Alfred: A clip from your previous response:
[Here is the etymology - again - of our English word "Eternal":"mid-14c. (in variant form eterne), from O.Fr. eternal, from L.L. aeternalis, from L. aeternus contraction of aeviternus "of great age," from aevum "age" (see eon)."Since they point to our English word "Eon", let's look at that:"1640s, from L. aeon, from Gk. aion "age, vital force, lifetime," from PIE base *aiw- "vital force, life, long life, eternity" (cf. Skt. ayu "life," Avestan ayu "age," L. aevum "space of time, eternity," Goth. aiws "age, eternity," O.N. ævi "lifetime," Ger. ewig "everlasting," O.E. a "ever, always")."]
What this says to me, is that the English word eternal actually comes from the Old French word eternal which comes from the Latin word aeternalis which is from Latin aeternus contraction
of aeviternus which actually means “of great age” which is from aevum “age” and to understand which form of age we should look at eon.
The logical conclusion to this etymology that you have presented, is that the English word eternity really means age. So Etymology confirms the definition which has a limit to its duration and is measured by the passage of time. Hense not "without end".
Etymology leads us to the conclusion that the English word eternity did not carry the weight of endless, yet etymology alone is not sufficient to determine the meaning of a word since words change in meaning. Etymology supports my view and is against yours, however, etymology is not conclusive and I don’t rest my case on etymology alone. Two more tools can be employed to determing the meaning of words: lexicography and usage.
Lexicography , like etymology is helpful in gaining insight to the definitions that men have assigned to words, but again, lexicography alone is not sufficient to conclusively determine meaning because meanings change. Like the example you gave of the use of bad, or prevent which used to mean precede, or fag which used to mean a burning stick… then cigarette… and now…? Howevcer, if you check the lexicography of the word aion and aionios in the oldest lexicons, you invariably find the words lack any mention of endless or eternal as in no beginning or no end but always the idea of age, or lifetime etc. Not until the 16th century did the lexicons begin to add the idea of perpetuity to their definitions of aion and aionios. This is a historical fact and can be verified, as I have already shown. IF you missed it I will be most happy to give you the references again. So lexicography confirms my point of view as does etymology, but as I said, I do not allow this to be conclusive evidence. The crux of the matter is, what did the words mean to the authors who penned them. What did the authors intend their readers to understand by their use of the words. This brings us to usage.
Usage- by usage I refer to the use of the words by the authors and their contemporaries. What did the word mean, as it was used at the time of writing. Exhaustive studies have been made searching all the writings of the Greek classics and not once did these words have the meaning of perpetuity, let alone the stricter meaning of no beginning and no end.
In the days in which the new testament was written, usage of the word, that is, the common understanding of the people who read and spoke Greek, did not include the modern understanding of eternal but rather age, aion and age pertaining, aionios. This also is a verifiable historic fact and I will be more than happy to provide you references if you like.
Strike three! Etymology, Lexicography and Usage at the time of the writing of the Scripture all point to aion and aionios having the meaning of age and age pertaining respectively.
The concept of eternal damnation or endless punishment was spread through the church largely through Augustine, a Catholic, and is in actuality a Catholic dogma. Incidentally, the concept of purgatory was invented in an attempt to answer the many verses in Scripture which speak of the reconciliation of all. Consider also, the men who gave us our English translations were trained in the Catholic church and their primary study language was Latin, not Greek and Hebrew. The prevailing doctrine in their day was still that of endless punishment and it influenced their interpretations. Thankfully, as horrible as it is that this has hindered millions from understanding the love of God, at least they still will ultimately enter into His peace, and they will rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory when they discover His perfect love and his enduring mercy to them and their loved ones.
31 comments:
[BTW - If you post something from scratch, email me . . . I won't see it otherwise. Once I have responded, I will get notified]
The etymology of the word "eternal" is that is began life as the word "age" and fully means "eternal" :-) That is its "etymology", its derivation.
It seems strange that “etymology” would lead you to believe that “eternal” doesn’t mean “eternal”. Etymology may explain why it does mean eternal . . . or not. If it leads to any other conclusion than that it means “eternal”, then you are doing violence to the science of linguistics. Which is my exact point with aionios.
It is interesting that when you turn "age" into an adjective, you tend to end up with something that tends to push aside the idea of "age" . . . such as "ageless". The entire point of having it describe something is NOT to define a bound, but rather to transcend it.
You said: “However, if you check the lexicography of the word aion and aionios in the oldest lexicons, you invariably find the words lack any mention of endless or eternal as in no beginning or no end but always the idea of age, or lifetime etc.”
Please refresh my memory on which lexicons you are referring to. I will quote William Barclay’s “New Testament Words”:
===========================
“The adjective aionios becomes in Hellenistic Greek times the standing adjective to describe the Emperor's power. The royal power of Rome is a power which is to last for ever. And so, as Milligan well puts it, the word aionios comes to describe 'a state wherein the horizon is not in view'. Aionios becomes the word of far distances, the word of eternities, the word which transcends time.
But it was Plato who took this word aionios -- he may even have coined it -- and gave it its special mysterious meaning. To put it briefly, for Plato aionios is the word of eternity in contrast with time. Plato uses it, as it has been said, 'to denote that which has neither beginning nor end, and that is subject to neither change nor decay, that which is above time, but of which time is a moving image'.
Plato does not mean by this word simply indefinite continuance -- this is a point to which we must later return -- but that which is above and beyond time. There are three significant instances of the word in Plato.
In the second book of the Republic (363d) Plato is talking of the poets' pictures of heaven. He talks of the rewards Musaeus and Eumolpus offer the just men: 'They take them down into the world below, where they have the saints lying on couches at a feast, everlastingly drunk, with garlands on their heads; their idea seems to be that an immortality of drunkenness (aionios methe) is the highest meed of virtue.'
• In The Laws he speaks of the soul and the body being indestructible, but not eternal (904a). There is a difference between simple existence for ever and eternity, for eternity is the possession of gods, not of men.
The most significant of all the Platonic passages is in the Timaeus 37d. There he speaks about the Creator and the universe which he has created, 'the created glory of the eternal gods' -- The Creator was glad when he saw his universe, and he wished to make it as nearly like the eternal universe as it could be. But 'to attach eternity to the created was impossible.' So he made time as a moving image of eternity.
• The essential point in this picture is that eternity is always the same and always indivisible; in it there is no being created and no becoming; there is no such thing as being older and younger in eternity; there is no past, present or future.
• There is no was or will be but only an eternal is.
Obviously we cannot have that state in a created world; but none the less the created world is, within its limits, the image of eternity.
Here then is the salient fact.
• The essence of the word aionios is that it is the word of the eternal order as contrasted with the order of this world; it is the word of deity as contrasted with humanity; essentially it is the word which can be properly applied to no one other than God. Aionios is the word which describes nothing less and nothing other than the life of God. ”
=========================
This seems pretty clear to me. If Plato is thought to have coined the adjective, that would appear to define its earliest usage. It is emphatically not “time bounded” . . . quite the opposite. The emperor’s power is seen and said to be limitless, ANYTHING but “age-bounded”. The other examples are even more clear.
As to Biblical usage, we do, of course, strongly disagree on that.
In "To Alfred" I quoted verbatum your inclusion of the etymology of the English word eternal. I am posting it here again. Please read it. I will emphasize the parts I wish you to comprehend.
Here is the etymology - again - of our English word "Eternal":"mid-14c. (in variant form eterne), from O.Fr. eternal, from L.L. aeternalis, from L. aeternus contraction of aeviternus "of great age," from aevum "age" (see eon)."Since they point to our English word "Eon", let's look at that:"1640s, from L. aeon, from Gk. aion "age, vital force, lifetime," from PIE base *aiw- "vital force, life, long life, eternity" (cf. Skt. ayu "life," Avestan ayu "age," L. aevum "space of time, eternity," Goth. aiws "age, eternity," O.N. ævi "lifetime," Ger. ewig "everlasting," O.E. a "ever, always")."]
I remind you, Alfred, this is the etymology you shared.You acknowledge the word comes from age, lifetime, space of time? You are insisting that it cannot mean what it is derived from. What is the sense in using etymology if the word cannot mean what it is derived from? You are insisting that the word take on an opposite meaning. Not time, but rather the negation of time. Age, time, lifetime, space of time... these are all concepts that have to do with the passage of time. Timelessness, is the opposite. Eternity as we understand it today has taken on the opposite meaning to what etymology tells us it sprang from.
You say that etymology teaches us that eternal began as age but fully means eternal now. Meaning eternal now is not the point. The bible wasn't written now. It was written almost 2000 years ago. The etymology you provide is dated at the most 600 years ago. Etymology tells us the word, a mere 600 years ago meant age and more importantly the words it was derived from, meant age at that time still. Words such as aion, aeon (L) and aeternum etc.
How is this doing violence to the science of linguistics?
Alfred you said: It is interesting that when you turn "age" into an adjective, you tend to end up with something that tends to push aside the idea of "age" . . . such as "ageless".
What about aged, or aging? When you add a suffix of negation to any word, you create the antithesis of the word. What is interesting about that? Fruit - fruitless; Care - careless; God - godless; brain - brainless. What does that have to do with eon when the suffix "ian" is added. Eonian - pertaining to the eon. Christ - christios = Christ - christian; NOT Christ - christless. aionios does not mean ageless, but age pertaining. Of course, we have in the Greek, the means to show negation, and it is noteable that these are NOT used with aion.
Alfred you said...
You said: “However, if you check the lexicography of the word aion and aionios in the oldest lexicons, you invariably find the words lack any mention of endless or eternal as in no beginning or no end but always the idea of age, or lifetime etc.”
Please refresh my memory on which lexicons you are referring to. I will quote William Barclay’s “New Testament Words”:
First of all, I would like to point out that William Barclay's book which you cite was published in 1976. A fair amount of time has passed between the writing of the New Testament and this source. You could say an eon. ;)
I will present the Lexicography in a new post, as it is too long to put in a comment. (Consider yourself notified.) ;)
Edward Beecher (August 27, 1803 – July 28, 1895) was a noted theologian. (Wikipedia has a write up on him.)
Dr. Edward Beecher(1) 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."
* "An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible," p.216.
(1)Christian Union.
Regarding Plato, Alfred, you quote:
• In The Laws he speaks of the soul and the body being indestructible, but not eternal (904a). There is a difference between simple existence for ever and eternity, for eternity is the possession of gods, not of men.
The most significant of all the Platonic passages is in the Timaeus 37d. There he speaks about the Creator and the universe which he has created, 'the created glory of the eternal gods' -- The Creator was glad when he saw his universe, and he wished to make it as nearly like the eternal universe as it could be. But 'to attach eternity to the created was impossible.' So he made time as a moving image of eternity.
Would you please include the Greek text for these quotes? The English translation tells me nothing. How do I know he did not use the common word for eternity, aidios?
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/eon1.html is another useful link in which you will find the following:
In considering the usage of aio~n in the Greek Classics (the literature with which the authors of the Septuagint were familiar), Hanson says further concerning Goodwin, that, earlier in the nineteenth century, he "patiently and candidly traced this word through the Classics, finding the noun frequently in nearly all the writers, but not meeting the adjective until Plato, its [apparent] inventor, used it. [Goodwin] states, as the result of his protracted and exhaustive examination from the beginning down to Plato, `We have the whole evidence of seven Greek writers, extending through about six centuries, down to the age of Plato, who make use of aio~n, in common with other words; and no one of them ever employs it in the sense of eternity.' When the Old Testament was translated from the Hebrew into Greek by the Seventy, the word aio~n had been in common use for many centuries.
"It is preposterous to say that the Seventy would render the Hebrew olam by the Greek aio~n and give to the latter (1) a different meaning from that of the former, or (2) a different meaning from aio~n in the current Greek literature. It is self-evident, then, that aio~n in the Old Testament means exactly what olam means, and also what aio~n means in the Greek Classics. Indefinite duration is the sense of olam, and it is equally clear that aio~n has a similar signification....I do not know of an instance in which any lexicographer has produced the usage of ancient classical Greek in evidence that aio~n means eternity. Ancient classical Greek rejects it altogether' (by `ancient' he means the Greek existing anterior to the days of the Seventy).
"Thus it appears that when the Seventy began their work of giving the world a version of the Old Testament that should convey the sense of the Hebrew Bible, they must have used aio~n in the sense in which it was then used. Endless duration is not the meaning the word had in Greek literature at that time. Therefore the word cannot have that meaning in Old Testament Greek. Nothing can be plainer than that Greek literature at the time the Old Testament was rendered into the Greek Septuagint did not give to aio~n the meaning of endless duration." 3
What were you saying about the "science of linguistics"?
It seems strange that “etymology” would lead you to believe that “eternal” doesn’t mean “eternal”. Etymology may explain why it does mean eternal . . . or not. If it leads to any other conclusion than that it means “eternal”, then you are doing violence to the science of linguistics.
Etymology clearly leads to non eternal whereas current usage cleary leads us to understand Eternal as having no beginning and no end, or even the weaker version of having no end, but again, the Bible wasn't written at a time when that modern meaning was used.
"You acknowledge the word comes from age, lifetime, space of time? You are insisting that it cannot mean what it is derived from. What is the sense in using etymology if the word cannot mean what it is derived from? "
That is bizzare, Jack :-) You KNOW what it means . . . the English word "eternal" does NOT mean "Age bounded" . . . it CANNOT mean age bounded, because it means the opposite. Look at Websters!
Can't you see the problem? You are putting stuff in that you want, instead of accepting what is there. "Wonderful things in the Bible I see, things that were put there by you and by me" :-)
Reminds me of that glorious "aorist" tense in the Greek, the one I have had countless preachers tell me means "once for all". That is baloney . . . look at how it is used. Aorist ("Punctiliar") means, "It happened", nothing more . . . the "Continuous" tense, on the other hand, says, "It kept on happening".
You said: "Eonian - pertaining to the eon." Like "Eternal" means "pertaining to an age?" Or "Pitiful" means "Full of Pity"? Or "Fishy" means "from a fish"? That is NOT linguistics, Jack.
Even if one allows that the sense of "aion" as it gave birth to "aionios", the "aion" in view is the "world to come", not this one. That world, which is eternal, which only enternal beings enter. Not "age bounded" in ANY sense, but "of that ageless eon, the one that never ends". Temporal fire burns out . . . Aionios Fire is unquenchable.
Back to Barclay:
"Even in classical and in secular Greek aionios is a strange word, with a sense of mystery in it. Itself it is an adjective formed from the noun aion. In classical Greek this word aion has three main meanings.
III) But then the word comes to mean a very long space of time. The prepositional phrase ap'aionos means from of old; and di'aionos means perpetually and for ever. It is just here that the first mystery begins to enter in. In the papyri we read how at a public meeting the crowd shout `The Emperor eis ton aiona, The Emperor for ever.'"
Even aion is used in an eternal, unending sense, again as in "beyond time".
Jack, you are playing with me
"First of all, I would like to point out that William Barclay's book which you cite was published in 1976. A fair amount of time has passed between the writing of the New Testament and this source. You could say an eon. ;)"
So, since you are publishing in 2010, I must give your comments even less weight? :-) Later scholars typically have more and more completely restored manuscripts at their disposal than earlier scholars, especially in the Internet age. So the result becomes better, not worse.
And as to digging up the original Greek for Plato . . . are you telling me that this scholar is lieing? He said it uses "aionios" Tell me that you really believe he is lieing . . .
For the record, I doubt presenting you with the Greek would make an iota of difference to you . . . tell me if I am wrong, 'cause I would put out the effort.
“Goodwin . . . "patiently and candidly traced this word through the Classics, finding the noun frequently in nearly all the writers, but not meeting the adjective until Plato, its [apparent] inventor, used it. “
Interesting . . . this fact appears to be universally accepted. That Plato likely invented the adjective. And his use emphatically placed it in the realm beyond time.
This is a translation of Plato's “Timaios” as given by J.N. Darby:
“When the father creator saw the creature which he had made moving and living, the created image of the eternal (aidios) gods, he rejoiced, and in his joy determined to make the copy still more like the original; and as this was eternal (aidios), he sought to make the universe eternal (-), so far as might be. Now the nature of the ideal being was eternal (aiõnios), but to bestow this attribute in its fullness upon a creature was impossible. Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternity (aiõnos), and when he set in order the heaven, he made this image eternal (aiõnios) but moving according to number, while eternity (aiõnos) itself rests in unity; and this image we call time (chronos). For there were no days and nights and months and years before the heaven was created, but when he constructed the heaven he created them also. They are all parts of time, and the past and future are created species of time, which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the eternal (aidios) essence; for we say that he "was," he "is," he "will be," but the truth is that "is" alone is properly attributed to him, and that "was" and "will be" only to be spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which is immovably the same cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did or has become, or hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all to any of those states which affect moving and sensible things and of which generation is the cause. These are the forms of time, which imitates eternity (aiõnos) and revolves according to a law of number. Moreover, when we say that what has become is become and what becomes is becoming, and that what will become is about to become and that the non-existent is non-existent -- all these are inaccurate modes of expression. But perhaps this whole subject will be more suitably discussed on some other occasion.”
You can see that he emphatically equivocates aidios with aionios, the word he invented. And sets it apart from chronos, time.
“[Goodwin] states, as the result of his protracted and exhaustive examination from the beginning down to Plato, `We have the whole evidence of seven Greek writers, extending through about six centuries, down to the age of Plato, who make use of aio~n, in common with other words; and no one of them ever employs it in the sense of eternity.' “
That is emphatically not the case with aionios, as has been shown . . . with respect to aion, it was used in the sense of “perpetually”, “for ever” when referring to the emperor’s reign . . . so . . . just 'cause he says it's so, doesn't make it so.
"Nothing can be plainer than that Greek literature at the time the Old Testament was rendered into the Greek Septuagint did not give to aio~n the meaning of endless duration."
Perhaps we are playing with words – “endless duration” vs. “perpetually”, the latter being emphatically a use. Again, those uses are the opposite of demanding a bound. The word – and adjective – are consistently applied Biblically in the OT to the world that the Lord exists in, that which is to come. So it is self-evident that when so used it is a life above ours . . . not like ours. We say “eternity” to refer to that . . . Whatever it is, It again DOES NOT DEMAND A BOUND, unlike what you are trying to pull out of it.
The “etymology” of aion and aionios are the primary pillar you are trying to pile this all on . . . because Scripture emphatically does not teach it. You may take the sense of “triumphing over all” and “Savior of all men” to imply it, but you have to admit that there is a vacuum of explicit teaching that says, “ALL men WILL be saved” . . . or even to say, explicitly, “In the end all shall spring out of hell”. Which is unrealistic, given how dramatic of a teaching this is. When one needs nuances of linguistics to define a doctrine, one is on very shaky ground, since the mind gets so very creative when pressed. That evidence – the emphatic lack of a direct teaching to that end – would be enough to move hard away from it and find other interpretations of Scriptural statements that might be seen to allow it.
“Edward Beecher (August 27, 1803 – July 28, 1895) was a noted theologian. “
He was also taken up with speculation . . . the “Conspiracy Theory” of the sinister intentions and acts of the Roman Catholic church. This would not be a confidence building source of rigorously independent research.
You asked for it, you got it . . . original Greek of Timeaus (http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/physis/plato-timaeus/time.asp):
Ὡς δὲ κινηθὲν αὐτὸ καὶ ζῶν ἐνόησεν τῶν ἀϊδίων θεῶν γεγονὸς ἄγαλμα ὁ γεννήσας πατήρ͵ ἠγάσθη τε καὶ εὐφρανθεὶς ἔτι δὴ μᾶλλον ὅμοιον πρὸς τὸ παράδειγμα ἐπενόησεν ἀπεργάσασθαι. [37d] καθάπερ οὖν αὐτὸ τυγχάνει ζῷον ἀίδιον ὄν͵ καὶ τόδε τὸ πᾶν οὕτως εἰς δύναμιν ἐπεχείρησε τοιοῦτον ἀποτελεῖν. ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ ζῴου φύσις ἐτύγχανεν οὖσα αἰώνιος͵ καὶ τοῦτο μὲν δὴ τῷ γεννητῷ παντελῶς προσάπτειν οὐκ ἦν δυνατόν· εἰκὼ δ΄ ἐπενόει κινητόν τινα αἰῶνος ποιῆσαι͵ καὶ διακοσμῶν ἅμα οὐρανὸν ποιεῖ μένοντος αἰῶνος ἐν ἑνὶ κατ΄ ἀριθμὸν ἰοῦσαν αἰώνιον εἰκόνα͵ τοῦτον ὃν δὴ χρόνον ὠνομάκαμεν. [37e] ἡμέρας γὰρ καὶ νύκτας καὶ μῆνας καὶ ἐνιαυτούς͵ οὐκ ὄντας πρὶν οὐρανὸν γενέσθαι͵ τότε ἅμα ἐκείνῳ συνισταμένῳ τὴν γένεσιν αὐτῶν μηχανᾶται· ταῦτα δὲ πάντα μέρη χρόνου͵ καὶ τό τ΄ ἦν τό τ΄ ἔσται χρόνου γεγονότα εἴδη͵ ἃ δὴ φέροντες λανθάνομεν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀίδιον οὐσίαν οὐκ ὀρθῶς. λέγομεν γὰρ δὴ ὡς ἦν ἔστιν τε καὶ ἔσται͵ τῇ δὲ τὸ ἔστιν μόνον κατὰ τὸν ἀληθῆ λόγον προσήκει͵ [38a] τὸ δὲ ἦν τό τ΄ ἔσται περὶ τὴν ἐν χρόνῳ γένεσιν ἰοῦσαν πρέπει λέγεσθαι - κινήσεις γάρ ἐστον͵ τὸ δὲ ἀεὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἔχον ἀκινήτως οὔτε πρεσβύτερον οὔτε νεώτερον προσήκει γίγνεσθαι διὰ χρόνου οὐδὲ γενέσθαι ποτὲ οὐδὲ γεγονέναι νῦν οὐδ΄ εἰς αὖθις ἔσεσθαι͵ τὸ παράπαν τε οὐδὲν ὅσα γένεσις τοῖς ἐν αἰσθήσει φερομένοις προσῆψεν͵ ἀλλὰ χρόνου ταῦτα αἰῶνα μιμουμένου καὶ κατ΄ ἀριθμὸν κυκλουμένου γέγονεν εἴδη - καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ἔτι τὰ τοιάδε͵ [38b] τό τε γεγονὸς εἶναι γεγονὸς καὶ τὸ γιγνόμενον εἶναι γιγνόμενον͵ ἔτι τε τὸ γενησόμενον εἶναι γενησόμενον καὶ τὸ μὴ ὂν μὴ ὂν εἶναι͵ ὧν οὐδὲν ἀκριβὲς λέγομεν. περὶ μὲν οὖν τούτων τάχ΄ ἂν οὐκ εἴη καιρὸς πρέπων ἐν τῷ παρόντι διακριβολογεῖσθαι.
Now . . . please note the English translation . . . these are SECULAR folks, with no theological ax to grind. THIS is the nail in the coffin of subversive activity turning "aioios" into "eternal":
"WHEN the father creator saw the creature which he had made moving and living, the created image of the eternal gods, he rejoiced, and in his joy determined to make the copy still more like the original; and as this was eternal, he sought to make the universe eternal, so far as might be. Now the nature of the ideal being was everlasting, but to bestow this attribute in its fulness upon a creature was impossible. Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternity, and when he set in order the heaven, he made this image eternal but moving according to number, while eternity itself rests in unity; and this image we call time. For there were no days and nights and months and years before the heaven was created, but when he constructed the heaven he created them also. They are all parts of time, and the past and future are created species of time, which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the eternal essence; for we say that he "was," he "is," he "will be," but the truth is that "is" alone is properly attributed to him, and that "was" and "will be" only to be spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which is immovably the same cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did or has become, or hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all to any of those states which affect moving and sensible things and of which generation is the cause. These are the forms of time, which imitates eternity and revolves according to a law of number. Moreover, when we say that what has become is become and what becomes is becoming, and that what will become is about to become and that the non-existent is non-existent-all these are inaccurate modes of expression. But perhaps this whole subject will be more suitably discussed on some other occasion."
Something for you to think about while I work on the translation of Plato. Thanks for digging that up.
Following are a few opinions of men who are/were fluent in Greek:
The New Testament in Modern Speech, by Dr. R. F. Weymouth: Eternal: Greek: "aeonion," i.e., "of the ages." Etymologically this adjective, like others similarly formed, does not signify "during," but "belong to" the aeons or ages."
The Interpreter’s Dictionry of the Bible (vol. IV, p. 643): Time: The O.T. and the N.T. are not acquainted with the conception of eternity as timelessness. The O.T. has not developed a special term for "eternity." The word aion originally meant "vital force," "life," then "age," "lifetime."
Elliot’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Matt. 25:46(. Everlasting punishment--life eternal. The two adjectives represent the same Greek word, aionios—it must be admitted that the Greek word which is rendered "eternal" does not, in itself, involve endlessness, but rather, duration, whether through an age or succession of ages, and that it is therefore applied in the N.T. to periods of time that have had both a beginning and ending (Rom. 16:25).
Hasting’s Dictionary of the New Testament (Vol. I, p. 542, art. Christ and the Gospels): Eternity. There is no word either in the O.T. Hebrew or the N.T. Greek to express the abstract idea of eternity. (Vol. III, p. 369): Eternal, everlasting—nonetheless "eternal" is misleading, inasmuch as it has come in the English to connote the idea of "endlessly existing," and thus to be practically a synonym for "everlasting." But this is not an adequate rendering of aionios which varies in meaning with the variations of the noun aion from which it comes. (p. 370):
The chronoios aioniois moreover, are not to be thought of as stretching backward everlastingly, as it is proved by the pro chronon aionion of II Tim. 1:9; Titus. 1:2. (Note: pro chronon aionion means "BEFORE times eonian." Since this Scripture tells us that there was time "before" eonian, eionian cannot possibly mean eternal, for nothing can be "before" eternity.)
The large Catholic Bible dictionary, The Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible (p. 693): ETERNITY: The Bible hardly speaks of eternity in the philosophical sense of infinite duration without beginning or end. The Hebrew word olam, which is used alone (Ps. 61:8; etc.) or with various prepositions (Gen. 3:22; etc.) in contexts where it is traditionally translated as ‘forever,’ means in itself no more than ‘for an indefinitely long period." Thus me olam does not mean ‘from eternity’ but ‘of old’ Gen. 6:4; etc.). In the N.T. aion is used as the equivalent of olam. (Note: even the Catholic translators of The Jerusalem Bible and The New American Bible have failed to heed the scholarship of their own Catholic authorities.)
Dr. R. F. Weymouth, a translator who was adept in Greek, states in The New Testament in Modern Speech (p. 657), Eternal, Greek aeonion, i.e., of the ages: Etymologically this adjective, like others similarly formed does not signify, "during" but "belonging to" the aeons or ages.
Dr. Marvin Vincent, Word Studies of the New Testament (Vol. IV, p. 59). The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective in themselves carries the sense of "endless" or "everlasting.’ Anionios means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time.
Dr. F. W. Farrar, author of The Life of Christ and The Life and Word of St. Paul, as well as books about Greek grammar and syntax, writes in The Eternal Hope (p. 198), "That the adjective is applied to some things which are ‘endless’ does not, of course, for one moment prove that the word itself meant ‘endless;’ and to introduce this rendering into many passages would be utterly impossible and absurd."
In Dr. Farrar’s book, Mercy and Judgment, (p. 378), "Since aion meant ‘age,’ aionios means, properly, ‘belonging to an age,’ or ‘age-long,’ and anyone who asserts that it must mean ‘endless’ defends a position which even Augustine practically abandoned twelve centuries ago. Even if aion always meant ‘eternity,’ which is not the case in classic or Hellenistic Greek—aionios could still mean only ‘belonging to eternity’ and not ‘lasting through it."
The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, (Vol. 4, p. 641), "The O.T. and the N.T. are not acquainted with the concept of eternity as timelessness." Page 655: "The O.T. has not developed a special term for eternity." Page 645: "The use of the word aion in the N.T. is determined very much by the O.T. and the LXX. Aion means long, distant, uninterrupted time. The intensifying plural occurs frequently in the N.T. but it adds no new meaning."
Dr. Edward Plumptre, an eschatologist, "I fail to find, as is used by the Greek Fathers, any instance in which the idea of time duration is unlimited."
Time and Eternity by G. T. Stevenson, (p. 63), "Since, as we have seen, the noun aion refers to a period of time it appears, very improbable that the derived adjective aionios would indicate infinite duration, nor have we found any evidence in Greek writing to show that such a concept was expressed by this term."
Professor Herman Oldhausen, German Lutheran theologian, "The Bible has no expression for endlessness. All the Biblical terms imply or denote long periods."
Professor Knappe of Halle wrote, "The Hebrew was destitute of any single word to express endless duration. The pure idea of eternity is NOT FOUND IN ANY OF THE ANCIENT LANGUAGES." (CAPS emphasis are mine).
An Alphabetical Analysis by Charles H. Welch (Editor of The Berean Expositor and a man well versed in Greek), (Vol. 1, p. 279), "Eternity is not a Biblical theme." (Vol. 1, p. 52), "What we have to learn is that the Bible does not speak of eternity. It is not written to tell us of eternity. Such a consideration is entirely outside the scope of revelation."
This meaning is based on the most frequent usages of the word by the people to whom the ancient koine Greek language was native. Plato, Phocylides, Philo, Clement, Diodorus Siculus, Arrianus, Josephus, Maximus Tyrius, Ignatius, Homer are among those who used this meaning of the word "aionios".
The Complete Works of Falvius Josephus. Josephus obviously did not consider anionios to be "everlasting," seeing that he uses the word to represent the period of time between the giving of the law of Moses and that of his own writing [clearly not an eternity]. He also assigns aionios to the period of imprisonment of the tyrant John by the Romans [clearly he was not imprisoned for an eternity], and also for the period during which Herod’s temple stood [since Herod’s temple was not even standing at the time Josephus wrote, it too proves that Josephus did not mean ‘eternity’ when he wrote ‘aionios’].
Saint Gregory of Nyssa speaks of anionios diastema, "an eonian interval." How many intervals do you know of that are "endless" or "eternal?"
Saint Chrysostum, in his homily on Eph. 2:1-3, says that, "Satan’s kingdom is aeonian; that is, it will cease with the present world."
Saint Justin Martyr, in the Apol. (p. 57), used the word aionios repeadedly: aionion kolasin…all ouchi chiliontaete periodon, "eonian chastening but a period, not a thousand years," or as some translate this clause "but a period of a thousand years only." Hence, to Justin Martyr, aionios was certainly not "endless."
Go ahead and discredit all these men. I'm sure they are suspect like Edward Beecher who "was also taken up with speculation . . . the “Conspiracy Theory” of the sinister intentions and acts of the Roman Catholic church".
Alfred, I've posted a Faith Test as our newest blog. Just so you know. You might find it interesting. I'd be interested to see how you answer the questions.
I would love for you to tell me which of these men did NOT believe in Universal Salvation. Those I will spend some time on. I know a great many more great scholars who would disagree with the conclusions these gentlemen come up with.
A man's theology will often dictate his exegesis . . . and a man's morality will often dictate his theology. Since you believe this to be true of others, you MUST accept of of those who believe as you do. It is far less likely that a man will twist Scripture to INCLUDE eternal damnation . . . the motives to EXCLUDE it are far more numerous and strong.
I will make this comment about the two Josephus citations:
If I say, "It has been an eternity since the world has seen a truly great classical composition", am I saying that "eternity" really means "a long bounded period of time"? NO . . . is is a metaphor, even a stab at ridiculousness, but NOT a redefinition of "eternity" to mean "time bounded" - ANYTHING BUT. These are games being played.
Same with his "imprisoned for aionios" . . . how about saying, "He will be locked up for ever . . . good ridance." "I am eternally grateful to you" . . . "The eternal stars shine on you" . . . "The endless expanse of the ocean" . . . There is no question what I mean, and I do NOT mean "age bounded". "Eternal" loses nothing of its meaning in the process.
I was just poking around . . . check out the "Treaty of Pressburg" (http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/government/diplomatic/c_pressburg.html):
"There shall be, dating from this day, peace and amity between His Majesty the Emperor of Germany and of Austria and His Majesty the Emperor of the French, King of Italy, their heirs and successors, their respective States and subjects, FOREVER."
" . . . which shall be united FOREVER with the Kingdom of Italy."
" . . .the Crowns of France and of Italy shall be separated FOREVER . . ."
If you are coming at English as an ancient language in about 4,000 years, would YOU be trying to prove that "forever" means "age bounded", because of this usage? If you did, you would be making a big mistake. "Forever" NEVER means "age bounded" . . . even if the speaker/writer uses it in a context that is clearly bounded. Forever is . . . "Forever" :-)
This quote: "The pure idea of eternity is NOT FOUND IN ANY OF THE ANCIENT LANGUAGES."
I wanted to clarify . . . do YOU believe in "endless life", eternal life, eternity? ARE THESE BIBLICAL CONCEPTS? I believe you said you do, although comments you made subsequent made me wonder.
IF there is such a thing as "eternity", then ancient languages having no word for it would be a problem, correct? That seems most strange . . . a Biblical concept for which there is no word? In that case the Bible would need to borrow a similar word and give it that meaning . . . However you slice it, you STILL end up with SOMETHING that means "eternity", unending forever.
Hi again Alfred,
Your statement:
If I say, "It has been an eternity since the world has seen a truly great classical composition", am I saying that "eternity" really means "a long bounded period of time"? NO . . . is is a metaphor, even a stab at ridiculousness, but NOT a redefinition of "eternity" to mean "time bounded" - ANYTHING BUT. These are games being played.
...snip...
Can you help me see how "aion" can mean "eternal" in the following verses?
♦ What will be the sign…of the end of the [aion][eternity?] (Mt. 24:3)?
♦ I am with you…to the end of the aion.[eternity?] (Mt. 28:20).
♦ Upon whom the ends of the [αιωνον][eternities?] have come
(1Co. 10:11).
These are just 3 of scores of verses using the word aion which bring up legitimate questions.
Specifically:
How do we have an end of eternity?
What do we mean by "this" eternity? Is it to diferentiate from another eternity?
Can we have more than one eternity?
Regarding aionios:
΅
When aionios referred to the duration of land possession of the Israelites:
Le 25:34 But the field of the suburbs of their cities may not be sold; for it is their perpetual possession.
Will they possess the suburbs of their cities throughout all eternity? Even after the earth is destroyed? Do the Jews he was speaking to possess them now? What did he mean?
Or when aionios is used regarding the Aaronic priesthood...Nu 25:13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.
How is it that this aionios priesthood was done away with and replaced with Christ who is after the order of Melchisedec? This aionios priesthood was done away with.(Heb. 8:13 and Heb 9:10)
In Isa 58:12 And they that shall be of thee shall build the [aionia}waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.
Why would he refer to the waste places that are being built as aionia waste places?
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 [αιωνιοις][eternity?] began, (KJV)
25 τω δε δυναμενω υμας στηριξαι κατα το ευαγγελιου μου και το κηρυγμα ιησου χριστου κατα αποκαλυφιν μυστηριου χρονοις αιωνιοις σεσιγημενου (TR)
Eternity has a beginning?
Again, this is merely a few of the actual uses of the words in both the old and new testaments that raise what I consider to be legitimate questions. I can show many more, but you have requested me to limit myself (and I appreciate and understand your request and am trying to honor it. It's just that as you spur me on to research, I find so much more supporting evidence that I find it hard not to share it all.
Do you really believe I am twisting the Word? I am merely reading it in context, looking for a non contradictory understanding. My reasoning is this: Since God is all knowing and perfect, He surely doesn't make mistakes or contradict Himself. Though He has hidden much, He has also promised to lead us into all truth. Truth is never contradictory of itself. So where I find "apparent" contradictions, I look a little deeper if perchance God will grant the wisdom and insight to understand what He is teaching. The main purpose of His word is to reveal Himself to us, and through it we already know He is good, and perfect, and cannot lie, and all powerful, and merciful throughout the ages. That He loves the whole world so much that He sent His only Son to die for us. Why would someone like that create a situation and make provision for everlasting torment?
Blessings!
"Can you help me see how "aion" can mean "eternal" in the following verses?
♦ What will be the sign…of the end of the [aion][eternity?] (Mt. 24:3)?"
Aion CAN mean "age" . . . that was its original meaning. aionios the adjective is, I believe, always eternal . . . not necessarily aion.
"♦ I am with you…to the end of the aion.[eternity?] (Mt. 28:20)."
Well . . . how long is Jesus with us? None of us are likely to live to the end of this age . . . certainly not the disciples, which Jesus knew. How long? For ever, end of this age, to endless ages.
"♦ Upon whom the ends of the [αιωνον][eternities?] have come
(1Co. 10:11)."
That one is easy. Mathematicians talk about various infinities . . . various eternities. They are identified by the Hebrew letter "aleph" . . . for example (I am feeling very important right now), Aleph 0 is the number of counting numbers, i.e. the number of days in an eternity of days. Aleph 1 is the number of points in a segment 1 unit long . . . and since every counting number lands on that segment (1 divided by the the number, i.e. 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, forever) with more space left than was consumed, you can see that that is an infinitely higher level infinity.
There are higher level eternities than just "living an infinite number of days". Paul speaks of the 3rd heaven . . . I am guessing that speaks to it. "Eternity of Eternities" . . . "Ends of Eternities" is the end or purpose of all the eternities . . . coming on us, in Christ.
"Le 25:34 But the field of the suburbs of their cities may not be sold; for it is their perpetual possession. "
Jack: You have stuck your brain is such closed little boxes. To the point that you are willing to argue that the English "Eternal" doesn't mean "Eternal". "Eternal", "Perpetual" is an expression of "unending" . . . NO bound. That is it!
With the Aaronic priesthood: IF "aionios" means ANYTHING it means "without a bound". And even beyond the notion of no defined bound . . . as long as there is a Jew - circumcised - I believe there is a "Cohen" - priest - to minister to the earthly covenant. We see a temple in Zechariah, with the land of Israel, with 12 tribes, and with an earthly temple. The priests are very active there . . . And as long as there is a sun, moon, and stars, there will be Jews. The Aaronic and Melchizedek covenants coexisted in the "olden days" . . . now there are merged, in the sense that Melchizedek - read "Jesus" - gives it life and is the real authority. But, again, you HAVE to have Aaronic priests in a future day with that amazing temple with a river running out from under the threshold.
“Why would he refer to the waste places that are being built as aionia waste places?”
Again, I probably should not respond to every aion verse, since I do believe it can mean “age”. In this case the “ancient” waste places, of ages old.
“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 [αιωνιοις][eternity?] began, (KJV)
Eternity has a beginning?”
Not at all. “Kept secret from eternity” . . . where do you read a beginning? If there are endless days ahead, there are – stunningly – also endless days behind. Properly eternity past, eternity future, and time in the middle.
“Do you really believe I am twisting the Word? I am merely reading it in context, looking for a non contradictory understanding.”
I am amazed that you have made some of the points you brought forward, things which – with reflection and thinking outside the box of the universalists – you could have resolved. If you cannot accept the conclusion – or dearly, secretly, really don’t want it to be true – you will never allow yourself to do so.
I keep thinking about Y2K . . . the copious volumes of “proof” that was offered, both practical and Biblical, of the end of the aion :-) . . .
The huge volume of “fire-hose” arguments evaporated to nothing. Because every point that proved it was false. You know the great men and women who were sucked in . . . Gothard, Missler, Lindvall, our own friends . . . the evidence was too overwhelming to not be true . . . yet it was false, as you correctly discerned.
The mistakes were in the details, Jack . . . and so it is here.
Which is why the “fire hose” is so unhelpful . . . the idea of overwhelming the opposition with a volume that simply cannot be addressed. Instead, let’s go over them point by point.
You told me some time back that aionios as “eternal” was a grand myth knowingly perpetuated by theologians/scholars with an ax to grind, and unknowingly by blind sheep. The information from Plato, whom your own sources acknowledge to have likely invented the word, was not hidden, openly discussed for millenia . . . but it appeared to surprise you. At the very least it speaks to a lot of fire-hose “experts” who are being dishonest, or really aren’t experts.
Even if you find someone who can offer an explanation, it should stun you that you have come so far without having had to hit this most significant issue square in the eye. Again, Jack, someone on your side is being disingenuous.
“That He loves the whole world so much that He sent His only Son to die for us. Why would someone like that create a situation and make provision for everlasting torment?”
Will you even listen to an explanation? Or do you think me so evil as to personally enjoy the notion of eternal suffering?
I will tell you that, when I was a youth, I had “night terrors” which cannot be classified as “nightmares” . . . these were far different. In these terrors I can only tell you that my spirit went through a series of strange events that ended up in a situation that I knew was eternal damnation, eternal separation from all I knew. There was no story line . . . it was more like a vision, weird indescribable stuff.[for the record, I was not saved at the time]
The second I “landed” in that horrible state – and this happened 2-3 times – was the most awful I have ever experienced. I awoke screaming, trembling, but it would not leave me . . . I was awake, but I was still living it. My mother could do all she could to pray and hold me . . . finally I would really “come to” and it was over. [In the end she – exhorter that she is – recognized a link between my having taken a certain homeopathic sleep aid just before bed, a product she continues to use without a problem. When I stopped taking it, not more night terrors]
I am NOT indifferent to this horror, Jack . . . you have to believe me. I trust I love my loved ones comparably to you, let alone acquaintances. I DO believe in a God Who is Love . . . but . . . I also believe in a God Who is Holiness, a God of infinite Justice. His love is not more important that His righteousness . . . the only point is that He will continue to Love when all need for anger has ceased. As one eternity is consumed by another to the point is appears to not even have existed, so eternal judgment (an infinite number of days) may well also be consumed by the higher eternity that those that are redeemed will live . . . not just the number of points in a span, such as a day, into which an infinite number of days can be mapped * but an infinite line of points, let alone a plane, or 3 dimensional space, on and on into endless infinities.
You are out of balance . . . that is why it becomes unbearable. Put in the pieces you have eliminated and there will be peace.
* One way is to divide each counting number into one, as in half a day plus a third of a day, plus a 4th of a day . . . 1/1,000,000,000th of a day . . . 1/google of a day, etc, all of which added together do not equal a whole day. Or with the 2nd death, if every day one is half as alive as the day before, one will never die . . . yet the infinity of days of dying all fit into one day of the next higher level of eternity . . .
“Why would he refer to the waste places that are being built as aionia waste places?”
Alfred, I'll put your quotes in italics:
Again, I probably should not respond to every aion verse, since I do believe it can mean “age”. In this case the “ancient” waste places, of ages old.
Alfred, this word is the adjective form "αιωνια" not the noun "αιων"
“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 [αιωνιοις][eternity?] began, (KJV)
Eternity has a beginning?”
Not at all. “Kept secret from eternity” . . . where do you read a beginning?
The verse mentions things that have been kept secret since the αιωνιοις began. Translated in the KJV as "since the world began."
"Le 25:34 But the field of the suburbs of their cities may not be sold; for it is their (αιωνια) perpetual possession. "
Jack: You have stuck your brain in such closed little boxes. To the point that you are willing to argue that the English "Eternal" doesn't mean "Eternal". "Eternal", "Perpetual" is an expression of "unending" . . . NO bound. That is it!
Alfred, the Septuagint uses the adjective αιωνια here. KJV translates it perpetual. Are you saying that these "fields of the suburbs" will belong to the levites throughout eternity? Or does aionios have some other meaning here?
But, again, you HAVE to have Aaronic priests in a future day with that amazing temple with a river running out from under the threshold.
Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Why do you have to have Aaronic priests throughout eternity?
Heb 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.
Doesn't sound to me like God intends to continue the ministry of the Aaronic priesthood for all eternity. But it clearly was an aionios priesthood designed for an age which has ended.
Nu 25:13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an(aiwnion)everlasting priesthood;
Here's another of hundreds:
8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an (aiwnion) everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
Did God forget that He was going to destroy the earth? Are the descendents of Abraham going to possess the land of Canaan for eternity? Or does aionion, the adjective for aion mean age pertaining?
Ex. 30:21 So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not: and it shall be a statute (aiwnion)for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their generations.
Do you believe in an eternal statute requiring the washing of hands and feet to prevent death?
If not, then why is the word aiwonion used here? Does not this statute pertain to the age of the old covenant?
Ex 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a (aiwnios)perpetual covenant.
That age ended when Jerusalem was destroyed around 70 AD.
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the (kosmou)world: but now once in the end of the (aiwn) world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the (aiwn) world are come.
With the proper understanding of aiwn and aiwnios, we find scripture as a whole becoming clearer as would be expected when you find missing puzzle pieces. To maintain that aiwnios means only "eternal", is to keep the fragmented ideas that lead us to misunderstand so much of what the Lord has come to do and even worse, it causes us to misunderstand His very character.
1Jo 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
The false doctrine of eternal damnation is very dark indeed.
Eph 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
Ro 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound!
1Jo 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
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.
1Jo 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.
1Jo 4:16 ...God is love...
1Co 13:8 Love never fails:
Ro 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
I could go on and on, but you would complain of a fire hose dump.
As long as you cling to damnation having no end, you will never be able to comprehend the Love of God. That is a tragic loss, but it won't be for ever. Someday you will see, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened that you ... May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. Eph 3:18,19
I am going to address this in two (or more :-) )posts.
Before I get to the various uses of "eternity", I would like to make a side detour on the Aaronic priesthood. My comments do not form the basis of any need to have that priesthood continue any longer than any other "eternal" thing you cited . . . but I would point out the following:
At what point in time does the Temple of Ezekiel 44-48 exist? It is clearly a temple never before seen, insanely larger than Solomon's temple AND Herod's temple . . . it has many weird aspects to it, including the aforementioned river that starts from the threshhold of the door and runs through the land. It has a division of the land by tribe that matches nothing ever before seen, basically a stack of tribes, east to west.
This temple clearly has priests and Levites . . . and sacrifices, which you have said have ceased.
So . . . where do you place it? What gives?
Let me leap back to a prior example, of "Treaty of Pressburg".
"There shall be, dating from this day, peace and amity between His Majesty the Emperor of Germany and of Austria and His Majesty the Emperor of the French, King of Italy, their heirs and successors, their respective States and subjects, FOREVER."
This is all in English, so we need to go to English dictionaries and lexicons for help.
This is from "Collins Thesarus of the English language" . . . feel free to bring in other authoritative definitions of "forever" if they suit you better:
FOREVER - adverb
1. evermore, always, ever, for good, for keeps, for all time, in perpetuity, for good and all (informal), till the cows come home (informal), world without end, till the end of time, till Doomsday We will live together forever.
2. constantly, always, all the time, continually, endlessly, persistently, eternally, perpetually, incessantly, interminably, unremittingly, everlastingly He was forever attempting to arrange deals.
Usage: Forever and for ever can both be used to say that something is without end. For all other meanings, forever is the preferred form.
WHAT FORMAL DEFINITION OF FOREVER IS BEING USED HERE? :-) You have to use one of the ones that the language authorities put forward.
Oh, so you agree. Forever is not forever, but only a long time.
Just humor me . . . pick the Websters definition of "forever" that matches what you think they were trying to say here.
Here, I will help you . . . official Websters:
Main Entry: 1for·ev·er
Pronunciation: \fə-ˈrev-ər, fȯ-; Southern often fə-ˈe-və\
Function: adverb
Date: circa 1500
1 : for a limitless time
2 : at all times : continually
You will note that "a long time" isn't in there.
Okay Alfred, here is the quote you desire me to comment on:
"There shall be, dating from this day, peace and amity between His Majesty the Emperor of Germany and of Austria and His Majesty the Emperor of the French, King of Italy, their heirs and successors, their respective States and subjects, FOREVER."
Obviously, from the context, this means as long as time continues. That definition is in your websters and would be:
2. constantly, always, all the time, continually,... persistently, ...(as illustrated in this usage): He was forever attempting to arrange deals.
This has absolutely no reference to an eternal pact any more than "He was forever attempting to arrange deals" has an eternal weight.
Are you sufficiently humored?
Point well taken . . . in NO way did the good kings intend "forever" to mean "for a long time" . . . that would change the meaning completely. It meant "forever", as long as anyone cares. Emphatically no end, no bound . . .
That is what the Lord means. No bound, no end. Emphatically no bound.
Some Scriptures do have a bound declared, such as
Genesis 49:10 "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, UNTIL SHILOH COME"
But other Scriptures put no bound, no limit. The land belongs to the Jews as long as there is land to talk about . . . no bound, no limit. If He said, "For a long time", then the Arabs have a right feel they may claim ownership . . . but they don't.
You never answered me on the Aaronic priesthood, BTW. WHEN is Exekiel's temple? I wanna know what you believe.
Post a Comment