by the command of the God of the Ages has been made known by the writings of the Prophets among all the Gentiles to win them to obedience to the faith— WEYMOUTH
Ro 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,(aionios)26 But now is made manifest, KJV
Here are more than a few Greek scholars who disagree with you regarding your understanding of aion and aionios.
Scarlett: "That aiónion, does not mean endless or eternal, may appear from considering that no adjective can have a greater force than the noun from which it is derived. If aión means age (which none either will or can deny) then aiónion must mean age-lasting, or duration through the age or ages to which the thing spoken of relates."
Maclaine, in his Mosheim: Aión or æon among the ancients, was used to signify the age of man, or the duration of human life."
Cruden: "The words eternal, everlasting, forever, are sometimes taken for a long time, and are not always to be understood strictly, for example, 'Thou shalt be our guide from this time forth, even forever,' that is, during our whole life."
Alex. Campbell: "ITS RADICAL IDEA IS INDEFINITE DURATION."
Whitby: "Nothing is more common and familiar in Scripture than to render a thorough and irreparable vastation, whose effects and signs should be still remaining, by the word aiónios, which we render eternal."Hammond, Benson, and Gilpin, in notes on Jude 7, say the same. Liddell and Scott also give to aión, in the poets the sense of life and lifetime, as also an age or generation.
Pearce (in Matt. vii:33) says: "The Greek word aión, seems to signify age here, as it often does in the New Testament, and according to its most proper signification." Clarke, Wakefield, Boothroyd, Simpson, Lindsey, Mardon, Acton, agree. So do Locke, Hammond, Le Clerc, Beausobre, Lenfant, Dodridge, Paulus, Kenrick and Olshausen.
T. Southwood Smith: "Sometimes it signifies the term of human life; at other times an age, or dispensation of Providence. Its most common signification is that of age or dispensation."
Even Professor Stuart is obliged to say: "The most common and appropriate meaning of aión in the New Testament, and the one which corresponds with the Hebrew word olam, and which therefore deserves the first rank in regard to order, I put down first: an indefinite period of time; time without limitation; ever, forever, time without end, eternity, all in relation to future time. The different shades by which the word is rendered, depend on the object with which aiónios is associated, or to which it has relation, rather than to any difference in the real meaning of the word."
J. W. Haley *says: "The Hebrew word 'olam' rendered 'forever,' does not imply the metaphysical idea of absolute endlessness, but a period of indefinite length, as Rambach says, a very long time, the end of which is hidden from us." Olam or olim is the Hebrew equivalent of aión.
Dr. Edward Beecher(11) remarks, "It commonly means merely continuity of action . . . all attempts to set forth eternity as the original and primary sense of aión are at war with the facts of the Greek language for five centuries, in which it denoted life and its derivative senses, and the sense eternity was unknown." And he also says what is the undoubted fact, "that the original sense of aión is not eternity. . . . It is conceded on all hands that this (life) was originally the general use of the word. In the Paris edition of Henry Stephens' Lexicon it is affirmed emphatically "that life, or the space of life, is the primitive sense of the word, and that it is always so used by Homer, Hesiod, and the old poets; also by Pindar and the tragic writers, as well as by Herodotus and Xenophon." "Pertaining to the world to come," is the sense given to "These shall go away into everlasting punishment," by Prof. Tayler Lewis, who adds(12) "The preacher in contending with the Universalist and the Restorationist, would commit an error, and it may be suffer a failure in his argument, should he lay the whole stress of it on the etymological or historical significance of the words aión, aiónios, and attempt to prove that of themselves they necessarily carry the meaning of endless duration. 'These shall go away into the restraint, imprisonment of the world to come,' is all we can etymologically or exegetically make of the word in this passage." [from John Wesley Hanson's Aion and Aionios]
As for Plato’s usage of the word, you base your dogmatic statement on a modern translation which is subject to the bias of the more recent definition. I have shown you that lexicographers didn’t apply the idea of eternity to aionios until long after the early church fathers were all dead in previous posts so I will not repeat that information here.
Finding it [aionios] in Plato, Mr. Goodwin thinks that Plato coined it, and it had not come into general use, for even Socrates, the teacher of Plato, does not use it. Aidios is the classic word for endless duration.
Plato uses aión eight times, aiónios five, diaiónios once, and makraión twice. Of course if he regarded aión as meaning eternity he would not prefix the word meaning long, to add duration to it.
In all the ... (Writers of the Greek Classics) extending more than six hundred years, the word is never found. Of course it must mean the same as the noun that is its source. It having clearly appeared that the noun is uniformly used to denote limited duration, and never to signify eternity, it is equally apparent that the adjective must mean the same. The noun sweetness gives its flavor to its adjective, sweet. The adjective long means precisely the same as the noun length. When sweet stands for acidity, and long represents brevity, aiónios can properly mean eternal, derived from aión, which represents limited duration. To say that Plato, the inventor of the word, has used the adjective to mean eternal, when neither he nor any of his predecessors ever used the noun to denote eternity, would be to charge one of the wisest of men with etymological stupidity. Has he been guilty of such folly? How does he use the word?
PLATO'S USAGE.
1. He employs the noun as his predecessors did. I give an illustration*- "Leading a life (aióna) involved in troubles."
2. The Adjective.(30) Referring to certain souls in Hades, he describes them as in aiónion intoxication. But that he does not use the word in the sense of endless is evident from the Phædon, where he says, "It is a very ancient opinion that souls quitting this world, repair to the infernal regions, and return after that, to live in this world." After the aiónion intoxication is over, they return to earth, which demonstrates that the word was not used by him as meaning endless. Again,(31) he speaks of that which is indestructible, (anolethron) and not aiónion. He places the two words in contrast, whereas, had he intended to use aiónion as meaning endless, he would have said indestructible and aiónion.
Once more,(32) Plato quotes four instances of aión, and three of aiónios, and one of diaiónios in a single passage, in contrast with aidios (eternal.) The gods he calls eternal, (aidios) but the soul and the corporeal nature, he says, are aiónios, belonging to time, and "all these," he says, "are part of time." And he calls Time [Kronos] an aiónios image of Aiónos. Exactly what so obscure an author may mean here is not apparent, but one thing is perfectly clear, he cannot mean eternity and eternal by aiónios and aiónion, for nothing is wider from the fact than that fluctuating, changing Time, beginning and ending, and full of mutations, is an image of Eternity. It is in every possible particular its exact opposite.
In De Mundo,(33) Aristotle says: "Which of these things separately can be compared with the order of the heaven, and the relation of the stars, sun, and also the moon moving in most perfect measures from one aión to another aión,"- ex aiónos eis eteron aióna. Now even if Aristotle had said that the word was at first derived from two words that signify always being, his own use of it demonstrates that it had not that meaning then [B.C. 350.] Again,(34) he says of the earth, "All these things seem to be done for her good, in order to maintain safety during her aiónos," duration, or life. And still more to the purpose is this quotation concerning God's existence.(35) Life and an aion CONTINUOUS AND ETERNAL, "zoe kai aión, sunekes kai aidios, etc." Here the word aidios, [eternal] is employed to qualify aión and impart to it what it had not of itself, the sense of eternal. Aristotle could be guilty of no such language as "an eternal eternity." Had the word aión contained the idea of eternity in his time, or in his mind, he would not have added aidios. "For the limit enclosing the time of the life of every man, . . . is called his continuous existence, aión. On the same principle, the limit of the whole heaven, and the limit enclosing the universal system, is the divine and immortal ever-existing aión, deriving the name aión from ever-existing [aei ón.]"(36) In eleven out of twelve instances in the works of Aristotle, aión is used either doubtfully, or in a manner similar to the instance above cited, [from one aión to another, that is, from one age to another,] but in this last instance it is perfectly clear that an aión is only without end when it is described by an adjective like aidios, whose meaning is endless. Nobody cares how the word originated, after hearing from Aristotle himself that created objects exist from one aión to another, and that the existence of the eternal God is not described by a word so feeble, but by the addition of another that expresses endless duration. Here aión only obtains the force of eternal duration by being reinforced by the word immortal. If it meant eternity, the addition of immortal is like adding gilding to refined gold, and daubing paint on the petal of the lily.
In most of these the word is enlarged by descriptive adjectives. Æschylus calls Jupiter "king of the never-ceasing aión," and Aristotle expressly states in one case that the aión of heaven "has neither beginning nor end," and in another instance he calls man's life his aión, and the aión of heaven "immortal." If aión denotes eternity, why add "neither beginning nor end," or "immortal," to describe its meaning? These quotations unanswerable show that aión in the Classics, never means eternity unless a qualifying word or subject connected with it add to its intrinsic value.
Says Dr. Beecher: In Rome there were certain periodical games known as the secular games, from the Latin seculum, a period, or age. The historian, Herodian, writing in Greek, calls these aiónian games, that is, periodical, occurring at the end of a seculum. It would be singular, indeed, to call them eternal or everlasting games. Cremer, in his masterly Lexicon of New Testament Greek, states the general meaning of the word to be 'Belonging to the aión.'" Herodotus, Isocrates, Xenophon, Sophocles, Diodorus Siculus use the word in precisely the same way. Diodorus Siculus says ton apéiron aióna, "indefinite time." [from John Wesley Hanson's Aion and Aionios]
So I hope this helps you see that the arguments in favor of aion and aionios being translated as Age and ‘pertaining to age” are far from baseless imaginations, but are well supported in history, lexicography and philology. If Plato meant aionios to be eternal in the poem you gave me, then he was apparently very inconsistent in his usage of the word at best.
As I have meticulously explained elsewhere - and you have still to respond…
I wish you truly were looking forward to my response with a hungry heart for truth instead of with the attitude of …”I got you here!”
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often WOULD I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and YE WOULD NOT! “ (Matthew 23:37)
How do you reconcile the “Jerusalem, Jerusalem verse with this?
Ro 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
In this passage of Scripture, I wish to point out several things, in case you missed them.
1. Verse 8 – “spirit of slumber” slumber is not permanent. “unto this day” again a reference to something that has an end.
2. Verse 11 – “have they stumbled that they should fall?” “God forbid.” (that would mean “no”.)
3. The purpose of this judgment is that the FULLNESS of the Gentiles might come in. (That’s everyone who isn’t a Jew.)
4. Verse 12 – “how much more their fullness?” Paul is expecting their full return to the Lord.
5. Verse (15- 24)-branches can be broken and replaced.
6. Ro 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (Blindness is until…)
7. 26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. (ALL Israel includes those that will need to be grafted back in. Which includes those in Jerusalem, Jerusalem. Jesus mourned that they had to go the hard way. He sympathized with the difficulty of their plight. He was subject to the Father’s will in this as well as to the Father's will regarding His own path which was not easy.)(For this is my covenant “when” I “shall” take away their sins. Not “if” but when I shall.)
8. 28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. (Here we have confirmation of exactly who this Israel is that Paul is speaking of. Not the spiritual Israel of God but the enemies of the gospel, those who are Israel by physical birth, and even though they crucified God’s son Jesus, He still loves them and they are still elect. All Israel shall be saved.
This should answer your challenge adequately. Just because Jesus, in time, lamented the stubbornness of Israel, did not mean that He would not have His way with them, and His way is the way of life. He still loves them and He always will. Thank God that He has also promised to bring the fullness of the rest of us unto Himself too, for if He doesn’t bring us solely by His power then you can be sure we will not make it at all.
11. Christian Union.
12. Lange's Ecclesiastes.
30. De Repub. Lib. ii.
31. De Leg., Lib. x.
32. Timæus.
33. Cap. 5, p. 609 C.
34. Cap. 5, p. 610 A.
35. Metaph., Lib. xiv, cap. 7.
36. De Cælo., i, 9.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
An Interesting Perspective (posted by Jack)
The following is my attempt to put Tom Talbott’s thoughts (Universalism, Calvinism, and Arminianism: ) into my own words and then to expand on it a bit.
(1) It is God's redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore his will) to reconcile all sinners to himself;
Some verses that support the above proposition:
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
Ro 11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Joh 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
(2) It is within God's power to achieve his redemptive purpose for the world;
Some verses that support the second proposition:
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
Job 42:2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
Ps 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: 11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.
1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Mt 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Mr 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
Mr 14:36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself;
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
(3) Some sinners will never be reconciled to God, and God will therefore either consign them to a place of eternal punishment, from which there will be no hope of escape, or (as a few would say) put them out of existence altogether.
Some verses that support the third proposition:
Mt 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
Eph 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Mr 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Three propositions, each one seemingly backed by Scripture, cannot all be true. It is possible to believe any two of them, but one must be rejected as inconsistent or as a contradiction to the other two. For example:
If God will’s all to be saved (1) and anyone is eternally damned (3), then God does not accomplish His will.(2)
If God accomplishes all His will (2) and anyone is eternally lost (3), then it wasn’t God’s will for all to be saved. (1)
If God will’s all to be saved(1), and God will accomplish all His will,(2) then no one can be lost for eternity.(3)
Some Bible students reject the first proposition (God wills all to be saved), accepting the second (God accomplishes His will in everything), and third, (Some are eternally damned), these must ignore or attempt to explain away the verses clearly stating that God wills all to be saved. We say they are Calvinist. (And they often claim that “all” means only all the elect.)
Other Bible students reject the second proposition, (God accomplishes His will in everything), accepting the first and third, (God wills all to be saved and some are eternally damned), these must attempt to explain away the verses stating that God will accomplish all His will. They are called Arminian or “Free Willers”. (They might reason, God can save everyone but He chooses to allow them to reject Him forever, and so honoring their will He lets them suffer forever in torment just because they didn't want to accept Jesus before they died.)
While still other Bible believers reject the third proposition, accepting both the first and second, thereby agreeing in part with both the Calvinists and the Arminians. They explain away the “eternality” of wrath and punishment and Hell by pointing to translation problems in the verses that teach “eternal torment”.
The first two groups have serious issues with being absolutely confident in their own eternal security, and believe that many people they know, will not receive the inheritance of Eternal Salvation.
The first group, (Calvinist’s) believe that only those whom God has elected, can and will be saved, and of course, if one is of the elect, he can not lose that election, but the problem is knowing for sure if they are truly elect. It is possible to think you are saved and find out you aren’t.
1Co 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
And Mt 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
So for these believers, there is no way to know for sure they are saved.
The second group, the Arminian’s or Free will doctrine believers, can not be sure they are saved unless they ignore a bunch of verses such as…
Mt 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. (What if persecution gets really nasty? Can we endure? Peter thought he could but alas…)
Php 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
Re 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. (So those that don’t overcome might have their name blotted out?)
Re 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Yet we have this testimony from Scripture:
1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
The way we know we have eternal life, is when God gives us the capacity to love everyone, even our enemies. Those who believe in Universal Reconciliation have a tremendous edge over those who believe many will be lost forever. The U.R. believer seeing each person as an object of God’s love and mercy, in various stages of perfection, realizes that we are all going to be together for eternity and recognizes that each one is being used by God to refine those around them as well as being refined by God. It becomes a hundred times easier to love them when we see them through the light of this truth.
1Jo 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
Mt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven:
Another reason, perhaps more obvious, that U.R. believers can be sure they are not eternally lost, is because they understand that nobody is eternally lost, but we will all be sought until we are found by The Good Shepherd.
Lu 15:4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
If anyone is desiring to lean towards the first two understandings, the two which include eternal torment, then it is not enough to assert the eternal torment verses alone, but it is necessary also to show how either the verses stating God’s will is to save all are not true, or the verses stating God will accomplish His will are not true. Until this has been accomplished, these would do well to accept those holding the view of Universal Reconciliation as fellow believers in the teachings of the Bible. While it is true that at least two of the three groups mentioned are incorrect, it may not necessarily mean that they are heretics to be rejected. Rather in humility, let us love one another, acknowledging that we have a discrepancy in our understanding of the teachings of Scripture.
1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
1Co 8:2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
(1) It is God's redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore his will) to reconcile all sinners to himself;
Some verses that support the above proposition:
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
Ro 11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Joh 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
(2) It is within God's power to achieve his redemptive purpose for the world;
Some verses that support the second proposition:
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
Job 42:2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
Ps 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: 11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.
1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Mt 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Mr 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
Mr 14:36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself;
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
(3) Some sinners will never be reconciled to God, and God will therefore either consign them to a place of eternal punishment, from which there will be no hope of escape, or (as a few would say) put them out of existence altogether.
Some verses that support the third proposition:
Mt 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
Eph 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Mr 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Three propositions, each one seemingly backed by Scripture, cannot all be true. It is possible to believe any two of them, but one must be rejected as inconsistent or as a contradiction to the other two. For example:
If God will’s all to be saved (1) and anyone is eternally damned (3), then God does not accomplish His will.(2)
If God accomplishes all His will (2) and anyone is eternally lost (3), then it wasn’t God’s will for all to be saved. (1)
If God will’s all to be saved(1), and God will accomplish all His will,(2) then no one can be lost for eternity.(3)
Some Bible students reject the first proposition (God wills all to be saved), accepting the second (God accomplishes His will in everything), and third, (Some are eternally damned), these must ignore or attempt to explain away the verses clearly stating that God wills all to be saved. We say they are Calvinist. (And they often claim that “all” means only all the elect.)
Other Bible students reject the second proposition, (God accomplishes His will in everything), accepting the first and third, (God wills all to be saved and some are eternally damned), these must attempt to explain away the verses stating that God will accomplish all His will. They are called Arminian or “Free Willers”. (They might reason, God can save everyone but He chooses to allow them to reject Him forever, and so honoring their will He lets them suffer forever in torment just because they didn't want to accept Jesus before they died.)
While still other Bible believers reject the third proposition, accepting both the first and second, thereby agreeing in part with both the Calvinists and the Arminians. They explain away the “eternality” of wrath and punishment and Hell by pointing to translation problems in the verses that teach “eternal torment”.
The first two groups have serious issues with being absolutely confident in their own eternal security, and believe that many people they know, will not receive the inheritance of Eternal Salvation.
The first group, (Calvinist’s) believe that only those whom God has elected, can and will be saved, and of course, if one is of the elect, he can not lose that election, but the problem is knowing for sure if they are truly elect. It is possible to think you are saved and find out you aren’t.
1Co 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
And Mt 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
So for these believers, there is no way to know for sure they are saved.
The second group, the Arminian’s or Free will doctrine believers, can not be sure they are saved unless they ignore a bunch of verses such as…
Mt 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. (What if persecution gets really nasty? Can we endure? Peter thought he could but alas…)
Php 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
Re 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. (So those that don’t overcome might have their name blotted out?)
Re 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Yet we have this testimony from Scripture:
1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
The way we know we have eternal life, is when God gives us the capacity to love everyone, even our enemies. Those who believe in Universal Reconciliation have a tremendous edge over those who believe many will be lost forever. The U.R. believer seeing each person as an object of God’s love and mercy, in various stages of perfection, realizes that we are all going to be together for eternity and recognizes that each one is being used by God to refine those around them as well as being refined by God. It becomes a hundred times easier to love them when we see them through the light of this truth.
1Jo 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
Mt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven:
Another reason, perhaps more obvious, that U.R. believers can be sure they are not eternally lost, is because they understand that nobody is eternally lost, but we will all be sought until we are found by The Good Shepherd.
Lu 15:4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
If anyone is desiring to lean towards the first two understandings, the two which include eternal torment, then it is not enough to assert the eternal torment verses alone, but it is necessary also to show how either the verses stating God’s will is to save all are not true, or the verses stating God will accomplish His will are not true. Until this has been accomplished, these would do well to accept those holding the view of Universal Reconciliation as fellow believers in the teachings of the Bible. While it is true that at least two of the three groups mentioned are incorrect, it may not necessarily mean that they are heretics to be rejected. Rather in humility, let us love one another, acknowledging that we have a discrepancy in our understanding of the teachings of Scripture.
1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
1Co 8:2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
