http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/aionion.htm
There is tons to cover, so I just posted the link here. I was legitimately fascinated by the author's argument. I've never seen it used before.
A little taste of what the article says:
[2 Cor 4:18]:
"Since we consider and look not to the things that are seen[temporal - temporary] but to things that are unseen [spiritual - eternal]; for the things that are visible are temporal (brief and fleeting), but the things that are invisible are deathless and everlasting
[Grk] "aionios"
Here in this passage the contrast is between the temporal and the eternal - the material and the spiritual. The Greek word "aionios" could not be translated to mean "age" in this passage because that still portrays a temporary duration for spiritual things which are eternal. This meaning makes no sense in the context which Paul is establishing which is a permanence of spiritual things over the temporary nature of the material world.
Therefore the Greek word "aionios" must mean eternal or everlasting.
I was redirected here after I saw someone make the claim that aionios kolasis in the Koane Greek meant everlasting punishment.
IF we look closely at the verse, it's not a comparison between the temporal and the eternal. It's a comparison between what we see now and what we will see in the ages to come.
Within the entire chapter of 2 Corinthians 4, we see that Paul is speaking to the afflicted early Christian church who endures much pain for the gospel. Earlier, in verse 8 of this chapter, he assures them: "We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair." To reassure them, he says in verse 17: For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal (aionios) weight (baros) of glory (doxa);
The Greek phrase "aionios baros doxa" actually means "pertaining to the age, the abundance of glory." Paul notes that coming time in Romans 8:18: "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us."
The "abundance of glory pertaining to the age" is the "abundance of glory revealed in us." With that in mind let us now come to verse 18 which is the verse in question.
2 Cor 4:18
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the-things-which-are-seen are temporal; but the-things-which-are-not-seen are eternal (aionios).
First, note that the entire phrase "the-things-which-are-seen" is translated from one Greek word: blepo ("seen"). This is paired with proskairos which means "passing." Literally translated, the phrase reads: "Seen is passing." Second, note that the the phrase "the-things-which-are-not-seen" is translated from two Greek words blepo me ("not seen"), and it is paired with aionios ("pertaining to the age").
Together the verse reads: "Seen is passing. Not seen, pertaining to the age (aionios)."
Not seen pertaining to what age? Look again at the preceding verse 17: "pertaining to the age, the abundance of glory" (aionios baros doxa). What is not seen, pertains to THAT age. To the church, in Paul's time, what was seen - what was immediate - was persecution. What was seen was great affliction upon them.
Paul reassures them, however, that not only is the affliction they see only passing, but that we must set our eyes on the abundance of glory coming in an age which is not seen: "The glory which shall be revealed in us." This is the "aionios baros doxa" pertaining to that unseen coming age, the abundance of glory to come. The things which are not seen are relating to that future age.
Did you read the whole article. After all, like I said, his position is different than what I have seen.
Yep I read it and it's not different than anything I have seen. It uses big words to express the same faulty reasoning. God can be described as "of the age" without losing his immortality. David described God as olam several times linking his meaning to "from generation to generation" without limiting his immortality.
What exactly does it mean to have eternal life pertaining to the ages or as my App says "age-during". How does that version of Hebrews 9:12 more valid then a life that it said to be eternal, or am I misreading that?
I have an article that explains aionios life in detail and how it's related to immortality
http://mercifultruth.com/eternity.html
He starts with listing lexicons and people who use the word as he like them to be defined.
Read this book (http://home.online.nl/spamfree/ShepherdsVoice/index.html?page=the_prevailing_doctrine.htm) to see how the word was realy used.
The first Christians, it will be seen, said in their creeds, "I believe in the æonian life;" later, they modified the phrase "æonian life," to "the life of the coming æon," showing that the phrases are equivalent. But not a word of endless punishment. "The life of the age to come" was the first Christian creed, and later, Origen himself declares his belief in æonian punishment, and in æonian life beyond. How, then, could æonian punishment have been regarded as endless?
Quote[Compare Ezek 37:26]:
"I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them...
........[Heb] olam = [Grk] aionios[Septuagint];
God wasn't constantly at peace after that was written. He got angry after that was written.
Quoteand I will give blessings to them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in the midst of them forevermore"
[Heb] olam = [Grk] aionios [Septuagint]
His sanctuary was broken down to the last stone.
QuoteGod's covenant was unilateral - so it would not be broken - therefore it was for all time: "forevermore." None of His unilateral covenants were for a season or an age. All of His unilateral covenants were for an eternity and God does not renege on His promises.
Animal sacrifice was one of those covenants. It became obsolete after the ultimate sacrifice of the Lamb.
Let's use his own reasoning against himself. God made a unilateral statement when He will be at peace with the people of Israel. That simply means 0% will end up in hell.
QuoteIf the adjective "aioniou" is restricted to refer to a time period called an "age," as some maintain, and if "aioniou" modifies "Theou" rendered "God,' as it does in Romans 16:26, then the time period of God, i.e., His duration of existence is an age. He is therefore not an everlasting God, but an 'age lasting' God.
That's a wrong conclusion because age-during doesn't state what happens before and after that age. Jesus walked the earth for an age of about 33 years. Jesus was on the cross for an age of several hours. But that doesn't mean Jesus stopped existing after that age.
Then the author of the article continues with 2 Thes 1:9 and Mt 25:46. He first gives a doctrinal meaning to the verses and then uses that doctrinal meaning to define the words.
Heb 9:12 is a little more difficult to explain, but the summary is that it's wedding related. A husband could act as the redeemer of his wife. If the wife was sentenced to 6 lashes, her husband could take those lashes on behalf of her. If done once he should be here redeemer during their whole marriage. Even if it meant being stoned to death. Jesus did just that for us.
You may wonder how that refutes the statement of the author. The wife only needed to be redeemed if she broke the law. If she stopped breaking the law, she was no longer in need of a redeemer. Likewise for mankind. As long we walk the earth in our present state we need a redeemer. But if all judgements have ended and all people are 'in heaven' (no matter how you define heaven) they no longer need a Redeemer because they now have become sinless (no sinners in heaven). So the redeeming age ends when the mankind's enslavement to the flesh ends.
:2c:
:thumbsup:
Also the author makes the mistake of believing that all Greek words used in the New Testament were used as contemporary Greek people would've use them and that's actually not the case. Yes the Greeks invented the concept of timeless state, but the Hebrews had no such concept. Their concept was Olam which which means time as it expands to the horizon. It is also used interchangeably with the concept of an age.
The New Testament among other things is a translation of Hebrew concepts using Greek words. The apostles and Jesus were preaching from the Scriptures carrying over Hebrew concepts in their words. So, it matters little of Plato thought about timelessness or eternity. It only matters what the Bible preaches and how those things were carried over into the writ of the NT.
Also at issue here is the Hebrew word from which aionios is translated into Greek. The word is "olam". In the OT olam is used hundreds of times. It is a word that sometimes means indeterminate period of time, sometimes the "ancient past", sometimes the "distant future", sometimes a period of a debt-slaves indenture, sometimes an age, sometimes means eternal.
For this reason, I have no problem if, according to the context, someone reads aionios as eternal in 2 Cor. 4:18. The key word to understand in receiving the thought in the writers head(paul) is "olam".
I have to say that I don't really know why everyone puts so much emphasis on Greek words and there meanings in the days in which the scriptures were translated. The key thing is what was in the author's mind, and was he thinking in Greek? Most likely not, since Paul described himself as a Hebrew of Hebrews.
I actually think the UR focus on aion and aionios falls short of thorough etymology and morphology. To me, it doesnt matter what Plato or Aristotle thought aionios meant.
It only matters what Paul was thinking when he wrote those words, and I am not sure whether he was speaking or eternity or not but- it has no bearing on the matter of whther aionios kolassis means everlasting punishment or not.
A study of the mening nd usage of "olam" makes it clear that olam is often used as an adjective that is defined by the subject it is applied to.
Sometimes, the "olam God" means the eternal God. "You shall be his slave "olam" means, until the debt is paid or you are relased by the grace of your debtor.
Speaking of the Nephilim in Genesis it is written, "These became the mighty men which were of old(olam), men of reknown"(Genesis 6:4)
Speaking of a voluntary indenture ...Deut. 15:16 And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee;17 Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever(olam). And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.
Speaking of God....Gen 21:33 And Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the Lord, the everlasting(plam) God.
Does anyone have a problem with olam meaning eternal or everlasting here? I don't, because olam is attached here, to God, who has no terminus :o)
It seems clear to me that when used concerning the kolassis of the wicked that "olam" is until the debtor determines the release(which will be when the knee bows and the tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father). The scripture says Jesus died for our sins, and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world. How can kolassis last foever? Or even for a set aion? I think it will last "olam", until the job is done, the individual(many stripes or few) requirement to open the eyes of the blind and burn away the veil of darkness by unapproachable light.
Str Translit Hebrew English Morph
5193 [e] way-yiṭ-ṭa' וַיִּטַּ֥ע And he (Abraham) planted
815 [e] 'e-šel אֶ֖שֶׁל a grove
biḇ-'êr בִּבְאֵ֣ר in
884 [e] šā-ḇa'; שָׁ֑בַע Beer-sheba
7121 [e] way-yiq-rā- וַיִּ֨קְרָא־ and called
8033 [e] šām, שָׁ֔ם there
8034 [e] bə-šêm בְּשֵׁ֥ם on the name
3068 [e] Yah-weh יְהוָ֖ה of the LORD
410 [e] 'êl אֵ֥ל God
5769 [e] [b]'ō-w-lām.[/b] עוֹלָֽם׃ the everlasting>>>>>>>here olam means the period of God's duration, which
is forever
Sam 27:8Text Analysis
Str Translit Hebrew English Morph
1511 [e] (wə-hag-giz-rî (וְהַגִּזְרִ֖י the Gezrites
q) ק) -
6003 [e] wə-hā-'ă-mā-lê-qî; וְהָעֲמָלֵקִ֑י and the Amalekites
3588 [e] kî כִּ֣י for
2007 [e] hên-nāh הֵ֜נָּה those
3427 [e] yō-šə-ḇō-wṯ יֹשְׁב֤וֹת the inhabitants
776 [e] hā-'ā-reṣ הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ of the land
834 [e] 'ă-šer אֲשֶׁ֣ר of old
5769 [e] mê-[b]'ō-w-lām,[/b] מֵֽעוֹלָ֔ם from ancient (times)>>>>> here olam means the distant past, a period of time
far back in antiquity
Olam can mean an age of endless duration or one of unknown duration
Below is an excerpt from http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Retribution/retribution17.htm (http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Retribution/retribution17.htm) by Edward Beecher speaking of olam and aion, regarding the Septuagint and how it brought aion and aionios into usage directly from olam- and how the word aionios was rarely used before that time.
In this translation (aion) is universally used as the equivalent of olam. What, then, is the meaning of olam? Is it eternity? I answer, no. It is derived from a verb denoting to hide, or to conceal, and denotes a period of time past or future, the boundaries of which are concealed, obscure, unseen, or unknown. So say Taylor and Furst in their Hebrew Concordances. It is true of eternity, past and future, that their boundaries are unseen and unknown. But it is also true of other undefined periods that are not eternal, and that may be called ages or dispensations. Of olam thus viewed aion is the universal representative.
Moreover, in the Septuagint the adjective aionios for the first time came into extensive use, for previously it had been rarely used in all Greek literature. And as aion denoted an age, great or small, so the adjective aionios expressed the idea pertaining to or belonging to the aion, whether great or small. Cremer, taking aion as denoting time, defines aionios as "belonging to the aion, that is, to time in its movement." But in every case this adjective derives its character and duration from the aion to which it refers.
Quote from: eaglesway on August 17, 2014, 03:57:23 AM
It seems clear to me that when used concerning the kolassis of the wicked that "olam" is until the debtor determines the release(which will be when the knee bows and the tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father). The scripture says Jesus died for our sins, and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world. How can kolassis last foever? Or even for a set aion? I think it will last "olam", until the job is done, the individual(many stripes or few) requirement to open the eyes of the blind and burn away the veil of darkness by unapproachable light.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: jabcat on August 17, 2014, 07:39:38 AM
Quote from: eaglesway on August 17, 2014, 03:57:23 AM
It seems clear to me that when used concerning the kolassis of the wicked that "olam" is until the debtor determines the release(which will be when the knee bows and the tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father). The scripture says Jesus died for our sins, and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world. How can kolassis last foever? Or even for a set aion? I think it will last "olam", until the job is done, the individual(many stripes or few) requirement to open the eyes of the blind and burn away the veil of darkness by unapproachable light.
:thumbsup:
Another way to consider 'olam' is that, at it's mountaintop meaning, only speaks of something that is at the horizon. This meaning is derived from the meanings of the three letters making up the word.
In its simplest understanding, something a child can understand, go and ask someone to look out at the horizon. What do they see? Beyond it, they see nothing. Anything they see at or near the horizon is obscure, hazy, where the details are hidden from view. This is expressed in the related word Alam (spelled with the same three letters, but a slightly different pronunciation). This is the essential meaning our creator built into the word, and its use in a sentence is expressed in two general ways:
1. When used alone, it is a reference to an obscure, hazy, unknown period of time, where the details of the period of time are like looking at a horizon. It is not endless however, because of the occasional adding of the Hebrew word 'w'ad' meaning 'and further'.
2. When used as an adjective, it is not referring to time, but is pointing to an obscure, hazy, hidden source. It is referring to type, not duration. So, with reference to the Aramaic of Mat 25:46 'tashniqa da'l'olam' it is not speaking of how long the anguish will last, but is speaking of the anguish coming from an obscure, hazy, hidden source...namely, coming from God. Same with the contrast 'hhai da'l'olam', which refers to a life that has its source in God, not at all speaking of the length of life. This is the reason that the fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah was called 'nuwra da'l'olam', not speaking about how long the fire would be burning, but instead refers to the source of the fire, coming from God himself out of heaven.
Likewise, when referring to God as 'olam', it, being used as an adjective describing Elohim, is not referring to time, how long God lives or exists, but is speaking of him as being obscure, hazy, details hidden from view, like when looking at a horizon. When used to reference God, or something of God, such as his arms (see Deu 33:27) it is meant to bring comfort, to know that, although Israel could not literally see God's arms, they could know that the source of their victory in driving out the enemy, although hidden from plain view, was nonetheless there.
Eaglesway provided a great example of both uses.
In Gen 21:33 'olam' is connected to God, describing him as to his nature, not the period of time he lived. This is in accord with the above definition number 2.
In 1Sa 27:8 'olam' is used alone, which is describing a period of time. This is in accord with the above definition number 1.
This is consistent throughout the Scripture.
Having immersed myself for over a decade in the mindset of the Semitic culture, just as it is considered redundant to have a word 'is' or 'are', in Hebrew thought, since it is assumed that whatever exists does so automatically, so there is no reason for the word 'is'. Likewise the Hebrew peoples did not have thoughts about how long God existed, either forward or backward, for his very name spoke of his existence, and anything that exists only does so in Him.
Ronen
:thumbsup:
How did "misty", "hazy", "beyond the horizon" become- a set period with a beginning and an end? Same way aionios became forever I guess :o) Morphology.
However, I've gotten a lot of resistance on this when I have talked about the effectiveness of explaining "olam" in the Hebrew mindset rather than relying on "aion/aionios" in the Greek mindset.
The aion/aionios thing may work for people who are not heavy into the languages of antiquity, but to me it seems an inferior argument among theologians/students educated in the languages of the scriptures, and for any serious student/researcher the whole aion/aionios construct falls apart at some point if they do not make the connection back to "olam" and the importance of the Hebrew mind-set in translating and understanding the scriptures.
Arguing the meanings of aion/aionios without taking it back to olam, to me- is like a squirt gun fight in the middle of a war zone.
Good stuff everyone :banana:
Psalm 90
Lord, You have been our dwelling place in all generations.
2 Before the mountains were born
Or You gave birth to the earth and the world,
Even from everlasting to everlasting :Chinscratch: (olam to olam, age to age), You are God.
Of course, "everlasting to everlasting" makes no sense, but that didn't stop our lovely KJV translators from inserting it. Yet, the meaning is made clear via "all generations." David often spoke of the generational presence of God, not as a way to speak to his nature of immortality, which the Bible ALSO affirms, but olam speaks to his continual presence with man over time.
:thumbsup: