Hi Molly, are you saying that "ἀεί" appears in that verse? If so, can you tell me where? If not, can you tell me the importance of it (in connection with this verse)?
I don't understand that question. Does what appear? I can't read that word.
Sorry, I copied it from your post that I quoted [G104]. I'll highlight it in red.
From an obsolete primary noun (apparently meaning continued duration); "ever"; by qualification regularly; by implication earnestly: - always, ever.
There are several other passages in the NT that refer to things that will not come to an "end" and none of them use "aion" (in any form).
I don't really know unless I look at them. Let's take a look.
Ok, I was thinking of:
Luke 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever
; and of his kingdom there shall be no end
This verse uses "αἰῶνας" (aiōnas) in relation to the reign of Christ but "οὐκ τέλος" (ouk telos) in relation to the endlessness of His kingdom
aiōnas = a space of time, an age
ouk = not, no
telos = an end, a toll
I Cor 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
This verse uses "οὐδέποτε πίπτει" (oudepote piptei)
oudepote = never
piptei = to fail
it also uses
καταργηθήσονται (katargēthēsontai) and καταργηθήσεται (katargēthēsetai) = to render inoperative, abolish
παύσονται ( pausontai) = to make to cease, hinder
Heb 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
This verse uses "ἐκλείψουσιν" (ekleipsousin) = to leave out, leave off, by impl. to cease
But, the impression I get here is that either this age [Messianic] or the ages [if there are more after this one] will never end. It's kind of shocking to me, actually, and maybe it's not right, but that's what it is looking like to me right now. I'm even starting to wonder if two different people living in the same time period could actually be literally living in different ages. It's kind of shaking up my notion of time.
So you don't see the "ages" connected to "time"?
Do you think that there is a reason that it is used in some places and not others or a reason why the words used in those instance (words which have a clear meaning of "endlessness" or "dissolution") are not used here and in the many other place where "aion" is used?
I'm thinking to emphasize he is the Lord of ages.
Isaiah 45:17 (King James Version)
17But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.
From H5956; properly concealed, that is, the vanishing point; generally time out of mind (past or future), that is, (practically) eternity; frequentative adverbially (especially with prepositional prefix) always: - always (-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, [n-]) ever (-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end). Compare H5331, H5703.
"world without end"
‛ad ‛ôlâm ‛ad
[implying a duration of perpetuity]
Jude 1:25 (King James Version)
25To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
also translated 'forevermore"
eis pas aiōn
Which I could literally translate 'into all ages.'
So the question is---is there ever a point when the ages [literally time] ends? I'm thinking not.
That answers the question above, but can you tell me why you think the ages do not come to an end (why they are not connected with "time" rather than "eternity")?
Going back to the verse in Luke, Christ reigns "forever" (aiōnas = a space of time, an age) and His kingdom has "no end" (ouk telos = no end)
How does Christ reigning "forever" (aiōnas) reconcile with 1 Cor 15:25?
1 Cor 15:25 For he must reign, till
he hath put all enemies under his feet.
If "aiōnas" actually does mean "forever"?
According to 1 Cor 15:25, Christ reigns only "until" the last enemy is subdued. Then Christ and all that has been given unto Him from the Father are subject to the Father such that God will be "all in all".
So how do you reconcile those two views, if you see no contradiction when taking "aiōnas" to mean "forever"?