This is about what I expected. Matt 13:13-15 the audience is mixed it does not distinguish between those whose hearts were already hardened and those whose hearts were not.
..... In your theology is it even possible that Jesus actually wanted some people at some time to understand what He was saying? How do we know the difference? There is an old adage about interpreting scripture."If the plain sense makes good sense, it is nonsense to seek any other sense."
Was not your main point the Sadducees? I mentioned hardness of heart because that would be typical of that group of people whom you brought up for discussion. Even if there were people there who were open to the truth, Jesus still spoke the truth. The truth is Jesus according to the text used the word aionion. You believe that it has to mean eternal. I believe that they could have interpreted it to mean age-during and not an endless eternity (see my response below). Why do you have to presume they understood it as eternal? You have not made a good case for your interpretation as you have made presumptions which are not supported by the text. So as for the golden rule of hermeneutics, your plain sense, makes no sense at at all in my opinion.
You have kind of danced around the point I was making. Yes we do have the "added benefit of being able to interpret the Matthean passage in light of John's Revelation which specifically does mention a 1,000 year age." And we also have the ability to conflate widely disparate passages to make them support various assumptions/presuppositions. Is there any scriptural evidence prior to Matthew which would cause anyone in Jesus' audience in Matt 25;31-46 to think that He was referring to a 1000 year aion? Since there is not I see no scriptural support for that assumption.
Your reply evidences that you are oblivious to, or forget the fact that the Jews in Jesus' audience would have already been anticipating the Messianic Age where their Messiah would one day rule his kingdom, deliver them from their enemies and bring peace on the earth. So when Jesus said in Matt 25:34 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world' just what kingdom do you suppose they were thinking of? I submit they were thinking that he was referring to the Messianic Age which is an age of time - and not eternity as you presume. John later confirms exactly that as he then specifies that Jesus' rule and reign on the earth lasts for 1,000 years - not forever. Although Jesus' listeners were not informed of the duration of the age, the Millennial Reign is an age nonetheless and not eternal. Therefore for these reasons your claim that Jesus' listeners had no reference to an age of time lacks any merit. Secondly, you made the point that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection. That has no bearing on the Matthean passage whatsoever as Jesus was referring to the sheep-goat judgment which does not deal with the any kind of resurrection at all. The GWT judgment deals with the judgment of the resurrected dead. Matt 25:46 on the other hand deals with the judgment of those still alive in the nations of the earth at Jesus' second coming. No resurrection takes place here as those who are judged in Matt 25:46 are living persons - not the dead. Thus your reference to the Sadducees' eschatological belief is not even applicable.
In
Romans 1:20 Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. In Rom 16:26 Paul refers to God as “aionios,” therefore Paul evidently considers “aidios” and “aionios” to be synonymous
Scholars agree? You can engage in a logical fallacy by appealing to authority as the scholars could still be wrong. I agree that aidios conveys the sense of eternal, forever, etc. but that in itself does not automatically make it synonymous with aionios which is a completely different word. How did you make that leap of logic? That would be another logical fallacy commonly known as an overgeneralization. Did you not notice that in v.25 - the verse previous to Rom 16:26 - also contains the word aionios? This word cannot possibly mean eternal in this verse as it refers to a mystery previously kept secret but is now revealed. An "eternal" secret by plain definition can never be revealed thus the translators/scholars chose to translate aionios in v.25 as "long ages" or something equivalent. This then begs the question why these scholars chose to translate aionios in the very next verse as eternal instead of ages? What is the justification for changing its meaning from one verse to the next? And if Paul wanted to convey the meaning of an eternal God in v.26, why didn't he employ aidios which does mean that? The context of these two verses describe God who reveals himself and his purpose to men through the prophets and the scriptures. Something that was once a mystery kept secret but now made manifest though the ages of time. Therefore v.26 can be properly translated as
"and now having been made manifest, also, through prophetic writings, according to a command of the age-during God, having been made known to all the nations for obedience of faith -" (YLT). God works out his manifest will through the ages making it known to all the nations - something that was previously a secret. Thus aionios in v.26 does not refer to God's eternal nature but instead references his age-during
method of making his will known through the ages of time.
In this passage “aionios” is contrasted with “for a moment,” vs. 4, and “temporal,” vs. 5. “Age(s)” a finite period, it is not the opposite of “for a moment”/”temporal/temporary.” “Eternal” is. “Aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”
At first glance that seems to be the case however it is not necessary to translate it as such. Young's Literal Translation reads
"17 for the momentary light matter of our tribulation, more and more exceedingly an age-during weight of glory doth work out for us -- 18 we not looking to the things seen, but to the things not seen; for the things seen [are] temporary, but the things not seen [are] age-during." Contrastive terms need not be antithetical in meaning.
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 phrase "aionios baros doxa" actually means "pertaining to the age, the abundance of glory." What age is Paul referring to? Paul notes the coming age/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." Thus our temporary, passing, momentary light affliction is working for us, resulting in an abundance of glory pertaining to and which shall be revealed in us -
in the age to come. Thus our momentary tribulation is producing age-during glory - not eternal glory.
To simplify things v.18 can be truncated to read: "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. Thus these two verses do not demonstrate that aionios means eternal; instead they mean that aionios pertains to the age.
(1) For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] in the heavens.In this verse “aionios house” is contrasted with “earthly house which is destroyed.” Does the UR crowd think God is going to replace our destroyed earthly house with an ages long house which will also be destroyed at the end of an age? The aionios house is not destroyed, the opposite of “is destroyed.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”
In your interpretation of 2 Cor 5:1 you ask the wrong question. Instead of focusing on what is destroyed, you should have asked: How long it lasts? Again, you presume it means "eternal."
"For we have known that if our earthly house of the tabernacle may be thrown down, a building from God we have, an house not made with hands -- age-during -- in the heavens, (YLT).
While it is true that our aionios house in heaven is not destroyed, we do not dwell in our house in heaven eternally. Scripture teaches that our final destination is our permanent residence in the New Jerusalem - on the earth. Thus those who die in the Lord go to heaven for an AGE of TIME = "age-during" and not eternally as you have incorrectly presumed. Paul confirms this a few verses later in v.8 where he states that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Those who die in the Lord go to heaven - for an age of time - until God establishes our permanent residence in the New Jerusalem which is on the earth.
In verse 23 “word of God” is paired with “imperishable.” In verse 25 the word of God “endures εις τον αιωνα unto eternity. ” Thus by definition “aion” here means “eternity.”
Between 1 Pet 1:23 & 25 is sandwiched v.24. You and I both know that one cannot properly interpret these two verses unless one references v.24 which cites Isaiah 40:6-8. Therefore it is incumbent to examine the content of Isa 40. Isa 40:3-5 references the Messiah's 2nd Coming when Jerusalem's warfare has ended and her iniquity pardoned (v.2). Isaiah 40 is a promise that God will restore Zion and promises those who are faint that should continue to wait on the Lord to renew their strength (v.31). Therefore "aiona" in 1 Pet 1:25 does not refer to "eternity" but to the age of Christ's return when he will restore Israel and establish his rule and reign upon the earth (Isa 40:10;23-24). Therefore the BLB translation has it correct when it translates aiona in 1 Pet 1:25 as "age" and not as "eternity."
but the word of the Lord abides to the age." And this is the word having been proclaimed to you.
In this verse “aionios” is paired with “immortality.” If “aionios” is only a finite period, God cannot be “immortal” and only exist for a finite period at the same time. Thus “aionios” by definition means “eternal.”
The complete list of 23 can be read at my [post #162] this thread.
Regarding 1 Tim 6:16. You conflate immortality and dominion. While God is indeed immortal, his power/dominion can instead refer to a specific and limited duration of time. If you read the previous 2 verses you would know that v.16 references v.14-15 which make reference to the coming appearance of the Lord. Those two verses state that in God's proper time, the Lord Jesus will make his appearance. Thus v.16 does not refer to God's eternal dominion but more specifically to the time of his appearing when he will establish that dominion. Hence, the verse reads "
who only is having immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable, whom no one of men did see, nor is able to see, to whom is honour and might age-during! Amen." (YLT)
