I also pointed out that even if the eternal life of the righteous consists of discrete ages, this does not mean, therefore, that the sum of those ages is not infinite. Why couldn't the eternal life of the righteous be made up of such an infinite series of ages? As you noted, Jesus seems to imply this in some of his remarks. This does, however, quite deflate your line of argument for a finite length of punishment for the wicked.
That presents merely an alternate interpretation of the passage. Not a refutation of my position. Again, Dan. 12:2-3 is evidence in favor of the view i have expressed, amongst other things that have been mentioned. That is the only OT reference to olam/aionios life that Jesus listeners would have had to understand what He was saying when using the same words in Mt.25:46.
If aionios refers to, as you say, "an infinite series of ages", then those who enter "into" such a punishment may only experience it during the first of those ages. For the term EIS, "into", speaks of entrance into a period of time, not necessarily for the entire duration of it. Likewise with regards to passages such as Rev.20:10 that use the word EIS in reference to "ages of the ages".
Your parallel comments assume that the duration in Mt.25:46 is for the entire period with both life & punishment/chastening, but the word EIS only indicates entrance "into" in either case, not duration throughout the entire aionios duration.
It seems rather obvious to me that the eternal life of the righteous has nothing to do with "entering into life in the temporary age to come"...
Again i refer you to the solid evidence of Dan. 12:2-3. Also references in Revelation to the saints reigning for 1000 years in Christ's millennial kingdom. And Christ's words limiting aionios life to the age to come, while Scripture speaks of multiple future ages.
But it isn't "harmonious" at all. In fact, it is bald eisegesis. This is why in nearly every English version of Scripture, "aionios" in Matthew 25:46 is rendered "everlasting" and "eternal" rather than "for an age."
This is an appeal to the authority of men [such as allegedly infallible pontiffs], not the real authority of Scripture. Whoever can produce the most Bible versions has the truth? Even if those producing them are almost all believers in endless punishment? I can appeal to man as well. In the early church most Christians were at one time universalists. If printing presses were available then, who do you suppose would have printed the most versions favorable to their viewpoint?
"Augustine himself, after rejecting apokatastasis, and Basil attest that still late in the fourth and fifth centuries this doctrine was upheld by the vast majority of Christians (immo quam plurimi)."
"Of course there were antiuniversalists also in the ancient church, but scholars must be careful not to list among them — as is the case with the list of “the 68” antiuniversalists repeatedly cited by McC on the basis of Brian Daley’s The Hope of the Early Church — an author just because he uses πῦρ αἰώνιον, κόλασις αἰώνιος, θάνατος αἰώνιος, or the like, since these biblical expressions do not necessarily refer to eternal damnation. Indeed all universalists, from Origen to Gregory Nyssen to Evagrius, used these phrases without problems, for universalists understood these expressions as “otherworldly,” or “long-lasting,” fire, educative punishment, and death. Thus, the mere presence of such phrases is not enough to conclude that a patristic thinker “affirmed the idea of everlasting punishment” (p. 822). Didache mentions the ways of life and death, but not eternal death or torment; Ignatius, as others among “the 68,” never mentions eternal punishment. Ephrem does not speak of eternal damnation, but has many hints of healing and restoration. For Theodore of Mopsuestia, another of “the 68,” if one takes into account also the Syriac and Latin evidence, given that the Greek is mostly lost, it becomes impossible to list him among the antiuniversalists. He explicitly ruled out unending retributive punishment, sine fine et sine correctione.
"I have shown, indeed, that a few of “the 68” were not antiuniversalist, and that the uncertain were in fact universalists, for example, Clement of Alexandria, Apocalypse of Peter, Sibylline Oracles (in one passage), Eusebius, Nazianzen, perhaps even Basil and Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome before his change of mind, and Augustine in his anti-Manichaean years. Maximus too, another of “the 68,” speaks only of punishment aionios, not aidios and talks about restoration with circumspection after Justinian, also using a persona to express it. Torstein Tollefsen, Panayiotis Tzamalikos, and Maria Luisa Gatti, for instance, agree that he affirmed apokatastasis.
"It is not the case that “the support for universalism is paltry compared with opposition to it” (p. 823). Not only were “the 68” in fact fewer than 68, and not only did many “uncertain” in fact support apokatastasis, but the theologians who remain in the list of antiuniversalists tend to be much less important. Look at the theological weight of Origen, the Cappadocians, Athanasius, or Maximus, for instance, on all of whom much of Christian doctrine and dogmas depends. Or think of the cultural significance of Eusebius, the spiritual impact of Evagrius or Isaac of Nineveh, or the philosophico-theological importance of Eriugena, the only author of a comprehensive treatise of systematic theology and theoretical philosophy between Origen’s Peri Archon and Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. Then compare, for instance, Barsanuphius, Victorinus of Pettau, Gaudentius of Brescia, Maximus of Turin, Tyconius, Evodius of Uzala, or Orientius, listed among “the 68” (and mostly ignorant of Greek). McC’s statement, “there are no unambiguous cases of universalist teaching prior to Origen” (p. 823), should also be at least nuanced, in light of Bardaisan, Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter’s Rainer Fragment, parts of the Sibylline Oracles, and arguably of the NT, especially Paul’s letters.
The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: The Reviews Start Coming In
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp.)
Scholars directory, with list of publications:
Ilaria L.E. Ramelli - ISNS Scholars Directory
The ambiguity you claim is present in Matthew 25:46 is not evident to the many Greek scholars and Bible translators who render "aionios" almost universally to communicate an unending duration of time. I suggest to you, then, that what ambiguity you see is mainly in your own mind, not in the words of Christ himself.
This is another appeal, not to Scripture, but to man or majority is right, or some such thing. Those scholars are quite aware of the range of meanings, i.e. ambiguity, in the word aionios. In fact their own interpretations, which you call translations, of aionios, bear that out.
Considering, then, that the Greek word aionios has a range of meanings, biased men should not have rendered the word in Mt.25:46 by their theological opinions as "everlasting". Thus they did not translate the word, but interpreted it. OTOH the versions with age-lasting, eonian & the like gave faithful translations & left the interpreting up to the readers as to what specific meaning within the "range of meanings" the word holds in any specific context. What biased scholars after the Douay & KJV traditions of the dark ages "church" have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own opinions, which is shameful.
Jeremiah 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.
9 "The wise men are put to shame, They are dismayed and caught; Behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD..."
"After all, not only Walvoord, Buis, and Inge, but all intelligent students acknowledge that olam and aiõn sometimes refer to limited duration. Here is my point: The supposed special reference or usage of a word is not the province of the translator but of the interpreter. Since these authors themselves plainly indicate that the usage of a word is a matter of interpretation, it follows (1) that it is not a matter of translation, and (2) that it is wrong for any translation effectually to decide that which must necessarily remain a matter of interpretation concerning these words in question. Therefore, olam and aiõn should never be translated by the thought of “endlessness,” but only by that of indefinite duration (as in the anglicized transliteration “eon” which appears in the Concordant Version)."
Eon As Indefinte Duration, Part Three
"Add not to His words, lest He reason with thee, And thou hast been found false."(Prov.30:6)
But this is reasoning that cuts both ways. If Christ's words are too ambiguous to mean what most translators of Scripture take them to mean, then they are too ambiguous for you to assert anything concrete about them, as well.
I'm not sure you are grasping my point. My basis for what i say about aionios is based on a comparison with other words that would have been understood to teach what you claim had they been used by Jesus in Mt.25:46. Since those words were not used, but one which often refers to finite duration, it is evident Christ did not teach endless punishment.
The ambiguity is in the word aionios which can refer to duration that is undefined but not endless, or duration that is endless. If Christ wished to teach endless punishment unambiguously, He would have chosen words with less ambiguity. Since He didn't use such words, He didn't teach such a doctrine. Perhaps that helps clarify the meaning of what was said before:
If one wishes to teach something clearly, they use words that are definitive or less ambiguous, not words that are full of ambiguity. Therefore Christ did not teach "endless" punishment or torments that have "no end". For if Christ meant to teach "endless" punishment, why use the ambiguous words olam, aion and aionios? Why not instead use the word APERANTOS ("endless"; 1 Tim. 1:4)? Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? Why not use the word "eternal" (AIDIOS) as in Rom.1:20 and Jude 6? Why not use the word His contemporary Philo used, APEIRON, unlimited? The answer seems obvious.
https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism
