Aion, Aionios, Ages of the Ages, aagghhh!

[Molly]

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"?

We know his kingdom is going to never end.  That means he is reigning forever.

"reign"

G936
βασιλεύω
basileuō
bas-il-yoo'-o
From G935; to rule (literally or figuratively): - king, reign.


G935
βασιλεύς
basileus
bas-il-yooce'
Probably from G939 (through the notion of a foundation of power); a sovereign (abstractly, relatively or figuratively): - king.



G939
βάσις
basis
bas'-ece
From βαίνω bainō (to walk); a pace ("base"), that is, (by implication) the foot: - foot.


Psalm 110:1
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.



He is the King of kings.  Does he ever lose that title?  He is reigning forever and ever.  This IS the state of God being all in all.

All things are under his feet--into eternity.  

He hands the kingdom over to the Father but I and the Father are one,  The Spirit of God has totally permeated the entire kingdom at this point.  Who would not obey the Spirit of God?

"subdue"

G5293
ὑποτάσσω
hupotassō
hoop-ot-as'-so
From G5259 and G5021; to subordinate; reflexively to obey: - be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.






 
 

[Chris]

No that word aei is not in the text.  It is referred to in the definition for aion as the root, "From the same as G104".

They are both derived from the same word (an obsolete primary noun, apparently, though it doesn't say what word that is or what 'its' meaning is). How does that demonstrate that "aion" can mean always or forever (in and of itself)?

I just put it in there to show that 'aion can mean 'always,' or 'forever.' We can see it in the root.  It can also mean an age [of indeterminate length].  It depends on the context I think.

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 think those two statements are reinforcing each other.

  And he shall reign over the house of Jacob..

"forever"

eis  aiōn

Two words make up that word forever, --into the ages, or into eternity.


..and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

"end"

G5056
τέλος
telos
tel'-os
From a primary word τέλλω tellō (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly the point aimed at as a limit, that is, (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination [literally, figuratively or indefinitely], result [immediate, ultimate or prophetic], purpose); specifically an impost or levy (as paid): - + continual, custom, end (-ing), finally, uttermost. Compare G5411.



Those two statements are saying the same thing in terms of time--And the same thing as this which has even more emphasis--


Revelation 11:15
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

"for ever and ever"

eis aiōn aiōn

Into the ages of ages--into eternity.

(1) what makes you believe that there are "ages" in eternity?

(2) how do you reconcile the above with 1 Cor 15:25?


1Co 15:24-28 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 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. 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.

[Molly]

 

then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Yes, in other words, we are not looking at two Gods here.

Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

[Chris]

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"?

We know his kingdom is going to never end.  That means he is reigning forever.

"reign"

G936
βασιλεύω
basileuō
bas-il-yoo'-o
From G935; to rule (literally or figuratively): - king, reign.


G935
βασιλεύς
basileus
bas-il-yooce'
Probably from G939 (through the notion of a foundation of power); a sovereign (abstractly, relatively or figuratively): - king.



G939
βάσις
basis
bas'-ece
From βαίνω bainō (to walk); a pace ("base"), that is, (by implication) the foot: - foot.


Psalm 110:1
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.



He is the King of kings.  Does he ever lose that title?  He is reigning forever and ever.  This IS the state of God being all in all.

All things are under his feet--into eternity.  

He hands the kingdom over to the Father but I and the Father are one,  The Spirit of God has totally permeated the entire kingdom at this point.  Who would not obey the Spirit of God?

"subdue"

G5293
ὑποτάσσω
hupotassō
hoop-ot-as'-so
From G5259 and G5021; to subordinate; reflexively to obey: - be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.

We were posting at the same time, apparently. Sorry; I didn't realize that you were going to address this in a separate post.

His kingdom has no end, as He turns the kingdom over to the Father.

According to this passage (as I read it) the reign of Christ over the kingdom "ends" when the last enemy (death) is subdued, at which point in time all things (including Christ, to whom all things were given - for a time/purpose) are then turned over to and subject to the Father.

That is not how you read this verse? Not how you understand "until"?

[Chris]

then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Yes, in other words, we are not looking at two Gods here.

Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

There is still a distinction between the Father and the Son, is there not? Is Jesus Christ the Father?

[bobf]

If there is no difference in Super and Superior based on how they are used, then I really would like you to explain the following.

There is a difference depending on how they are used.  But in isolation neither "super" nor "superior" is stronger than the other.  Depending on the context, either one can be stronger.  In contrast "everlasting" in isolation or in context is almost always stronger than "age".  So I don't think adding the suffix -ior to "super" is an example that refutes the supposed grammar rule like aion to aionion does (if aion means "age" and aionion means "everlasting").

[Paul Hazelwood]

If there is no difference in Super and Superior based on how they are used, then I really would like you to explain the following.

There is a difference depending on how they are used.  But in isolation neither "super" nor "superior" is stronger than the other.  Depending on the context, either one can be stronger.  In contrast "everlasting" in isolation or in context is almost always stronger than "age".  So I don't think adding the suffix -ior to "super" is an example that refutes the supposed grammar rule like aion to aionion does (if aion means "age" and aionion means "everlasting").

Aion does not only mean age by definition isolated from usage.

[bobf]

I don't have to refute it either way, I see how that term in the abstract can be a help in understanding scripture.

So what do you say to someone claiming ET is true based on aionion punishment equaling everlasting punshment.

I do not argue that "age" doesn't make sense throughout scripture,  but to say there is no use for that term in scripture no matter how logical your argument sounds is not true.

No use for which term?  everlasting?  If that's what you mean, I don't make that argument.  In my post to Chris, I said that one theory I have is that when aionion is used, it has a particular aion in view.  The aion of bearning the consequences of sin is not the same aion as the aion of life in Christ.

That leaves room for one instance of aionion to be everlasting while the other is limited.

[Molly]

(1) what makes you believe that there are "ages" in eternity?

That seems to be what the text is saying.  Of his reign there is no end--into the ages of ages--into eternity.

One meaning of this word is eternal [time]--



G165
αἰών
aiōn
ahee-ohn'
From the same as G104; properly an age; by extension perpetuity (also past); by implication the world; specifically (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): - age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, without end). Compare G5550.

There is still a distinction between the Father and the Son, is there not? Is Jesus Christ the Father?  

I don't think I'm allowed to talk about that.  But you can see I believe in a trinity that's pretty classical.

According to this passage (as I read it) the reign of Christ over the kingdom "ends" when the last enemy (death) is subdued, at which point in time all things (including Christ, to whom all things were given - for a time/purpose) are then turned over to and subject to the Father.

Yes that would have to be.  I believe the Son is [becoming] a corporate body, that Jesus is the firstborn of many brothers.  And the kingdom is the kingdom of God.

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

--John 1



But who is the King who reigns forever and ever?  Who is the King of glory?



Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

[bobf]

Aion does not only mean age by definition isolated from usage.

Why not?  I've never seen an instance in scripture where "age" is not an excellent translation of aion.  If "age" always works for aion in scripture, why is that not a good definition of the word?

[Chris]

If there is no difference in Super and Superior based on how they are used, then I really would like you to explain the following.

There is a difference depending on how they are used.  But in isolation neither "super" nor "superior" is stronger than the other.  Depending on the context, either one can be stronger.  In contrast "everlasting" in isolation or in context is almost always stronger than "age".  So I don't think adding the suffix -ior to "super" is an example that refutes the supposed grammar rule like aion to aionion does (if aion means "age" and aionion means "everlasting").

Aion does not only mean age by definition isolated from usage.

What other definition is there?

The only "proper" definition that I have ever seen is "an age", even though "an unbroken age" or "perpetuity of time" (Thayers) is equated to "eternity".

[Paul Hazelwood]

So what do you say to someone claiming ET is true based on aionion punishment equaling everlasting punshment.

In the abstract our correction, or even if we say it is punishment,  will seem like forever.   We go through trials on earth and while in those trials we perceive they may never end.   It actually helped me care about people finding freedom now.  Just because All are saved does not mean that we can figure it's no biggie just because what we may hope to avoid isn't actually "forever".

So they may not believe me, but I have kept the argument within a scriptural boundary in my opinion anyway and haven't taken the argument to the level of having to dispute theologians, translations and actual definitions of the words themselves.

No use for which term?  everlasting?  If that's what you mean, I don't make that argument.  In my post to Chris, I said that one theory I have is that when aionion is used, it has a particular aion in view.  The aion of bearning the consequences of sin is not the same aion as the aion of life in Christ.

That leaves room for one instance of aionion to be everlasting while the other is limited.

Which in turn leaves open the possibility of "everlasting"

No problem, I didn't happen to read that post. 

[Paul Hazelwood]

Aion does not only mean age by definition isolated from usage.

Why not?  I've never seen an instance in scripture where "age" is not an excellent translation of aion. 

Why not is because it simply is a fact that it is not the only definition of the word.


G165  aion  ahee-ohn'

from the same as G104;

properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the
world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):--age,
course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world
(began, without end). Compare G5550.

If "age" always works for aion in scripture, why is that not a good definition of the word?

I never said it was not a good definition of the word.

I never argued that you cannot use it that way.

I said, it is not the only way to see meaning in scripture.  Those are the facts.

[Paul Hazelwood]

What other definition is there?

G165  aion  ahee-ohn'

from the same as G104;

properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the
world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):--age,
course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world
(began, without end). Compare G5550.

[reFORMer]

That eon's root AEI does not mean endlessness is indicated by...
limited past:  Mark 15²
limited present:  2 Corinthians 4¹¹
llimited future:  2 Peter 1¹²

[bobf]

(2) how do you reconcile the above with 1 Cor 15:25?


1 Cor 15:24-28 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 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. 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.

Playing a little devils advocate here.  One of Ray Smith's admonitions is that a statement of fact should not be read as a statement of limitation.  e.g. God living into the ages does not mean God stops living at the end of the ages.  Likewise, Christ reigning till He puts all enemies under His feet does not necessarily mean that He quits reigning thereafter.  And if till" must imply that Christ ceases to reign once death is destroyed then David's grave must have disappeared the day after Pentecost.

Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

[Chris]

That seems to be what the text is saying.  Of his reign there is no end--into the ages of ages--into eternity.

It doesn't say that of His reign there is not end; it says that there is no end to His kingdom.

One meaning of this word is eternal [time]--

Why do you add "time"?

G165
αἰών
aiōn
ahee-ohn'
From the same as G104; properly an age; by extension perpetuity (also past); by implication the world; specifically (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): - age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, without end). Compare G5550.

"properly an age". That is "the definition" of the word.

The rest of that (by extension) and the way the word is "translated" (in the KJV) that follows the "-" are not part of "the definition".

I don't think I'm allowed to talk about that.  But you can see I believe in a trinity that's pretty classical.

I'm not sure what you "can't talk about"?

I consider myself Trinitarian (though I might argue over how some people define 'the doctrine'), but I don't know anyone who believe that God is "one" (except maybe Modalists??) that believes that Jesus Christ is the Father. So if the Son turns the kingdom over to the Father, he is not turning it over to himself, is he? 

Yes that would have to be.

If you agree (it seems you are saying you do?) then why do you claim that Christ reigns "forever"? 

I believe the Son is [becoming] a corporate body, that Jesus is the firstborn of many brothers.  And the kingdom is the kingdom of God.

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

--John 1



But who is the King who reigns forever and ever?  Who is the King of glory?

Jesus is the King of kings, Lord of lords, etc. Why do you say that he reigns "forever and ever" and yet still agree that He reigns "until" the last enemy is subdued and the kingdom is turned over to the Father?

Why do you see "into the age of the ages" (connected to TIME) as "forever" (connecting it to ETERNITY)?

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Amen!!

And if Christ is not "the Father" (the first person of the Trinity) then how ~IS~ He the "everlasting" Father?

[Chris]

Playing a little devils advocate here.  One of Ray Smith's admonitions is that a statement of fact should not be read as a statement of limitation.  e.g. God living into the ages does not mean God stops living at the end of the ages. 

I agree!   

Likewise, Christ reigning till He puts all enemies under His feet does not necessarily mean that He quits reigning thereafter. 

But that is not where the passage ends; it ends with Christ turning the kingdom over to the Father wherein all things (including Christ) become subject to the Father.

And if till" must imply that Christ ceases to reign once death is destroyed then David's grave must have disappeared the day after Pentecost.

Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

Maybe it did. (just kidding  )

Ray also uses that passage to prove that David is still "asleep" when that is not what is being said. 

[Chris]

What other definition is there?

G165  aion  ahee-ohn'

from the same as G104;

properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the
world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):--age,
course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world
(began, without end). Compare G5550.

G165  aion  ahee-ohn'

from the same as G104;

properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the
world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):--age,
course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world
(began, without end). Compare G5550.

[Paul Hazelwood]

What other definition is there?

G165  aion  ahee-ohn'

from the same as G104;

properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the
world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):--age,
course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world
(began, without end). Compare G5550.

G165  aion  ahee-ohn'

from the same as G104;

properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the
world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):--age,
course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world
(began, without end). Compare G5550.

I see your point hi-lighted and I saw your post to Molly and I understand what your saying about the way the KJV version uses it.

But why do we ignore perpetuity?   I'm interested in knowing where I may be wrong here, what sources do you have to read concerning that specific part of the definition being invalid?

[bobf]

Why not is because it simply is a fact that it is not the only definition of the word.

I disagree and citing Strongs does not convince me.  For example, I don't believe "forever" is a good definition of aion.  I know of no scripture where the word aion does the work of imparting foreverness to the meaning.

Just because a word plus it's surrounding context conveys a certain meaning does not make that meaning a good definition of any of the words used.  For example, I can says "the bird soared to it's home".  That does not make "nest" a good definition of "home".  Nor does it make "flew" a good definition of "soared".  Or in English, I can say "God rules throughout the ages" but that does not mean "forever" is a good defintion of "ages".

[Chris]

I see your point hi-lighted and I saw your post to Molly and I understand what your saying about the way the KJV version uses it.

But why do we ignore perpetuity?  

I am not ignore perpetuity. I have no problem with aion pertaining to that which is perpetual; perpetual does not mean endless. And certainly "aion" can be rendered in the plural.

I'm interested in knowing where I may be wrong here, what sources do you have to read concerning that specific part of the definition being invalid?

Mostly I just go by the (proper) definition that is given by Strong's and Thayer's (and other concordances that I have checked) that all say the proper definition is "an age".

But (more importantly) I take into account the way that it is used/defines in the scriptures themselves. I see no instance in scripture in which aion takes on a meaning of "forever"; nowhere that it is connected to "eternity" rather that that which has been created within "the ages" (time).

If you have an example of such, please do post it; but I have not yet come across even one use in which I feel that a connection to eternity (rather than time) is indicated.

[bobf]

But that is not where the passage ends; it ends with Christ turning the kingdom over to the Father wherein all things (including Christ) become subject to the Father.

Yes, that adds weight to what you're saying.

Ray also uses that passage to prove that David is still "asleep" when that is not what is being said.  

I happen to agree with Ray on that one, though admittedly it says "dead and buried" not "asleep and buried".

[Chris]

But that is not where the passage ends; it ends with Christ turning the kingdom over to the Father wherein all things (including Christ) become subject to the Father.

Yes, that adds weight to what you're saying.

Ray also uses that passage to prove that David is still "asleep" when that is not what is being said.  

I happen to agree with Ray on that one, though admittedly it says "dead and buried" not "asleep and buried".

Would you like to discuss that on another thread?

[bobf]

Would you like to discuss that on another thread?

Sure...  if you want to make some points I'll address how I see it.