Universal Reconciliation

[John Hyperspace]

Please see my Link:Post #122 above where I quote nine Greek language references, that include quotes from pre-Christian Greek philosophers, Philo and Plato, which show that aion/aionios does in fact mean eternal, everlasting, unending.

Also be sure to see my post which refutes Der Alter's post:

Oh look at that "agelong" right in your own source.



Problem:

Lu 1:70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the aionios began:
Joh 9:32 Since the aionios began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.
Ac 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the aionios began.
Ro 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the aionios began,
2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the aionios began,
Tit 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the aionios began;

Care to comment on how something can be "before the everlasting began"? Because it's a nonsensical statement. BUT "before the age began"? Makes sense, doesn't it? Oh had to boldface the universal restitution taught in the verse as well. Just can't seem to get away from the concept of universal reconciliation in the scripture.

Col 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from aionios and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

Care to comment on how something can be "eternally hidden" yet "now made manifest"? Or why the English translators suddenly decided to translate aionios as "ages" in this verse? Probably because it obviously doesn't mean "eternal/everlasting" and they'd look like buffoons translating aionios as "everlasting" here since their error would be immediately made manifest to the reader. Same reason they chose "world" for the preceeding verse cited above. Because aionios doesn't appear to mean "eternal" at all; but the same as the word "aeon" - an age of time.

The same is true of "olam" unless you think the order of Aaron is still the priesthood since the covenant with Aaron was based on "olam" - so which was it? An everlasting covenant which still applies today, even though it obviously doesn't since Christ was of the order of Melchizedek; or was the covenant with Aaron for an "age"?

The rest of your post is just repetition answered by the above. Also, none of it supports "eternal suffering" at all. Depart from Me does not equal eternal suffering. The Gentiles were alienated from God in the OT and they were not in a state of "endless suffering"

 

[Albion]

I could do that, but we both know that there are many--II Peter 2:17, John 5:29, Mark 3, II Thess. 1:9, Jude 7, for example.

Why don't we turn to the few verses you thought supported universal salvation? IMO, they are not at all persuasive. They definitely are in the category of "maybes" that I omitted, for that very reason, from the list above.

 

[John Hyperspace]

I guess all the native Greek speaking early church fathers got it wrong.

٠ “The Epistle of Barnabas” (70-130AD)
The way of darkness is crooked, and it is full of cursing. It is the way of eternal death with punishment.
٠Ignatius of Antioch (110AD)
Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death. how much more if a man corrupt by evil reaching the faith of God. for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire: and so will anyone who listens to him. (Letter to the Ephesians 16:1-2)
٠From Clement of Rome (150AD)
If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment (“Second Clement” 5:5)
But when they see how those who have sinned and who have denied Jesus by their words or by their deeds are punished with terrible torture in unquenchable fire, the righteous, who have done good, and who have endured tortures and have hated the luxuries of life, will give glory to their God saying, ‘There shall be hope for him that has served God with all his heart!’ (“Second Clement” 17:7)
٠From “The Martyrdom of Polycarp” (155AD)
This work was written by an Early Church Father (unknown author) and is dated very early in the history of Christianity. It describes the death of Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John, and also describes early teachings of the church:
Fixing their minds on the grace of Christ, [the martyrs] despised worldly tortures and purchased eternal life with but a single hour. To them, the fire of their cruel torturers was cold. They kept before their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire (“Martyrdom of Polycarp” 2:3)
٠From Tatian (160AD)
We who are now easily susceptible to death, will afterwards receive immortality with either enjoyment or with pain.
٠From Athenagoras of Athens (175AD)
We are persuaded that when we are removed from the present life we will live another life, better than the present one…or, if they fall with the rest, they will endure a worse life, one in fire. For God has not made us as sheep or beasts of burden, who are mere by-products. For animals perish and are annihilated. On these grounds, it is not likely that we would wish to do evil. (“Apology”)
٠From Theophilus of Antioch (181AD)
Give studious attention to the prophetic writings [the Bible] and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God. . . . [God] will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things. . . . For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous, and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries, and fornications, and homosexualities, and avarice, and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish; and in the end, such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire (“To Autolycus” 1:14)
٠From Irenaeus (189AD)
…Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven,, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess’ to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send ‘spiritual wickednesses,’ and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning of their Christian course, and others from the date of their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory. (“Against Heresies” 1:10:10)
The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming. . . . t is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, ‘Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire,’ they will be damned forever (“Against Heresies” 4:28:2)
٠From Clement of Alexandria (195AD)
All souls are immortal, even those of the wicked. Yet, it would be better for them if they were not deathless. For they are punished with the endless vengeance of quenchless fire. Since they do not die, it is impossible for them to have an end put to their misery. (from a post-Nicene manuscript fragment)
٠From Tertullian (197AD)
These have further set before us the proofs He has given of His majesty in judgments by floods and fires, the rules appointed by Him for securing His favor, as well as the retribution in store for the ignoring, forsaking and keeping them, as being about at the end of all to adjudge His worshippers to everlasting life, and the wicked to the doom of fire at once without ending and without break, raising up again all the dead from the beginning, reforming and renewing them with the object of awarding either recompense. (“Apology” 18:3)
Then will the entire race of men be restored to receive its just deserts according to what it has merited in this period of good and evil, and thereafter to have these paid out in an immeasurable and unending eternity. Then there will be neither death again nor resurrection again, but we shall be always the same as we are now, without changing. The worshipers of God shall always be with God, clothed in the proper substance of eternity. But the godless and those who have not turned wholly to God will be punished in fire equally unending, and they shall have from the very nature of this fire, divine as it were, a supply of incorruptibility (“Apology” 44:12–13)
Therefore after this there is neither death nor repeated resurrections, but we shall be the same that we are now, and still unchanged–the servants of God, ever with God, clothed upon with the proper substance of eternity; but the profane, and all who are not true worshippers of God, in like manner shall be consigned to the punishment of everlasting fire–that fire which, from its very nature indeed, directly ministers to their incorruptibility. (“Apology” 48:12)
If, therefore, any one shall violently suppose that the destruction of the soul and the flesh in hell amounts to a final annihilation of the two substances, and not to their penal treatment (as if they were to be consumed, not punished), let him recollect that the fire of hell is eternal — expressly announced as an everlasting penalty; and let him admit that it is from this circumstance that this never-ending "killing" is more formidable than a merely human murder, which is only temporal. — On the Resurrection of the Flesh Chapter 35
٠From Hippolytus of Rome (212AD)
Standing before [Christ’s] judgment, all of them, men, angels, and demons, crying out in one voice, shall say: ‘Just is your judgment!’ … to the lovers of evil shall be given eternal punishment. The unquenchable and unending fire awaits these latter, and a certain fiery worm which does not die and which does not waste the body but continually bursts forth from the body with unceasing pain. No sleep will give them rest; no night will soothe them; no death will deliver them from punishment; no appeal of interceding friends will profit them (“Against the Greeks 3”)
٠From Felix Minucius (226AD)
I am not ignorant of the fact that many, in the consciousness of what they deserve, would rather hope than actually believe that there is nothing for them after death. They would prefer to be annihilated rather than be restored for punishment… Nor is there either measure nor end to these torments. That clever fire burns the limbs and restores them, wears them away and yet sustains them, just as fiery thunderbolts strike bodies but do not consume them (“Octavius” 34:12–5:3)
٠From Cyprian of Carthage (252 AD)
An ever-burning Gehenna and the punishment of being devoured by living flames will consume the condemned; nor will there be any way in which the tormented can ever have respite or be at an end. Souls along with their bodies will be preserved for suffering in unlimited agonies. . . . The grief at punishment will then be without the fruit of repentance; weeping will be useless, and prayer ineffectual. Too late will they believe in eternal punishment, who would not believe in eternal life (“To Demetrian” 24)
Oh,what and how great will that day be at its coming, beloved brethren, when the Lord shall begin to count up His people, and to recognize the deservings of each one by the inspection of His divine knowledge, to send the guilty to Gehenna, and to set on fire our persecutors with the perpetual burning of a penal fire, but to pay to us the reward of our faith and devotion! (“To Thibaris” 55:10)
٠From Lactantius (307AD)
But, however, the sacred writings inform us in what manner the wicked are to undergo punishment. For because they have committed sins in their bodies, they will again be clothed with flesh, that they may make atonement in their bodies; and yet it will not be that flesh with which God clothed man, like this our earthly body, but indestructible, and abiding forever, that it may be able to hold out against tortures and everlasting fire…The same divine fire, therefore, with one and the same force and power, will both burn the wicked and will form them again, and will replace as much as it shall consume of their bodies, and will supply itself with eternal nourishment …Then they whose piety shall have been approved of will receive the reward of immortality; but they whose sins and crimes shall have been brought to light will not rise again, but will be hidden in the same darkness with the wicked, being destined to certain punishment. (“Divine Institutes” 7:21)
٠From Cyril of Jerusalem (350AD)We shall be raised therefore, all with our bodies eternal, but not all with bodies alike: for if a man is righteous, he will receive a heavenly body, that he may be able worthily to hold converse with angels; but if a man is a sinner, he shall receive an eternal body, fitted to endure the penalties of sins, that he may burn eternally in fire, nor ever be consumed… (“Catechetical Lectures” 18:19)The real and true life then is the Father, who through the Son in the Holy Spirit pours forth as from a fountain His heavenly gifts to all; and through His love to man, the blessings of the life eternal are promised without fail to us men also. We must not disbelieve the possibility of this, but having an eye not to our own weakness but to His power, we must believe; for with God all things are possible. And that this is possible, and that we may look for eternal life, Daniel declares, And of the many righteous shall they shine as the stars forever and ever. And Paul says, And so shall we be ever with the Lord: for the being forever with the lord implies the life eternal. But most plainly of all the Savior Himself says in the Gospel, And these shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal. (“Catechetical Lectures” 18:28)​

You do realize that none of the men you're quoting wrote their words in the English in which you're quoting them? Meaning, someone is translating their words.

 

[John Hyperspace]

I could do that, but we both know that there are many--II Peter 2:17, John 5:29, Mark 3, II Thess. 1:9, Jude 7, for example.

Let's have a look:

17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.

Firstly, darkness doesn't cause suffering, I'd note that. Second, this verse again renders "aiona" as "forever": highly questionable translation of the word. If you're wanting to render "aiona" as forever/eternal/everlasting; then how do you explain the passages cited above in which the word is clearly not meaning "eternal" e.g. "before the 'eternal'" "'eternally' hidden, yet now revealed": how do you explain something existing "before eternity" or something "eternally hidden, now revealed"?

Also, citing this verse doesn't suddenly erase the OP passages from scripture. How do you reconcile the clear contradiction you've introduced to these scriptures? Question the translation of "pas" as "all"?

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Okay that offers absolutely zero support for "eternal suffering"; you're obviously reading the word "damnation/judgment" as equal to "eternal suffering" but that's not what the word means. It means, judgment/krisis. The exact same word exployed here:

Mt 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment <2920> to the Gentiles.
Mt 12:20 A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment <2920> unto victory.
Joh 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment <2920> is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

None of these passages are talking about "eternal suffering" they are talking about judgment. You're looking at the translated word "damnation" (which is 'judgment/krisis') and reading into it your assumption.

Mark 3 doesn't support "eternal suffering" at all; if so, where?

9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Destruction doesn't support "everlasting suffering"; and there is that word "aiona" again. So again I ask, how do you explain "before eternity" and "eternally hidden, now revealed"?

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Zero support of "endless suffering": "eternal fire" does not support "eternal suffering": it states the duration of the fire, not the duration of the experience: the very verse shows that since we know Sodom and Gomorrha aren't still burning to this day; they perished in one day. Eternal fire can destroy something instantly. Also, there is the word "aiona" again.

So you're zero for six now? That's even allowing "aiona" to be translated "eternal"; eternal destruction, eternal fire, eternal judgment: none of which support "eternal suffering"; all of which hinge on a highly questionable translation of "aiona" which translation then creates passages stating "before the eternal" and "eternally hidden, now revealed" which make no sense; as well as now causing a direct contradiction to the OP passages.

In other words, passages which are offering zero support of "eternal suffering", which create nonsensical translations of "before eternity", and which completely contradict other scripture such as the OP.

Why don't we turn to the few verses you thought supported universal salvation?

Okay, feel free to turn to them and offer an explaination as to why they don't mean what they say. Starting with:

Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. 21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.

 

[Albion]

Let's have a look:

17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.

Firstly, darkness doesn't cause suffering, I'd note that.

So this means, you think, that the soul will just be in darkness forever, but there's no reason to think that's half bad.(?)

Also, citing this verse doesn't suddenly erase the OP passages from scripture.

No, but it's well known that the Jewish understanding of this matter as it was prior to the Incarnation is not to be taken as the final word.

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Okay that offers absolutely zero support for "eternal suffering"

Not unless you translate "damnation" correctly.

you're obviously reading the word "damnation/judgment" as equal to "eternal suffering"

Of course.

but that's not what the word means. It means, judgment/krisis. The exact same word exployed here:

None of these passages are talking about "eternal suffering" they are talking about judgment. You're looking at the translated word "damnation" (which is 'judgment/krisis') and reading into it your assumption.

Not in the least. That's the view of Bible scholars. And the following demonstrates it:

Mark 3 doesn't support "eternal suffering" at all; if so, where?

9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Destruction doesn't support "everlasting suffering"

It does. And it's right there in the red and pink. The second part is completely meaningless if your thinking were correct. If you're annihilated, you're not going to be told, in addition, that you won't be in the presence of the Lord. You would never say that someone is going to cease to exist AWAY FROM the good things of life or anything else, for that matter. If it's annihilation, it's final.

So you're zero for six now?

Not by my count.

Okay, feel free to turn to them and offer an explaination as to why they don't mean what they say. Starting with:

Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. 21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.

The idea that "reconcile all things unto himself" might mean that all men will be saved is quite fanciful. If God's plan for the entire sweep of human history turns out as he planned, including those he purposed to save in Christ, that necessarily means that they have been reconciled to God. There is no reason at all to assume that those whom he did NOT purpose to save had to be included or else God's plan failed. God winnows out the evil from the redeemed. That's his purpose, and it's reiterated throughout the New Testament.

 

[Der Alte]

Also be sure to see my post which refutes Der Alter's post:

You do realize that none of the men you're quoting wrote their words in the English in which you're quoting them? Meaning, someone is translating their words.

Nothing has been refuted! You found the word "agelong" in one [1] of nine [9] Greek language reference I quoted? Do you think that one word refutes the pages of references I quoted? The sources included quotes from pre-Christian Greek philosophers Philo and Plato. Scholars believe that Philo coined the adjective "aionios" from "aion" since it first appears in his writings.

 

[Albion]

I wouldn't call be in darkness a good thing, no. But it's certainly not "suffering" as you wanting to equate it.

Well, then, maybe we should pause long enough to be sure we're on the same page. To me, being conscious and in never-ending darkness (of some sort), knowing you've lost out on being with God IS to suffer. It's not necessary that there be little red demons with pitchforks.

At least you willingly admit you're assuming your own unsupported and biased teachings into the word when they're not even there.

I gave you a chance when you tried that stuff on the last exchange. So, now we're done.

 

[Der Alte]

Let's have a look:
17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.
Firstly, darkness doesn't cause suffering, I'd note that. Second, this verse again renders "aiona" as "forever": highly questionable translation of the word. If you're wanting to render "aiona" as forever/eternal/everlasting; then how do you explain the passages cited above in which the word is clearly not meaning "eternal" e.g. "before the 'eternal'" "'eternally' hidden, yet now revealed": how do you explain something existing "before eternity" or something "eternally hidden, now revealed"?

How does one explain this? Words are sometimes used hyperbolically. The fact that aionios refers to something/someone which cannot be eternal does not negate the fact that ample scholarly resources have been quoted documenting the fact that aionios does mean eternal, unending, everlasting. see post #122 above. Which OBTW has not been and cannot be refuted.

Also, citing this verse doesn't suddenly erase the OP passages from scripture. How do you reconcile the clear contradiction you've introduced to these scriptures? Question the translation of "pas" as "all"?
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
Okay that offers absolutely zero support for "eternal suffering"; you're obviously reading the word "damnation/judgment" as equal to "eternal suffering" but that's not what the word means. It means, judgment/krisis. The exact same word exployed here:
Mt 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment <2920> to the Gentiles.
Mt 12:20 A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment <2920> unto victory.
Joh 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment <2920> is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
None of these passages are talking about "eternal suffering" they are talking about judgment. You're looking at the translated word "damnation" (which is 'judgment/krisis') and reading into it your assumption.

The definition of krisis from Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker Greek lexicon. One of, if not the, most highly accredited Greek lexicons. Note definitions highlighted in red and the historical references cited.

κρίσις, εως, ( Aeschyl. , Hdt. +; inscr. , pap. , LXX , En. ; Ep. Arist. 252; Philo , Joseph. , Test. 12 Patr. ). 1. judging, judgment— a. of the activity of God or the Messiah as judge, esp. on the Last Day.
a. hJ dikaiva kr. tou` qeou` God’s righteous judgment 2 Th 1:5 . hJ krivsi" hJ ejmh; dikaiva ejstivn J 5:30 . krivsin poiei`n execute judgment, act as judge ( Aristoph. , Ran. 778; 785; X. , Hell. 4, 2, 6; 8; Dt 10:18 .—Likew. kr. poiei`sqai : 1 Macc 6:22 ; Jos. , Ant. 6, 34) vs. 2 7. t. krivsin didovnai tiniv commit judgment or judging to someone vs. 2 2. hJ hJmevra (th`") krivsew" the Day of judgment (Jdth 16:17 ; Is 34:8 ; Pr 6:34 ) Mt 10:15 ; 11:22 , 24 ; 12:36 ; 2 Pt 2:9 ; 3:7 ; 1J 4:17 ; 2 Cl 16:3; 17:6; B 19:10; 21:6.— hJ kr. hJ mevllousa the judgment to come 2 Cl 18:2; MPol 11:2. hJ kr. hJ ejpercomevnh the approaching judgment Hv 3, 9, 5. Denial of the Last judgment Pol 7:1. kr. megavlh" hJmevra" the judgment of the Great Day Jd 6 . hJ w{ra th`" kr. aujtou` the hour when he is to judge Rv 14:7 . oujk ajnasthvsontai oiJ ajsebei`" ejn kr. the wicked will not rise in the judgment (or on the J. Day ) B 11:7 (Ps 1:5 ); cf. Mt 12:41 f ; Lk 10:14 ; 11:31 f. dikaiosuvnh krivsew" ajrch; kai; tevlo" righteousness (on the part of the judge) is the beginning and end of judging B 1:6. Divine judgment ( cf. Iambl ., Vi. Pyth. 8, 40 tw`n ajqanavtwn k .; Hierocles 11 p. 441 and 442 al. qeiva krivsi" ) is also mentioned 1 Ti 5:24 ; Hb 9:27 ( cf. Diog. L. 3, 79 after Plato : one must fulfill the dikaiosuvnh qeou`, i{na mh; kai; meta; to;n qavnaton divka" uJpovscoien oiJ kakou`rgoi ); 2 Pt 2:4 , 9 ; 2 Cl 20:4; D 11:11.
b. The word oft. means judgment that goes against a person, condemnation, and the punishment that follows ( Sib. Or. 3, 670) GP 7:25. dissh;n e{xousin th;n kr. they will receive double punishment 2 Cl 10:5. hJ kr. sou your judgment Rv. 18:10 . kajkeivnoi" kr. ejstivn judgment comes upon them, too ISm 6:1. foberav ti" ejkdoch; krivsew" a fearful prospect of judgment Hb 10:27 ( Iambl. , Vi. Pyth. 30, 179 a reference to the kr. tw`n yucw`n serves to arouse fovbo" t. ajdikiva"). hJ kr. aujtou` h[rqh his punishment was taken away Ac 8:33 ; 1 Cl 16:7 (both Is 53:8 ). uJpo; krivsin pivptein come under judgment Js 5:12 ; cf. 2:1 3a, b. hJ kr. th`" geevnnh" being punished in hell Mt 23:33 (gen. as Diod. S. 1, 82, 3 qanavtou kr. =punishment by death). kr. katav tino" upon , against someone ( Aelian , V.H. 2, 6) poih`sai krivsin kata; pavntwn execute judgment upon all Jd 15 ( En. 1, 9).—( Opp. zwhv) e[cei zwh;n aijwvnion kai; eij" kr. oujk e[rcetai J 5:24 ( cf. Philip [= Demosth. 12, 16] eij" kr. ejlqei`n). ajnavstasi" zwh`" — ajnavstasi" krivsew" vs. 2 9. krivsi" tou` kovsmou touvtou judgment of (or upon ) this world 12:3 1; cf. 16: 8, interpreted as a judgment on the prince of this world 16:11 ( cf. 12:31 b; IQM 1, 5; but s. also LJLutkemeyer, CBQ 8, ’46, 225 f ‘good judgment’, and BNoack, Satanas
u. Soteria ’48, 79; also s. on dikaiosuvnh 2, end).—In 3:19 kr. has in addition to the senses ‘judgment’ and ‘condemnation’ the clear connotation of ‘separation, division’ (Hecataeus [320 BC ] in Diod. S. 40, 3, 2 Dind. krivsi" tw`n kakw`n =‘separation fr. the evils’.—A double sense as in J is found in Artem. 5, 5 krithv" =‘judge’ and ‘divider’). The ‘judgment’, which is operative here and now, consists in the fact that men divide themselves into those who accept Christ and those who reject him ( Hdb. ; Bultmann).— Pl. judgments, punishments ( Diod. S. 1, 75, 2; Appian , Bell. Civ. l, 96 §446 krivsei" pikraiv =severe punishments) ajlhqinai; kai; divkaiai aiJ krivsei" sou Rv 16:7 ; 19:2 .— Bousset, Rel. 3 257 ff ; LRuhl, De Mortuorum Judicio ’03; JBlank, Krisis (J), diss. Freiburg, ’64.
b. of the judgment of one person upon or against another— a. of men toward men kr. dikaiva B 20:2; D 5:2. kr. a[diko" unjust judgment Pol 6:1; ajpovtomo" ejn kr. relentless in judgment ibid. th;n dikaivan krivsin krivnate J 7:24 ( krivnw 6a). Cf. hJ kr. hJ ejmh; ajlhqinhv ejstin 8:1 6.
b. of the archangel against the devil oujk ejtovlmhsen krivsin ejpenegkei`n blasfhmiva" he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment Jd 9 . Cf. the corresp. pass. in 2 Pt 2:11 a[ggeloi ouj fevrousin katÆ aujtw`n para; kurivw/ blavsfhmon krivsin angels do not pronounce a reviling judgment against them before the Lord.
b. of the judgment of one person upon or against another— a. of men toward men kr. dikaiva B 20:2; D 5:2. kr. a[diko" unjust judgment Pol 6:1; ajpovtomo" ejn kr. relentless in judgment ibid. th;n dikaivan krivsin krivnate J 7:24 ( krivnw 6a). Cf. hJ kr. hJ ejmh; ajlhqinhv ejstin 8:1 6.
b. of the archangel against the devil oujk ejtovlmhsen krivsin ejpenegkei`n blasfhmiva" he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment Jd 9 . Cf. the corresp. pass. in 2 Pt 2:11 a[ggeloi ouj fevrousin katÆ aujtw`n para; kurivw/ blavsfhmon krivsin angels do not pronounce a reviling judgment against them before the Lord.
2. board of judges, court, specif. a local court ( cf. Schürer II 4 226 f ; Diod. S. 17, 80, 2; Aesop , Fab. 190 H.; Theod. Prodr. 1, 402 H.) e[noco" e[stai th`/ kr. he will have to answer to a ( local ) court Mt 5:21 f. —RGuelich, ZNW 64, ’73, 44 ff.
3. right in the sense of justice, righteousness ( Inscr. Gr. 542, 6 [II BC ] pivstin e[conta kai; krivsin uJgih` ; Dit., Or. 383, 207 [I BC ]; LXX ; cf. fP;•]Omi ) ajfhvkate th;n krivsin k. to; e[leo" k. th;n pivstin Mt 23:23 ; cf. Lk 11:42 . krivsin t. e[qnesin ajpaggelei` he will proclaim justice for the Gentiles Mt 12:18 (Is 42:1 ). ejkzhtei`n kr. seek out justice 1 Cl 8:4 (Is 1:17 ). e{w" a}n ejkbavlh/ eij" ni`ko" t. krivsin until he leads justice to victory vs. 20 ( cf. Is 42:3 .—Other poss. mngs. are legal action, trial, case [ X. , An. 1, 6, 5; Diod. S. 2, 42, 4 aiJ krivsei" =legal suits, transactions; En. 9, 3 eijsagavgete th;n krivsin hJmw`n pro;" to;n u{yiston ] and, influenced by ni`ko" , a [military] decision [ Dionys. Hal. 9, 35; 2 Macc 14:18 ]). The mng. right , justice may also play a role in such passages as J 7:24 ; 12:31 ; 16:8 , 11 ; Ac 8:33 [so RSV ] and perh. others.—GPWetter on krivma 4, end; HBraun, Gerichtsgedanke u. Rechtfertigungslehre b. Pls ’30; FVFilson, St. Paul’s Conception of Recompense ’31. M-M. *
A Greek-English Lexicon Gingrich & Danker​

Please feel free to try to refute this Lexicon with Greek language resources of equal or greater accreditation.

Mark 3 doesn't support "eternal suffering" at all; if so, where?

9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
Destruction doesn't support "everlasting suffering"; and there is that word "aiona" again. So again I ask, how do you explain "before eternity" and "eternally hidden, now revealed"?

Something which has been "destroyed" no longer exists and cannot be "from the presence" of anything. The word translated "destruction" is apollumi and 78% of the uses in the NT cannot mean "destroy" as in cease to exist. For example, spilled wine, broken wine skins, spoiled food, fading flowers, lost sheep which were found, prodigal son who returned.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

The one adjective in this verse "aionios" and it modifies only one word "fire" The vengeance was not eternal only the fire. Ooops another out-of-context proof text refuted.

Zero support of "endless suffering": "eternal fire" does not support "eternal suffering": it states the duration of the fire, not the duration of the experience: the very verse shows that since we know Sodom and Gomorrha aren't still burning to this day; they perished in one day. Eternal fire can destroy something instantly. Also, there is the word "aiona" again.

So you're zero for six now? That's even allowing "aiona" to be translated "eternal"; eternal destruction, eternal fire, eternal judgment: none of which support "eternal suffering"; all of which hinge on a highly questionable translation of "aiona" which translation then creates passages stating "before the eternal" and "eternally hidden, now revealed" which make no sense; as well as now causing a direct contradiction to the OP passages.
In other words, passages which are offering zero support of "eternal suffering", which create nonsensical translations of "before eternity", and which completely contradict other scripture such as the OP.

Okay, feel free to turn to them and offer an explaination as to why they don't mean what they say. Starting with:
Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. 21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.

Does this same writer say in one place that all mankind will be saved regardless and in other verses say that many people will not inherit the kingdom of God. Pray tell where do these people go if not the kingdom of God?

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
(9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
(10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21
(19) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
(20) Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
(21) Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Ephesians 5:5
(5) For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
​

 

[Der Alte]

First I think it's funny that the first person you cited for "proof" of "aion" meaning "eternal" actually refuted you with "agelong" (I'll wager God had something to do with having you quote a scholar refuting you as your first "proof").

The reference "agelong" in one of nine Greek references does NOT refute anything no matter how many times it is claimed it does..

But if you're so utterly desperate to demand "aionos" be translated as "eternal" still have yet to explain the above curious, self-refuting passages such as :
2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the eternity(?) began,
Tit 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the eternity(?) began;
Col 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from eternity(?) and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
As well as a plethora of others verse you're wanting to render nonsensical by you proposition:
Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the eternity(?) of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present eternity(?)
Also, again, even potentially erroneously allowing "aion" to be rendered "eternal", you've still got? A single verse in the Revelation supporting your desire to teach "endless suffering", and creating the massive contradiction between the single verse in apocalyptic literature upon which you're founding your entire (potentially blasphemous in the highest degree) doctrine; and every passage in the OP, as well as myriad others throughout scripture. Contradictions you reconcile by? "Trust der Alter when he says 'aion' means 'forever' but don't trust scripture that say 'all' because 'all' doesn't mean 'all'"?

Words are often used hyperbolically in the Bible. Please look up the word "hyperbole" in a dictionary. It is not me that is claiming anything I keep citing Greek language scholars and I don't see any scholarship of any kind in response just one person's unsupported opinion.

Also, you still don't seem to understand that all of your quotes of the men you're quoting are all being translated into English by someone.

Please feel free to go to the original languages and PROVE that the translations are wrong.
The ECF do not rely only on the words aion or aionios but use additional descriptions which underscore the meaning everlasting, unending, eternal etc. e.g.

--if a man is a sinner, he shall receive an eternal body, fitted to endure the penalties of sins, that he may burn eternally in fire, nor ever be consumed…
--God clothed man, like this our earthly body, but indestructible, and abiding forever, that it may be able to hold out against tortures and everlasting fire…The same divine fire, therefore, with one and the same force and power, will both burn the wicked and will form them again, and will replace as much as it shall consume of their bodies, and will supply itself with eternal nourishment
--An ever-burning Gehenna and the punishment of being devoured by living flames will consume the condemned; nor will there be any way in which the tormented can ever have respite or be at an end. Souls along with their bodies will be preserved for suffering in unlimited agonies. . .​

 

[Der Alte]

You do realize that none of the men you're quoting wrote their words in the English in which you're quoting them? Meaning, someone is translating their words.

You do realize that when you quote the Bible none of the men you're quoting wrote their words in the English in which you're quoting them? Meaning, someone is translating their words. Funny how that seems to only work one way for some folks.

 

[Oldmantook]

I will agree that this is probably the most often cited passage, and that's why it was selected; but as noted there are many others...and there's hardly anything on the Universal Salvation side of the issue. If we are to be guided by Scripture, we have to take everything into account.

I certainly concur with you that the whole of Scripture needs to be accounted for; otherwise it amounts to proof-texting which is of marginal value. Where I would disagree with you is that "there's hardly anything" on the Universalism side. Actually, much scriptural evidence exists. In the past I was oblivious to it because I was told what to believe (hell is a place of eternal torment). Consequently, I believed what I was taught and my personal bias blinded me to those scriptures that spoke in favor of Universalism which I only became aware of after researching the subject and examining the scriptures for myself.

We could get into an extended discussion regarding the scriptures themselves, but just from an overall standpoint, in terms of what we know of the totality of God's attributes, Universalism provides a "better fit" in my opinion in terms of soteriology:
God wants to save all + God is not able to save all = all are not saved. (Arminianism)
God does not want to save all + God is able to save all = all are not saved. (Calvinism)
God wants to save all + God is able to save all = all are saved. (Universalism)

 

[Albion]

I certainly concur with you that the whole of Scripture needs to be accounted for; otherwise it amounts to proof-texting which is of marginal value. Where I would disagree with you is that "there's hardly anything" on the Universalism side. Actually, much scriptural evidence exists. In the past I was oblivious to it because I was told what to believe (hell is a place of eternal torment). Consequently, I believed what I was taught and my personal bias blinded me to those scriptures that spoke in favor of Universalism which I only became aware of after researching the subject and examining the scriptures for myself.

I have to disagree. As you saw in the earlier posts here, the argument against the meaning of verse after verse that speaks of eternal darkness, or everlasting punishment or something similar to that boils down to saying that it doesn't mean what it means. And there are a lot of verses on that side. But while I admit that there is something on the other side, it's only about half a dozen verses and each one of them MIGHT be interpreted as indicating Universal Salvation...or not. At best, they hint at it and can be taken several different ways. That's why I think the argument is weak.

We could get into an extended discussion regarding the scriptures themselves, but just from an overall standpoint, in terms of what we know of the totality of God's attributes, Universalism provides a "better fit" in my opinion in terms of soteriology:
God wants to save all + God is not able to save all = all are not saved. (Arminianism)
God does not want to save all + God is able to save all = all are not saved. (Calvinism)
God wants to said all + God is able to save all = all are saved. (Universalism)

All we have to do is dismiss almost all of the Bible from our consideration and go with this reasoning. I can't justify doing that.

 

[John Hyperspace]

How does one explain this? Words are sometimes used hyperbolically. The fact that aionios refers to something/someone which cannot be eternal does not negate the fact that ample scholarly resources have been quoted documenting the fact that aionios does mean eternal, unending, everlasting. see post #122 above. Which OBTW has not been and cannot be refuted.

The definition of krisis from Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker Greek lexicon. One of, if not the, most highly accredited Greek lexicons. Note definitions highlighted in red and the historical references cited.

κρίσις, εως, ( Aeschyl. , Hdt. +; inscr. , pap. , LXX , En. ; Ep. Arist. 252; Philo , Joseph. , Test. 12 Patr. ). 1. judging, judgment— a. of the activity of God or the Messiah as judge, esp. on the Last Day.
a. hJ dikaiva kr. tou` qeou` God’s righteous judgment 2 Th 1:5 . hJ krivsi" hJ ejmh; dikaiva ejstivn J 5:30 . krivsin poiei`n execute judgment, act as judge ( Aristoph. , Ran. 778; 785; X. , Hell. 4, 2, 6; 8; Dt 10:18 .—Likew. kr. poiei`sqai : 1 Macc 6:22 ; Jos. , Ant. 6, 34) vs. 2 7. t. krivsin didovnai tiniv commit judgment or judging to someone vs. 2 2. hJ hJmevra (th`") krivsew" the Day of judgment (Jdth 16:17 ; Is 34:8 ; Pr 6:34 ) Mt 10:15 ; 11:22 , 24 ; 12:36 ; 2 Pt 2:9 ; 3:7 ; 1J 4:17 ; 2 Cl 16:3; 17:6; B 19:10; 21:6.— hJ kr. hJ mevllousa the judgment to come 2 Cl 18:2; MPol 11:2. hJ kr. hJ ejpercomevnh the approaching judgment Hv 3, 9, 5. Denial of the Last judgment Pol 7:1. kr. megavlh" hJmevra" the judgment of the Great Day Jd 6 . hJ w{ra th`" kr. aujtou` the hour when he is to judge Rv 14:7 . oujk ajnasthvsontai oiJ ajsebei`" ejn kr. the wicked will not rise in the judgment (or on the J. Day ) B 11:7 (Ps 1:5 ); cf. Mt 12:41 f ; Lk 10:14 ; 11:31 f. dikaiosuvnh krivsew" ajrch; kai; tevlo" righteousness (on the part of the judge) is the beginning and end of judging B 1:6. Divine judgment ( cf. Iambl ., Vi. Pyth. 8, 40 tw`n ajqanavtwn k .; Hierocles 11 p. 441 and 442 al. qeiva krivsi" ) is also mentioned 1 Ti 5:24 ; Hb 9:27 ( cf. Diog. L. 3, 79 after Plato : one must fulfill the dikaiosuvnh qeou`, i{na mh; kai; meta; to;n qavnaton divka" uJpovscoien oiJ kakou`rgoi ); 2 Pt 2:4 , 9 ; 2 Cl 20:4; D 11:11.
b. The word oft. means judgment that goes against a person, condemnation, and the punishment that follows ( Sib. Or. 3, 670) GP 7:25. dissh;n e{xousin th;n kr. they will receive double punishment 2 Cl 10:5. hJ kr. sou your judgment Rv. 18:10 . kajkeivnoi" kr. ejstivn judgment comes upon them, too ISm 6:1. foberav ti" ejkdoch; krivsew" a fearful prospect of judgment Hb 10:27 ( Iambl. , Vi. Pyth. 30, 179 a reference to the kr. tw`n yucw`n serves to arouse fovbo" t. ajdikiva"). hJ kr. aujtou` h[rqh his punishment was taken away Ac 8:33 ; 1 Cl 16:7 (both Is 53:8 ). uJpo; krivsin pivptein come under judgment Js 5:12 ; cf. 2:1 3a, b. hJ kr. th`" geevnnh" being punished in hell Mt 23:33 (gen. as Diod. S. 1, 82, 3 qanavtou kr. =punishment by death). kr. katav tino" upon , against someone ( Aelian , V.H. 2, 6) poih`sai krivsin kata; pavntwn execute judgment upon all Jd 15 ( En. 1, 9).—( Opp. zwhv) e[cei zwh;n aijwvnion kai; eij" kr. oujk e[rcetai J 5:24 ( cf. Philip [= Demosth. 12, 16] eij" kr. ejlqei`n). ajnavstasi" zwh`" — ajnavstasi" krivsew" vs. 2 9. krivsi" tou` kovsmou touvtou judgment of (or upon ) this world 12:3 1; cf. 16: 8, interpreted as a judgment on the prince of this world 16:11 ( cf. 12:31 b; IQM 1, 5; but s. also LJLutkemeyer, CBQ 8, ’46, 225 f ‘good judgment’, and BNoack, Satanas
u. Soteria ’48, 79; also s. on dikaiosuvnh 2, end).—In 3:19 kr. has in addition to the senses ‘judgment’ and ‘condemnation’ the clear connotation of ‘separation, division’ (Hecataeus [320 BC ] in Diod. S. 40, 3, 2 Dind. krivsi" tw`n kakw`n =‘separation fr. the evils’.—A double sense as in J is found in Artem. 5, 5 krithv" =‘judge’ and ‘divider’). The ‘judgment’, which is operative here and now, consists in the fact that men divide themselves into those who accept Christ and those who reject him ( Hdb. ; Bultmann).— Pl. judgments, punishments ( Diod. S. 1, 75, 2; Appian , Bell. Civ. l, 96 §446 krivsei" pikraiv =severe punishments) ajlhqinai; kai; divkaiai aiJ krivsei" sou Rv 16:7 ; 19:2 .— Bousset, Rel. 3 257 ff ; LRuhl, De Mortuorum Judicio ’03; JBlank, Krisis (J), diss. Freiburg, ’64.
b. of the judgment of one person upon or against another— a. of men toward men kr. dikaiva B 20:2; D 5:2. kr. a[diko" unjust judgment Pol 6:1; ajpovtomo" ejn kr. relentless in judgment ibid. th;n dikaivan krivsin krivnate J 7:24 ( krivnw 6a). Cf. hJ kr. hJ ejmh; ajlhqinhv ejstin 8:1 6.
b. of the archangel against the devil oujk ejtovlmhsen krivsin ejpenegkei`n blasfhmiva" he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment Jd 9 . Cf. the corresp. pass. in 2 Pt 2:11 a[ggeloi ouj fevrousin katÆ aujtw`n para; kurivw/ blavsfhmon krivsin angels do not pronounce a reviling judgment against them before the Lord.
b. of the judgment of one person upon or against another— a. of men toward men kr. dikaiva B 20:2; D 5:2. kr. a[diko" unjust judgment Pol 6:1; ajpovtomo" ejn kr. relentless in judgment ibid. th;n dikaivan krivsin krivnate J 7:24 ( krivnw 6a). Cf. hJ kr. hJ ejmh; ajlhqinhv ejstin 8:1 6.
b. of the archangel against the devil oujk ejtovlmhsen krivsin ejpenegkei`n blasfhmiva" he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment Jd 9 . Cf. the corresp. pass. in 2 Pt 2:11 a[ggeloi ouj fevrousin katÆ aujtw`n para; kurivw/ blavsfhmon krivsin angels do not pronounce a reviling judgment against them before the Lord.
2. board of judges, court, specif. a local court ( cf. Schürer II 4 226 f ; Diod. S. 17, 80, 2; Aesop , Fab. 190 H.; Theod. Prodr. 1, 402 H.) e[noco" e[stai th`/ kr. he will have to answer to a ( local ) court Mt 5:21 f. —RGuelich, ZNW 64, ’73, 44 ff.
3. right in the sense of justice, righteousness ( Inscr. Gr. 542, 6 [II BC ] pivstin e[conta kai; krivsin uJgih` ; Dit., Or. 383, 207 [I BC ]; LXX ; cf. fP;•]Omi ) ajfhvkate th;n krivsin k. to; e[leo" k. th;n pivstin Mt 23:23 ; cf. Lk 11:42 . krivsin t. e[qnesin ajpaggelei` he will proclaim justice for the Gentiles Mt 12:18 (Is 42:1 ). ejkzhtei`n kr. seek out justice 1 Cl 8:4 (Is 1:17 ). e{w" a}n ejkbavlh/ eij" ni`ko" t. krivsin until he leads justice to victory vs. 20 ( cf. Is 42:3 .—Other poss. mngs. are legal action, trial, case [ X. , An. 1, 6, 5; Diod. S. 2, 42, 4 aiJ krivsei" =legal suits, transactions; En. 9, 3 eijsagavgete th;n krivsin hJmw`n pro;" to;n u{yiston ] and, influenced by ni`ko" , a [military] decision [ Dionys. Hal. 9, 35; 2 Macc 14:18 ]). The mng. right , justice may also play a role in such passages as J 7:24 ; 12:31 ; 16:8 , 11 ; Ac 8:33 [so RSV ] and perh. others.—GPWetter on krivma 4, end; HBraun, Gerichtsgedanke u. Rechtfertigungslehre b. Pls ’30; FVFilson, St. Paul’s Conception of Recompense ’31. M-M. *
A Greek-English Lexicon Gingrich & Danker​

Please feel free to try to refute this Lexicon with Greek language resources of equal or greater accreditation.


Something which has been "destroyed" no longer exists and cannot be "from the presence" of anything. The word translated "destruction" is apollumi and 78% of the uses in the NT cannot mean "destroy" as in cease to exist. For example, spilled wine, broken wine skins, spoiled food, fading flowers, lost sheep which were found, prodigal son who returned.

The one adjective in this verse "aionios" and it modifies only one word "fire" The vengeance was not eternal only the fire. Ooops another out-of-context proof text refuted.



Does this same writer say in one place that all mankind will be saved regardless and in other verses say that many people will not inherit the kingdom of God. Pray tell where do these people go if not the kingdom of God?

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
(9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
(10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21
(19) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
(20) Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
(21) Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Ephesians 5:5
(5) For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
​

Prof. Tayler Lewis says, "'One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh; but the earth abideth forever.' This certainly indicates, not an endless eternity in the strictest sense of the word, but only a future of unlimited length. Ex. xxxi:16; 'Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for aperpetual covenant.' Olam here would seem to be taken as a hyperbolical term for indefinite or unmeasured duration." Where the context demands it, as "I live forever," spoken of God, he says it means endless duration, for "it is the subject to which it is applied that forces to this, andNOTany etymological necessity in the word itself." He adds that Olam and Aion, in the plural, ages, and ages of ages, demonstrate that neither of the words, of itself, denotes eternity. He admits that they are used to give an idea of eternity, but that applied to God and his kingdom, the ages are finite(46). Prof. L. is eminently learned and as eminently orthodox.

THE END OF AIONIAN THINGS.

Now the Jews have lost their eternal excellency; Aaron and his sons have ceased from their priesthood; the Mosaic system is superseded by Christianity; the Jews no longer possess Canaan; David and his house have lost the throne of Israel; the Jewish temple is destroyed, and Jerusalem is wiped out as the holy city; the servants who were to be bondmen forever are all free from their masters; Gehazi is cured of his leprosy; the stones are removed from Jordan, and the smoke of Idumea no longer rises; the righteous do not posses the land promised them forever; some of the hills and mountains have fallen, and the tooth of Time will one day gnaw the last of them into dust; the fire has expired from the Jewish altar; Jonah has escaped from his imprisonment; all these and numerous other eternal, everlasting things -- things that were to last forever, and to which the various aionian words are applied -- have now ended, and if these hundreds of instances must denote limited duration why should the few times in which punishments are spoken of have any other meaning? Even if endless duration were the intrinsic meaning of the word, all intelligent readers of the Bible would perceive that the word must be employed to denote limited duration in the passages above cited. And surely in the very few times in which it is connected with punishment it must have a similar meaning. For who administers this punishment? Not a monster, not an infinite devil, but a God of love and mercy, and the same common sense that would forbid us to give the word the meaning of endless duration, were that its literal meaning, when we see it applied to what we know has ended, would forbid us to give it that meaning when applied to the dealings of an Infinite Father with an erring and beloved child. But when we interpret it in the light of its lexicography, and general usage out of the Old Testament, and perceive that it only has the sense of endless when the subject compels it [emphasized by editor], as when referring to God, we see that it is a species of blasphemy to allow that it denotes endless duration when describing God's punishments.

APPLIED TO PUNISHMENT.

A few prominent instances illustrate the usage of the word connected with punishment. Ps. ix:5, "Thou hast destroyed the wicked." How? The explanation follows: "Thou hast put out their name forever and ever," (ton aiona, kai eis ton aióna tou aionos.) His is not endless torment, but oblivion. Solomon elsewhere observes: Prov. x:7, "The name of the wicked shall rot," while David says, Ps. cxii:6, "The righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance." Ps. lxxviii:66, "He put them (his enemies) to a perpetual reproach." Is. xxxiii:14, "Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?" The prophet is here speaking of God's temporal judgments, represented by fire. "The earth mourneth; Lebanon is ashamed; the people shall be as the burnings of lime." Who will dwell in safety amid these fiery judgments? These aionian burnings? "He that walks uprightly." Earthly judgements among which the upright are to dwell in safety are here described, and not endless fire hereafter. Jer. xvii:4, "Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger which shall burn forever." Where was this to be? The preceding verse informs us. "I will cause thee to serve thine enemies in a land which thou knowest not." Jer. xxiii:40, "I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you; and a perpetual shame which shall not be forgotten." The connection fully explains this verse 39, "I will utterly forget you, and I will forsake you, and the city that I gave you and your fathers. See Jer. xx:11. Mal. i:4, "The people against whom the Lord hath indignation forever." This is an announcement of God's judgements on Edom" "They shall build but I will throw down" and they shall call them the border of wickedness, and the people against whom the Lord hath indignation forever."

EVERLASTING SHAME AND CONTEMPT.

Dan. xii:2, "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." When was this to take place? "At that time." What time? Verse 31, chap. xi, speaks of the coming of the "abomination that maketh desolate." Jesus says, Matt. xxiv:15,16, Luke xxi:20,21, "When ye therefore (the disciples) shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet stand in the holy place, then let them which be in Judea flee to the mountains. And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto." Daniel says this was to be (xii:7) "When he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people." Jesus says, "For then shall be great tribulations, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time; no, nor ever shall be." And when that was Jesus tells us: "this generation shall not pass away, till all these things be fulfilled." The events discussed in Daniel are the same as those in Matt. xxiv, and came in this world in the generation that crucified Jesus.

DUST OF THE EARTH. The phrase sleeping in the dust of the earth, is of course employed figuratively, to indicate sloth, spiritual lethargy, as in Ps. xliv:25; Isa. xxv:12; xxvi:5; I Tim. v:6; Rev. iii:1, "For our soul is bowed down to the dust." "And the fortress of the high fort of thy walls shall he bring down, lay low, and bring to the ground, even to the dust." "For he bringeth down them that dwell on high; the lofty city, he layeth it low; he layeth it low, even to the ground; he bringeth it even to the dust." "But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth." "I know thy works; that thou hast a name, and that thou livest and art dead."

It was a prophecy of the moral awakening that came at the time of the advent of Jesus, and was then fulfilled. When we come to Matt. xxiv and xxv we shall see the exact nature of this judgment. Walter Balfour describes it,(47) "They," (those who obeyed the call of Jesus) "heard the voice of the Son of God, and lived." See John v:21,25,28,29, Eph. v:14. The rest kept on till the wrath of God came on them to the uttermost. They all, at last, awoke; but it was to shame and everlasting contempt, in being dispersed among all nations, and they have become a by-word and an hissing even unto this day. Jeremiah in chapter xxiii:39,40, predicted this very punishment and calls it an "everlasting reproach and a perpetual shame."

These few passages, not one of which conveys a hint of endless punishment, are all that connect our word denoting duration with punishment in the Old Testament.

Out of more than five hundred occurrences of our disputed word in the Old Testament, more than four hundred denote limited duration, so that the great preponderance of Old Testament usage fully agrees with the Greek classics. The remaining instances follow the rule given by the best lexicographers, that it only means endless when it derives its meaning or endlessness from the nature of the subject with which it is connected.

Dr. Beecher(48) remarks that the sense of endless given to the aionian phraseology "fills the Old Testament with contradictions, for it would make it declare the absolute eternity of systems which it often and emphatically declares to be temporary. Nor can it be said thataiónios denotes lasting as long as the nature of things permits. The Mosaic ordinances might have lasted at least to the end of the world, but did not. Moreover, on this principle the exceptions to the true sense of the word exceed its proper use; for in the majority of cases in the Old Testament aiónios is applied to that which is limited and temporary."

Now if endless punishment awaits millions of the human race, and if it is denoted by this word, is it possible that only David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Malachi use the word to define punishment, in all less than a dozen times, while Job, Moses, Joshua, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Solomon, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habbakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, and Zachariah never employ it thus? Such silence is criminal, on the popular hypothesis. These holy men should and would have made every sentence bristle with the word, and thus have borne the awful message to the soul with an emphasis that could be neither resisted nor disputed. The fact that the word is so seldom, and by so few applied to punishment, and never in the Old Testament to punishment beyond death, demonstrates that it cannot mean endless.

TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS.

The best critics concede that the doctrine of endless punishment is not taught in the Old Testament. But the word in dispute is found in connection with punishment in the Old Testament. This is a concession that the word has no such meaning in the Old Testament. Milman: "The lawgiver (Moses) maintains a profound silence on that fundamental article, if not of political, at least of religious legislation -- rewards and punishments in another life." Paley, Jahn, Whately are to the same purport, and H. W. Beecher says, "If we had only the Old Testament we could not tell if there were any future punishment."(49)

We should then conclude that the word means one thing in the Old Testament and another in the New, did we not find that the same meaning continues in the New that we have found to prevail uniformly in the Old Testament, and in antecedent and contemporaneous Greek literature.

THREE QUESTIONS

Here press the mind with irresistible force, and they can only receive one answer. 1st, Had God intended endless punishment, would the Old Testament have failed to reveal it? 2d, If God does not announce it in the Old Testament, is it supposable that he has revealed it elsewhere: 3d, Would he for thousands of years conceal so awful a destiny from millions whom he had created and exposed to it? No child of God ought to be willing to impeach his Heavenly Father by withholding an indignant negative to these questions.

3. -- JEWISH GREEK USAGE.

Those Jews who were contemporary with Christ, but who wrote in Greek, will teach us how they understood the word. Of course when Jesus used it, he employed it as they understood it.

Josephus(50) applies the word to the imprisonment to which John the tyrant was condemned by the Romans; to the reputation of Herod; to the everlasting memorial erected in re-building the temple, already destroyed, when he wrote; to the everlasting worship in the temple which, in the same sentence he says was destroyed; and he styles the time between the promulgation of the law and his writing a longaión. To accuse him of attaching any other meaning than that of indefinite duration to the word, is to accuse him of stultifying himself. But when he writes to describe endless duration he employs other, and less equivocal terms. Alluding to the Pharisees, he says:

"They believe that the wicked are detained in an everlasting prison [eirgmon aidion] subject to eternal punishment" [aidios timoria]; and the Essenes [another Jewish sect] "allotted to bad souls a dark, tempestuous place, full of never-ceasing punishment [timoria adialeipton], where they suffer a deathless punishment, [athanaton timorian]."

It is true he sometimes applies aiónion to punishment, but this is not his usual custom, and he seems to have done this as one might use the word great to denote eternal duration, that is an indefinite term to describe infinity. But aidion and athanaton are his favorite terms. These are unequivocal. Were only aiónion used to define the Jewish idea of the duration of future punishment, we should have no proof that it was supposed to be endless. Philo, who was contemporary with Christ, generally usedaidion to denote endless, and always used aiónion to describe temporary duration. Dr. Mangey, in his edition of Philo, says he never usedaiónion to interminable duration. He uses the exact phraseology of Matthew, xxv:46, precisely as Christ used it. "It is better not to promise than not to give prompt assistance, for no blame follows in the former case, but in the latter there is dissatisfaction from the weaker class, and a deep hatred and everlasting punishment [kolasis aiónios] from such as are more powerful." Here we have the exact terms employed by out Lord, to show that aiónion did not mean endless but did mean limited duration in the time of Christ.

Philo always uses athanaton, ateleuteton or aidion to denote endless, and aiónion for temporary duration.

Stephens, in his Thesaurus, quotes from a Jewish work, [Solom. Parab.] "These they called aiónios, hearing that they had performed the sacred rites for three entire generations." This shows conclusively that the expression "three generations" was then one full equivalent of aiónion. Now these eminent scholars were Jews who wrote in Greek, and who certainly knew the meaning of the words they employed, and they give to the aionian words the meaning that we are contending for, indefinite duration, to be determined by the subject.

Thus the Jews of our Savior's time avoided using the word aiónion to denote endless duration, for applied all through the Bible to temporary affairs, it would not teach it. If Jesus intended to teach the doctrine held by the jews, would he not have used the terms they used? Assuredly; but he did not. He threatened age-lasting, or long-enduring discipline to the believers in endless punishment.Aiónion was his word while theirs was aidion,adialeipton, or athanaton, -- thus rejecting their doctrines by not only not employing their phraseology, but by using always and only those words connected with punishment, that denote limited suffering.

And, still further to show that he had no sympathy with those cruel men who procured his death, Jesus said to his disciples: "Take heed and beware of the leaven [doctrine] of the Pharisees and the Sadducees" [believers in endless misery and believers in destruction].

Had aiónion been the strongest word, especially had it denoted endless duration, who does not see that it would have been in general use as applied to punishment, by the Jewish Greeks of nineteen centuries ago?

We thus have an unbroken chain of Lexicography, and Classic, Old Testament, and Contemporaneous Usage, all allowing to the word the meaning we claim for it. Indefinite duration is the meaning generally given from the beginning down to the New Testament.

4.-- THE NEW TESTAMENT USAGE.

AION THE SAME IN BOTH TESTAMENTS.

Speaking to those who understood the Old Testament, Jesus and his Apostles employed such words as are used in that book, in the same sense in which they are there used. Not to do so would be to mislead their hearers unless they explained a change of meaning. There is certainly no proof that the word changed its meaning between the Old and New Testaments, accordingly we are under obligation to give it precisely the meaning in the New it had in the Old Testament. This we have seen to be indefinite duration. An examination of the New Testament will show that the meaning is the same, as it should be, in both Testaments.

NUMBER OF TIMES FOUND AND HOW TRANSLATED.

The different forms of the word occur in the New Testament one hundred and ninety-nine times, if I am not mistaken, the noun one hundred and twenty-eight, and the adjective seventy-one times. Bruder's Concordance, latest edition, gives aión one hundred and twenty-six times, and aiónios seventy-two times in the New Testament, instead of the former ninety-four, and the latter sixty-six times, as Professor Stuart, following Knapp's Greek text, declares.

In our common translation the noun is rendered seventy-two times ever, twice eternal, thirty-six times world, seven times never, three times evermore, twice worlds, twice ages, once course, once world without end, and twice it is passed over without any word affixed as a translation of it. The adjective is rendered once ever, forty-two times eternal, three times world, twenty-five times everlasting, and once former ages.

1 -- THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST.

Ten times it is applied to the Kingdom of Christ. Luke i:33, "And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." See also i:55; Heb. vi:20; vii:17,21; I Pet. iv:11; II Pet. i:11; iii:18; Rev. i:6; xi:15. But the Kingdom of Christ is to end, and he is to surrender all dominion to the Father, therefore endless duration is not taught in these passages. See I Cor. xv.

2 -- THE JEWISH AGE.

It is applied to the Jewish age more than thirty times: 1 Cor. x:11, "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." Consult also Matt. xii:32; xiii:22,39,40,49; xxiv:3; xxviii:20; Mark iv:19; Luke i:70; xvi:8; xx:34; John ix:32; Acts iii:21; xv:18; Rom. xii:2; I Cor. ii:6,7,8; iii:18; II Cor. iv:4; Gal. i:4; Eph. i:21; ii:2; iii:9; 1 Tim. vi:17; II Tim. iv:10; Titus ii:12; Heb. ix:26. But the Jewish age ended with the setting up of the Kingdom of Christ. Therefore the world does not denote endless duration here.

3 -- THE PLURAL FORM. It is used in the plural in Eph. iii:21; "the age of the ages." tou aionos ton aionon. Heb. i:2; xi:3, "By whom he made the worlds." "The worlds were framed by the word of God." There can be but one eternity. To say "By whom he made the eternities" would be to talk nonsense. Endless duration is not inculcated in these texts.

4 -- THE SENSE OF FINITE DURATION.

The word clearly teaches finite duration in such passages as Rom. xvi:25; II Cor. iv:17; II Tim. i:9; Philemon 15; Titus i:2. Read Rom. xvi:25: "Since the world (eternity?) began." II Cor. Iv:17: "A far more exceeding eternal weight of glory." Here "and" is a word supplied by the translators, and the literal is "an excessively exceeding aionian weight." But endless cannot be exceeded. Therefore aiónion does not here mean eternal.

5 --EQUIVALENT TO NOT. The word is used as equivalent to not in Matt. xxi:19; Mark xi:14; John xiii:8; I Cor. viii:13. "Peter said unto him 'thou shalt never wash my feet'," is a specimen of this use of the word. It only denotes eternal by accommodation.

6 --APPLIED TO GOD, ETC.

It is applied to God, Christ, the Gospel, the good, the Resurrection world, etc., in which the sense of endless is allowable because imputed to the word by the subject treated, as declared by Taylor and Fuerst, on page 17 of this book, in Rom. i:25; ix:5; xi:36; xvi:27; Gal. i:5; Phil. iv:20; I Tim. i:17; II Tim. iv:18; I John ii:17; I Peter v:11; Rev. vii:12, xv:7; Rom. xvi:26; II Cor. iv:18, v:1; II Tim. ii:10; Heb. vi:2, ix:12,14,15, xiii:20; I Pet. v:10; Rev. iv:10; John viii:35, xii:34, xiv:16; II Cor. ix:9, xi:31; Gal. i:5; Eph. iii:11; II Tim. iv:18; Heb. vii:24,28, xiii:8,21; I Pet. i:25; II Pet. iii:18; II John 2; Jude 25; Rev. i:18, iv:9,10, v:13, x:6, xxii:5.

7.--LIFE ETERNAL. It is applied to life, "Everlasting and Eternal Life." But this phrase does not so much denote the duration, as the quality of the Blessed Life. It seems to have the sense of durable in these passages: Matt. xix:16,29, xxv:46; Mark x:17,30; Luke x:25, xvi:9, xviii:18,30; John iii:15,16,36, iv:14,36, v:24,39, vi:27,40,47,54,68, x:28, xii:25,50, xvii:2,3; Rom. ii:7, v:21, vi:22,23, Gal. vi:8; II Thess. ii:16; I Tim. i:16, vi:12; Titus i:2, iii:7; Heb. v:9; I John i:2, ii:25, iii:15, v:11,13,20; Jude 21; Mark x:30; Luke xviii:30; John iv:14, vi:51,58, viii:51,52, x:28, xi:26. See this subject treated further on.

PASSAGES DENOTING LIMITED DURATION.

Let us state more definitely several passages in which all will agree that the word cannot have the sense of endless.

Matt. xxii:22, "The care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word," the cares of that age or "time." Verses 39, 40, 49, "The harvest is the end of the world," i.e.age, Jewish age, the same taught in Matt. xxiv, which some who heard Jesus speak were to live to see, and did see. Luke i:33, "And he (Jesus) shall reign over the house of Jacobfor ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end." The meaning is, he shall reign to the ages (eis tous aionas). That long, indefinite duration is meant here, but limited, is evident from I Cor. xv:28, "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." His reign is for ever, i.e., to the ages, but it is to cease. Luke i:55, "As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever, (to an age, aiónos.) Luke i:70. "As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began," or "from an age," (ap aiónos). "Of old," would be the plain construction. Luke xvi:8, "For the children of thisworldare in their generation wiser than the children of light." That is, the people of that time were more prudent in the management of their affairs than were the Christians of that day in their plans. John ix:32, "Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind." From the age, (ek tou aiónos) that is from the beginning of our knowledge and history. Romans xvi:25, "Since the world began," clearly shows a duration less than eternity, inasmuch as the mystery that had been secret since the world began, was then revealed. The mystery wasaiónion but did not last eternally. It was "now made manifest" "to all nations." Phil. iv:20. "Now unto God and our Father be glory for ever and ever," for the ages of the ages (eis tous aiónas ton aiónon). (Gal. i:5 same.) "For the eternities of the eternities," is an absurd expression. But ages of ages is a proper sentence. Eternity may be meant here, but if the word aión expressed the idea, such a reduplication would be weak and improper. I Tim. vi:17, "Charge them that are rich in thisworld." (age or time). I Tim. i:17. "Now to the King eternal (of the ages) be glory for theages of the ages." What is this but an asscription of the ages to the God of the ages? Eternity can only be meant here as ages piled on ages imply long, and possibly endless duration. "All the ages are God's; him let the ages glorify," is the full import of the words. Translate the words eternity, and what nonsense. "Now to the God of the eternities (!) Be glory for the eternities of the eternities (!!) Heb. i:8, "The age of the age." Eph. ii:7, "That in the ages (aións) to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace." Here at least two aións, eternities are to come. Certainly one of them must end before the other begins. Eph. iii:21, "The generations of the age of the ages." IITim. iv:18, "The age of the ages." The same form of expression is in Heb. xiii:21; I Pet. iv:11; Rev. i:6, iv:9, v:13, vii:12, xiv:11, xv:7, xx:10. When we read that the smoke of their torment ascends eis aiónas aiónon, for ages of ages, we get the idea of long, indefinite, but limited duration, for as an age is limited, any number however great, must be limited. The moment we say the smoke of their torment goes up for eternities of eternities, we transform the sacred rhetoric in jargon. There is but one eternity, therefore as we read of more than one aión, it follows that aióncannot mean eternity. Again, I Cor. x:11, "Our admonition, on whom theENDS of the aións(ages, ta tele ton aiónon) have come." That is, the close of the Mosaic and the beginning of the gospel age. How absurd to "ends of the eternities!" Here the apostle had passed more than one, and entered, consequently, upon at least a third aión. Heb. ix:26, "Now at an end of the ages." Matt. xviii:39, 40, xxiv:4, "The conclusion of the age." Eternity has no end. And to say ends of eternities is to talk nonsense. II Tim. ii:9, "Before the world began,"i.e., before the aiónion times began. There was no beginning to eternity, therefore the adjective aiónion here has no such meaning as eternal. The fact that aión is said to end and begin, is a demonstration that it does not mean eternity.

ABSURDITY OF POPULAR VIEWS.

Translate the word eternity, and how absurd the Bible phraseology becomes! It represent the Bible as saying, "To whom be the glory during the ETERNITIES, even TO THE ETERNITIES." Gal. i:5. "Now all these things happened unto them, for ensamples, and they are written for our admonition upon whom the endsOF THE ETERNITIES are come." I Cor. x:11. "That in theETERNITIES coming he might show the exceeding riches of his grace." Eph. ii.7. "The mystery which hath been hid from theETERNITIESand from the generations." Col. i:26. "But now once in the end of the eternities, hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. ix:26. "The harvest is the end of the eternity." Matt. xiii:39. "So shall it be in the end of this eternity." Matt. xiii:40. "Tell us when shall these things be, and what the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the eternity." Matt. xxiv:4. But substitute "age" or "ages," and the sense of the Record is preserved.

IT ACQUIRES VARIOUS MEANINGS.

This is seen in many passages. Luke xx: 34, 35. "The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage; but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, ** are equal unto the angels," etc. Here "that world" (tou aiónos ekeinou) denotes the eternal world, not because the word aión intrinsically means that, but because the resurrection state is the topic of discourse. The words literally mean that age or epoch, but in this instance the immortal world is the subject that defines the word and gives it a unique meaning. So when the word refers to God, it denotes a different duration than when it applies to the Jewish dispensation. That in some of the places referred to the mooted word has the sense of endless, we do not question, but in all such cases it derives that meaning from the subject connected with it.(51)

Let us indicate its varied use. Matt. vi:13 is probably spurious:(52) "Thine is the gloryforever," that is through the ages. Here eternity may be implied, but the phrase "forever" literally means "for the ages." Mark iv:19, same as Matt. i:22. Mark x:30. "But he shall receive a hundred fold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in theworld to come eternal life." Literally, in the age to come the life of that age," i.e., gospel, spiritual, Christian life. We have shown that the world to come denotes the Christian dispensation.-Mark xi:;14. "No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever," that is "in the age," meaning the period of the tree's existence.-John xii:34. "The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abidethfor ever;" (to the age). The Jews believed that their dispensation was to continue, and Messiah would remain as long as it would last. This language means that Christ was to remain through the Mosaic epoch. So the Jews thought.-John xiii:8. "Thou shalt never wash my feet" is equivalent to "Thou shalt not wash my feet."-John xiv:16. "And I will pray the Father and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever,"eis ton aióna, "unto the age," that is, accompany them into the coming or Christian era.-John vi:51. 58, "If any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever;" eis ton aióna, into the age, that is, enjoy the life of the world that is to come, the Christian life. Its duration is not described here at all.-John viii:35. "And the servant abideth not in the house for ever; (to the age,) but the Son abideth ever."- The Jews are here told that their religion is to be superseded by the Christ only. They are to leave the house because slaves to sin, while the Son will remain to the age-permanently.-John viii:51, 52. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying he shall never see death. Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying he shall never taste of death." Moral, spiritual death is impossible to a man as long as he keeps the saying of Christ, is the full meaning of the words.

OCCURRENCE OF THE ADJECTIVE.

The adjective aiónios is (incorrectly) said by Professor Stuart to(53) occur sixty-six times in the New Testament, be we make it seventy-two times. Of these fifty-seven are used in relation to the happiness of the righteous; three in relation to God or his glory; four are of a miscellaneous nature; and seven relate to the subject of punishment. Now these fifty-seven denote indefinite duration, "everlasting life" being a life that may or may not -- certainly does not always -- endure forever.

Thus the great preponderance of usage in the New Testament is indefinite duration. But if the preponderance were against this usage, we ought, in order to vindicate God's character, to understand it in the sense of limited when describing a Father's punishment of his children.

APPLIED TO PUNISHMENT.

How many times does the word in all its forms describe punishment? Only fourteen times in thirteen passages in the entire New Testament, and these were uttered on ten occasions only. The Noun, Matt. xii:32, Mark iii:29, 2 Pet. ii:17, Jude 13, Rev. xiv:11, xix:3, xx:10. The Adjective, Matt. xviii:8, xxv:41, 46, Mark iii:29, 2 Thess. i:9, Jude 7, Heb. vi:2.

Now if God's punishments are limited, we can understand how this word should be used only fourteen times to define them. But if they are endless how can we explain the employment of this equivocal word only fourteen times in the entire New Testament? A doctrine that, if true, ought to crowd every sentence, frown in every line, only stated fourteen times, and that, too, by a word whose uniform meaning everywhere else is limited duration! The idea is preposterous. Such reticence is incredible. If the word denotes limited duration, the punishments threatened in the New Testament are like those that experience teaches follow transgression. But if it means endless, how can we account for the fact that neither Luke nor John records one instance of its use by the Savior, and Matthew but four, and Mark but two, and Paul employs it but twice in his ministry, while John and James in their epistles never allude to it? Such silence is an unanswerable refutation of all attempts to foist the meaning of endless into the word. "Everlasting fire" occurs only three times, "everlasting punishment" only once, and "eternal damnation" once only. Shall any one dare suppose that the New Testament reveals endless torment, and that out of one hundred and ninety-nine occurrences of the word aion it is applied to punishment so seldom, and that so many of those who wrote the New Testament never use the word at all? No. The New Testament usage agrees with the meaning in the Greek classics, and in the Old Testament. Does it not strike the candid mind as impossible that God should have concealed this doctrine for thousands of years, and that for forty centuries of revelation he continually employed to teach limited duration the identical word that he at length stretched into the signification of endless duration? The word means limited duration all through the Old Testament; it never had the meaning of endless duration among those who spoke the language, (as we have demonstrated,) but Jesus announced the doctrine of endless punishment, and selected as the Greek word to convey his meaning the very word that in the Classics and the Septuagint never contained any such thought, when there were several words in the copious Greek tongue that unequivocally conveyed the idea of interminable duration! Even if Matthew wrote in Hebrew or in Syro-Chaldaic, he gave a Greek version of his gospel, and in that rejected every word that carries the meaning of endlessness, and appropriated the one which taught nothing of the kind. If this were the blunder of an incompetent translator, or the imperfect record of a reckless scribe, we could understand it, but to say that the inspired pen of the evangelist has deliberately or carelessly jeoparded the immortal welfare of countless millions by employing a word to teach the doctrine of ceaseless woe that up to that very hour taught only limited duration, is to make a declaration that carries its own refutation.

(Taken from here: http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html#N_46_ )
[Staff edit for copyright reasons].

 

[Oldmantook]

I have to disagree. As you saw in the earlier posts here, the argument against the meaning of verse after verse that speaks of eternal darkness, or everlasting punishment or something similar to that boils down to saying that it doesn't mean what it means. And there are a lot of verses on that side. But while I admit that there is something on the other side, it's only about half a dozen verses and each one of them MIGHT be interpreted as indicating Universal Salvation...or not. At best, they hint at it and can be taken several different ways. That's why I think the argument is weak.



All we have to do is dismiss almost all of the Bible from our consideration and go with this reasoning. I can't justify doing that.

I haven't read much of the posts as the discussion gets quite involved and lengthy; and unfortunately often departs from being amicable which I don't think is fitting for the brethren to engage in. Simply said we can always agree to disagree, thus I appreciate the cordial tone of your discussion. I have limited time to discuss these matters in depth but if you desire to engage in a limited debate I'm open to such.

 

[Albion]

I haven't read much of the posts as the discussion gets quite involved and lengthy; and unfortunately often departs from being amicable which I don't think is fitting for the brethren to engage in.

I understand.

Simply said we can always agree to disagree, thus I appreciate the cordial tone of your discussion. I have limited time to discuss these matters in depth but if you desire to engage in a limited debate I'm open to such.

Well, I summarized my reasons for siding with the traditional view of the matter, so I am left to entertain any counter argument that might be forthcoming. That's not so say that you have to provide one simply because you commented to the extent that you did. This is just where I think the matter rests now, as far as I'm involved.

 

[Der Alte]

Not really, because the point is how we're translating the word "aion", and if that translation is proper (it doesn't seem at all likely to be); so you showing people translating the word as "forever" is just circular reasoning and begging the question. The point also being why I'm evaluating the translation of the words in question. So that the reader is not just blindly trusting in some man's translation which may be in error, which translational error may be causing people to unintentionally blaspheme God in one of the darkest manners possible.

Quoting from accredited language resources is not circular reasoning or begging the question. Next specious objection?
So we should blindly trust your translation although you have not demonstrated any expertise in Koine Greek? Blasphemy cannot be committed unintentionally. I suggest you look up the meaning of "blasphemy." Nothing I have said even comes close to blasphemy. Next specious objection?

 

[Der Alte]

Prof. Tayler Lewis says, "'One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh; but the earth abideth forever.' This certainly indicates, not an endless eternity in the strictest sense of the word, but only a future of unlimited length. Ex. xxxi:16; 'Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for aperpetual covenant.' Olam here would seem to be taken as a hyperbolical term for indefinite or unmeasured duration." Where the context demands it, as "I live forever," spoken of God, he says it means endless duration, for "it is the subject to which it is applied that forces to this, andNOTany etymological necessity in the word itself." He adds that Olam and Aion, in the plural, ages, and ages of ages, demonstrate that neither of the words, of itself, denotes eternity. He admits that they are used to give an idea of eternity, but that applied to God and his kingdom, the ages are finite(46). Prof. L. is eminently learned and as eminently orthodox.
THE END OF AIONIAN THINGS.
Now the Jews have lost their eternal excellency; Aaron and his sons have ceased from their priesthood; the Mosaic system is superseded by Christianity; the Jews no longer possess Canaan; David and his house have lost the throne of Israel; the Jewish temple is destroyed, and Jerusalem is wiped out as the holy city; the servants who were to be bondmen forever are all free from their masters; Gehazi is cured of his leprosy; the stones are removed from Jordan, and the smoke of Idumea no longer rises; the righteous do not posses the land promised them forever; some of the hills and mountains have fallen, and the tooth of Time will one day gnaw the last of them into dust; the fire has expired from the Jewish altar; Jonah has escaped from his imprisonment; all these and numerous other eternal, everlasting things -- things that were to last forever, and to which the various aionian words are applied -- have now ended, and if these hundreds of instances must denote limited duration why should the few times in which punishments are spoken of have any other meaning? Even if endless duration were the intrinsic meaning of the word, all intelligent readers of the Bible would perceive that the word must be employed to denote limited duration in the passages above cited. And surely in the very few times in which it is connected with punishment it must have a similar meaning. For who administers this punishment? Not a monster, not an infinite devil, but a God of love and mercy, and the same common sense that would forbid us to give the word the meaning of endless duration, were that its literal meaning, when we see it applied to what we know has ended, would forbid us to give it that meaning when applied to the dealings of an Infinite Father with an erring and beloved child. But when we interpret it in the light of its lexicography, and general usage out of the Old Testament, and perceive that it only has the sense of endless when the subject compels it [emphasized by editor], as when referring to God, we see that it is a species of blasphemy to allow that it denotes endless duration when describing God's punishments.
APPLIED TO PUNISHMENT.
A few prominent instances illustrate the usage of the word connected with punishment. Ps. ix:5, "Thou hast destroyed the wicked." How? The explanation follows: "Thou hast put out their name forever and ever," (ton aiona, kai eis ton aióna tou aionos.) His is not endless torment, but oblivion. Solomon elsewhere observes: Prov. x:7, "The name of the wicked shall rot," while David says, Ps. cxii:6, "The righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance." Ps. lxxviii:66, "He put them (his enemies) to a perpetual reproach." Is. xxxiii:14, "Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?" The prophet is here speaking of God's temporal judgments, represented by fire. "The earth mourneth; Lebanon is ashamed; the people shall be as the burnings of lime." Who will dwell in safety amid these fiery judgments? These aionian burnings? "He that walks uprightly." Earthly judgements among which the upright are to dwell in safety are here described, and not endless fire hereafter. Jer. xvii:4, "Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger which shall burn forever." Where was this to be? The preceding verse informs us. "I will cause thee to serve thine enemies in a land which thou knowest not." Jer. xxiii:40, "I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you; and a perpetual shame which shall not be forgotten." The connection fully explains this verse 39, "I will utterly forget you, and I will forsake you, and the city that I gave you and your fathers. See Jer. xx:11. Mal. i:4, "The people against whom the Lord hath indignation forever." This is an announcement of God's judgements on Edom" "They shall build but I will throw down" and they shall call them the border of wickedness, and the people against whom the Lord hath indignation forever."
EVERLASTING SHAME AND CONTEMPT.
Dan. xii:2, "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." When was this to take place? "At that time." What time? Verse 31, chap. xi, speaks of the coming of the "abomination that maketh desolate." Jesus says, Matt. xxiv:15,16, Luke xxi:20,21, "When ye therefore (the disciples) shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet stand in the holy place, then let them which be in Judea flee to the mountains. And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto." Daniel says this was to be (xii:7) "When he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people." Jesus says, "For then shall be great tribulations, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time; no, nor ever shall be." And when that was Jesus tells us: "this generation shall not pass away, till all these things be fulfilled." The events discussed in Daniel are the same as those in Matt. xxiv, and came in this world in the generation that crucified Jesus.
DUST OF THE EARTH. The phrase sleeping in the dust of the earth, is of course employed figuratively, to indicate sloth, spiritual lethargy, as in Ps. xliv:25; Isa. xxv:12; xxvi:5; I Tim. v:6; Rev. iii:1, "For our soul is bowed down to the dust." "And the fortress of the high fort of thy walls shall he bring down, lay low, and bring to the ground, even to the dust." "For he bringeth down them that dwell on high; the lofty city, he layeth it low; he layeth it low, even to the ground; he bringeth it even to the dust." "But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth." "I know thy works; that thou hast a name, and that thou livest and art dead."
It was a prophecy of the moral awakening that came at the time of the advent of Jesus, and was then fulfilled. When we come to Matt. xxiv and xxv we shall see the exact nature of this judgment. Walter Balfour describes it,(47) "They," (those who obeyed the call of Jesus) "heard the voice of the Son of God, and lived." See John v:21,25,28,29, Eph. v:14. The rest kept on till the wrath of God came on them to the uttermost. They all, at last, awoke; but it was to shame and everlasting contempt, in being dispersed among all nations, and they have become a by-word and an hissing even unto this day. Jeremiah in chapter xxiii:39,40, predicted this very punishment and calls it an "everlasting reproach and a perpetual shame."
These few passages, not one of which conveys a hint of endless punishment, are all that connect our word denoting duration with punishment in the Old Testament.
Out of more than five hundred occurrences of our disputed word in the Old Testament, more than four hundred denote limited duration, so that the great preponderance of Old Testament usage fully agrees with the Greek classics. The remaining instances follow the rule given by the best lexicographers, that it only means endless when it derives its meaning or endlessness from the nature of the subject with which it is connected.
Dr. Beecher(48) remarks that the sense of endless given to the aionian phraseology "fills the Old Testament with contradictions, for it would make it declare the absolute eternity of systems which it often and emphatically declares to be temporary. Nor can it be said thataiónios denotes lasting as long as the nature of things permits. The Mosaic ordinances might have lasted at least to the end of the world, but did not. Moreover, on this principle the exceptions to the true sense of the word exceed its proper use; for in the majority of cases in the Old Testament aiónios is applied to that which is limited and temporary."
Now if endless punishment awaits millions of the human race, and if it is denoted by this word, is it possible that only David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Malachi use the word to define punishment, in all less than a dozen times, while Job, Moses, Joshua, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Solomon, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habbakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, and Zachariah never employ it thus? Such silence is criminal, on the popular hypothesis. These holy men should and would have made every sentence bristle with the word, and thus have borne the awful message to the soul with an emphasis that could be neither resisted nor disputed. The fact that the word is so seldom, and by so few applied to punishment, and never in the Old Testament to punishment beyond death, demonstrates that it cannot mean endless.
TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS.
The best critics concede that the doctrine of endless punishment is not taught in the Old Testament. But the word in dispute is found in connection with punishment in the Old Testament. This is a concession that the word has no such meaning in the Old Testament. Milman: "The lawgiver (Moses) maintains a profound silence on that fundamental article, if not of political, at least of religious legislation -- rewards and punishments in another life." Paley, Jahn, Whately are to the same purport, and H. W. Beecher says, "If we had only the Old Testament we could not tell if there were any future punishment."(49)
We should then conclude that the word means one thing in the Old Testament and another in the New, did we not find that the same meaning continues in the New that we have found to prevail uniformly in the Old Testament, and in antecedent and contemporaneous Greek literature.
THREE QUESTIONS
Here press the mind with irresistible force, and they can only receive one answer. 1st, Had God intended endless punishment, would the Old Testament have failed to reveal it? 2d, If God does not announce it in the Old Testament, is it supposable that he has revealed it elsewhere: 3d, Would he for thousands of years conceal so awful a destiny from millions whom he had created and exposed to it? No child of God ought to be willing to impeach his Heavenly Father by withholding an indignant negative to these questions.
3. -- JEWISH GREEK USAGE.
Those Jews who were contemporary with Christ, but who wrote in Greek, will teach us how they understood the word. Of course when Jesus used it, he employed it as they understood it.
Josephus(50) applies the word to the imprisonment to which John the tyrant was condemned by the Romans; to the reputation of Herod; to the everlasting memorial erected in re-building the temple, already destroyed, when he wrote; to the everlasting worship in the temple which, in the same sentence he says was destroyed; and he styles the time between the promulgation of the law and his writing a longaión. To accuse him of attaching any other meaning than that of indefinite duration to the word, is to accuse him of stultifying himself. But when he writes to describe endless duration he employs other, and less equivocal terms. Alluding to the Pharisees, he says:
"They believe that the wicked are detained in an everlasting prison [eirgmon aidion] subject to eternal punishment" [aidios timoria]; and the Essenes [another Jewish sect] "allotted to bad souls a dark, tempestuous place, full of never-ceasing punishment [timoria adialeipton], where they suffer a deathless punishment, [athanaton timorian]."
It is true he sometimes applies aiónion to punishment, but this is not his usual custom, and he seems to have done this as one might use the word great to denote eternal duration, that is an indefinite term to describe infinity. But aidion and athanaton are his favorite terms. These are unequivocal. Were only aiónion used to define the Jewish idea of the duration of future punishment, we should have no proof that it was supposed to be endless. Philo, who was contemporary with Christ, generally usedaidion to denote endless, and always used aiónion to describe temporary duration. Dr. Mangey, in his edition of Philo, says he never usedaiónion to interminable duration. He uses the exact phraseology of Matthew, xxv:46, precisely as Christ used it. "It is better not to promise than not to give prompt assistance, for no blame follows in the former case, but in the latter there is dissatisfaction from the weaker class, and a deep hatred and everlasting punishment [kolasis aiónios] from such as are more powerful." Here we have the exact terms employed by out Lord, to show that aiónion did not mean endless but did mean limited duration in the time of Christ.
Philo always uses athanaton, ateleuteton or aidion to denote endless, and aiónion for temporary duration.
Stephens, in his Thesaurus, quotes from a Jewish work, [Solom. Parab.] "These they called aiónios, hearing that they had performed the sacred rites for three entire generations." This shows conclusively that the expression "three generations" was then one full equivalent of aiónion. Now these eminent scholars were Jews who wrote in Greek, and who certainly knew the meaning of the words they employed, and they give to the aionian words the meaning that we are contending for, indefinite duration, to be determined by the subject.
Thus the Jews of our Savior's time avoided using the word aiónion to denote endless duration, for applied all through the Bible to temporary affairs, it would not teach it. If Jesus intended to teach the doctrine held by the jews, would he not have used the terms they used? Assuredly; but he did not. He threatened age-lasting, or long-enduring discipline to the believers in endless punishment.Aiónion was his word while theirs was aidion,adialeipton, or athanaton, -- thus rejecting their doctrines by not only not employing their phraseology, but by using always and only those words connected with punishment, that denote limited suffering.
And, still further to show that he had no sympathy with those cruel men who procured his death, Jesus said to his disciples: "Take heed and beware of the leaven [doctrine] of the Pharisees and the Sadducees" [believers in endless misery and believers in destruction].
Had aiónion been the strongest word, especially had it denoted endless duration, who does not see that it would have been in general use as applied to punishment, by the Jewish Greeks of nineteen centuries ago?
We thus have an unbroken chain of Lexicography, and Classic, Old Testament, and Contemporaneous Usage, all allowing to the word the meaning we claim for it. Indefinite duration is the meaning generally given from the beginning down to the New Testament.
4.-- THE NEW TESTAMENT USAGE.
AION THE SAME IN BOTH TESTAMENTS.
Speaking to those who understood the Old Testament, Jesus and his Apostles employed such words as are used in that book, in the same sense in which they are there used. Not to do so would be to mislead their hearers unless they explained a change of meaning. There is certainly no proof that the word changed its meaning between the Old and New Testaments, accordingly we are under obligation to give it precisely the meaning in the New it had in the Old Testament. This we have seen to be indefinite duration. An examination of the New Testament will show that the meaning is the same, as it should be, in both Testaments.
NUMBER OF TIMES FOUND AND HOW TRANSLATED.
The different forms of the word occur in the New Testament one hundred and ninety-nine times, if I am not mistaken, the noun one hundred and twenty-eight, and the adjective seventy-one times. Bruder's Concordance, latest edition, gives aión one hundred and twenty-six times, and aiónios seventy-two times in the New Testament, instead of the former ninety-four, and the latter sixty-six times, as Professor Stuart, following Knapp's Greek text, declares.
In our common translation the noun is rendered seventy-two times ever, twice eternal, thirty-six times world, seven times never, three times evermore, twice worlds, twice ages, once course, once world without end, and twice it is passed over without any word affixed as a translation of it. The adjective is rendered once ever, forty-two times eternal, three times world, twenty-five times everlasting, and once former ages.
1 -- THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST.
Ten times it is applied to the Kingdom of Christ. Luke i:33, "And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." See also i:55; Heb. vi:20; vii:17,21; I Pet. iv:11; II Pet. i:11; iii:18; Rev. i:6; xi:15. But the Kingdom of Christ is to end, and he is to surrender all dominion to the Father, therefore endless duration is not taught in these passages. See I Cor. xv.
2 -- THE JEWISH AGE.
It is applied to the Jewish age more than thirty times: 1 Cor. x:11, "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." Consult also Matt. xii:32; xiii:22,39,40,49; xxiv:3; xxviii:20; Mark iv:19; Luke i:70; xvi:8; xx:34; John ix:32; Acts iii:21; xv:18; Rom. xii:2; I Cor. ii:6,7,8; iii:18; II Cor. iv:4; Gal. i:4; Eph. i:21; ii:2; iii:9; 1 Tim. vi:17; II Tim. iv:10; Titus ii:12; Heb. ix:26. But the Jewish age ended with the setting up of the Kingdom of Christ. Therefore the world does not denote endless duration here.
3 -- THE PLURAL FORM. It is used in the plural in Eph. iii:21; "the age of the ages." tou aionos ton aionon. Heb. i:2; xi:3, "By whom he made the worlds." "The worlds were framed by the word of God." There can be but one eternity. To say "By whom he made the eternities" would be to talk nonsense. Endless duration is not inculcated in these texts.
4 -- THE SENSE OF FINITE DURATION.
The word clearly teaches finite duration in such passages as Rom. xvi:25; II Cor. iv:17; II Tim. i:9; Philemon 15; Titus i:2. Read Rom. xvi:25: "Since the world (eternity?) began." II Cor. Iv:17: "A far more exceeding eternal weight of glory." Here "and" is a word supplied by the translators, and the literal is "an excessively exceeding aionian weight." But endless cannot be exceeded. Therefore aiónion does not here mean eternal.
5 --EQUIVALENT TO NOT. The word is used as equivalent to not in Matt. xxi:19; Mark xi:14; John xiii:8; I Cor. viii:13. "Peter said unto him 'thou shalt never wash my feet'," is a specimen of this use of the word. It only denotes eternal by accommodation.
6 --APPLIED TO GOD, ETC.
It is applied to God, Christ, the Gospel, the good, the Resurrection world, etc., in which the sense of endless is allowable because imputed to the word by the subject treated, as declared by Taylor and Fuerst, on page 17 of this book, in Rom. i:25; ix:5; xi:36; xvi:27; Gal. i:5; Phil. iv:20; I Tim. i:17; II Tim. iv:18; I John ii:17; I Peter v:11; Rev. vii:12, xv:7; Rom. xvi:26; II Cor. iv:18, v:1; II Tim. ii:10; Heb. vi:2, ix:12,14,15, xiii:20; I Pet. v:10; Rev. iv:10; John viii:35, xii:34, xiv:16; II Cor. ix:9, xi:31; Gal. i:5; Eph. iii:11; II Tim. iv:18; Heb. vii:24,28, xiii:8,21; I Pet. i:25; II Pet. iii:18; II John 2; Jude 25; Rev. i:18, iv:9,10, v:13, x:6, xxii:5.
7.--LIFE ETERNAL. It is applied to life, "Everlasting and Eternal Life." But this phrase does not so much denote the duration, as the quality of the Blessed Life. It seems to have the sense of durable in these passages: Matt. xix:16,29, xxv:46; Mark x:17,30; Luke x:25, xvi:9, xviii:18,30; John iii:15,16,36, iv:14,36, v:24,39, vi:27,40,47,54,68, x:28, xii:25,50, xvii:2,3; Rom. ii:7, v:21, vi:22,23, Gal. vi:8; II Thess. ii:16; I Tim. i:16, vi:12; Titus i:2, iii:7; Heb. v:9; I John i:2, ii:25, iii:15, v:11,13,20; Jude 21; Mark x:30; Luke xviii:30; John iv:14, vi:51,58, viii:51,52, x:28, xi:26. See this subject treated further on.
PASSAGES DENOTING LIMITED DURATION.
Let us state more definitely several passages in which all will agree that the word cannot have the sense of endless.
Matt. xxii:22, "The care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word," the cares of that age or "time." Verses 39, 40, 49, "The harvest is the end of the world," i.e.age, Jewish age, the same taught in Matt. xxiv, which some who heard Jesus speak were to live to see, and did see. Luke i:33, "And he (Jesus) shall reign over the house of Jacobfor ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end." The meaning is, he shall reign to the ages (eis tous aionas). That long, indefinite duration is meant here, but limited, is evident from I Cor. xv:28, "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." His reign is for ever, i.e., to the ages, but it is to cease. Luke i:55, "As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever, (to an age, aiónos.) Luke i:70. "As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began," or "from an age," (ap aiónos). "Of old," would be the plain construction. Luke xvi:8, "For the children of thisworldare in their generation wiser than the children of light." That is, the people of that time were more prudent in the management of their affairs than were the Christians of that day in their plans. John ix:32, "Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind." From the age, (ek tou aiónos) that is from the beginning of our knowledge and history. Romans xvi:25, "Since the world began," clearly shows a duration less than eternity, inasmuch as the mystery that had been secret since the world began, was then revealed. The mystery wasaiónion but did not last eternally. It was "now made manifest" "to all nations." Phil. iv:20. "Now unto God and our Father be glory for ever and ever," for the ages of the ages (eis tous aiónas ton aiónon). (Gal. i:5 same.) "For the eternities of the eternities," is an absurd expression. But ages of ages is a proper sentence. Eternity may be meant here, but if the word aión expressed the idea, such a reduplication would be weak and improper. I Tim. vi:17, "Charge them that are rich in thisworld." (age or time). I Tim. i:17. "Now to the King eternal (of the ages) be glory for theages of the ages." What is this but an asscription of the ages to the God of the ages? Eternity can only be meant here as ages piled on ages imply long, and possibly endless duration. "All the ages are God's; him let the ages glorify," is the full import of the words. Translate the words eternity, and what nonsense. "Now to the God of the eternities (!) Be glory for the eternities of the eternities (!!) Heb. i:8, "The age of the age." Eph. ii:7, "That in the ages (aións) to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace." Here at least two aións, eternities are to come. Certainly one of them must end before the other begins. Eph. iii:21, "The generations of the age of the ages." IITim. iv:18, "The age of the ages." The same form of expression is in Heb. xiii:21; I Pet. iv:11; Rev. i:6, iv:9, v:13, vii:12, xiv:11, xv:7, xx:10. When we read that the smoke of their torment ascends eis aiónas aiónon, for ages of ages, we get the idea of long, indefinite, but limited duration, for as an age is limited, any number however great, must be limited. The moment we say the smoke of their torment goes up for eternities of eternities, we transform the sacred rhetoric in jargon. There is but one eternity, therefore as we read of more than one aión, it follows that aióncannot mean eternity. Again, I Cor. x:11, "Our admonition, on whom theENDS of the aións(ages, ta tele ton aiónon) have come." That is, the close of the Mosaic and the beginning of the gospel age. How absurd to "ends of the eternities!" Here the apostle had passed more than one, and entered, consequently, upon at least a third aión. Heb. ix:26, "Now at an end of the ages." Matt. xviii:39, 40, xxiv:4, "The conclusion of the age." Eternity has no end. And to say ends of eternities is to talk nonsense. II Tim. ii:9, "Before the world began,"i.e., before the aiónion times began. There was no beginning to eternity, therefore the adjective aiónion here has no such meaning as eternal. The fact that aión is said to end and begin, is a demonstration that it does not mean eternity.
ABSURDITY OF POPULAR VIEWS.
Translate the word eternity, and how absurd the Bible phraseology becomes! It represent the Bible as saying, "To whom be the glory during the ETERNITIES, even TO THE ETERNITIES." Gal. i:5. "Now all these things happened unto them, for ensamples, and they are written for our admonition upon whom the endsOF THE ETERNITIES are come." I Cor. x:11. "That in theETERNITIES coming he might show the exceeding riches of his grace." Eph. ii.7. "The mystery which hath been hid from theETERNITIESand from the generations." Col. i:26. "But now once in the end of the eternities, hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. ix:26. "The harvest is the end of the eternity." Matt. xiii:39. "So shall it be in the end of this eternity." Matt. xiii:40. "Tell us when shall these things be, and what the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the eternity." Matt. xxiv:4. But substitute "age" or "ages," and the sense of the Record is preserved.
IT ACQUIRES VARIOUS MEANINGS.
This is seen in many passages. Luke xx: 34, 35. "The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage; but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, ** are equal unto the angels," etc. Here "that world" (tou aiónos ekeinou) denotes the eternal world, not because the word aión intrinsically means that, but because the resurrection state is the topic of discourse. The words literally mean that age or epoch, but in this instance the immortal world is the subject that defines the word and gives it a unique meaning. So when the word refers to God, it denotes a different duration than when it applies to the Jewish dispensation. That in some of the places referred to the mooted word has the sense of endless, we do not question, but in all such cases it derives that meaning from the subject connected with it.(51)
Let us indicate its varied use. Matt. vi:13 is probably spurious:(52) "Thine is the gloryforever," that is through the ages. Here eternity may be implied, but the phrase "forever" literally means "for the ages." Mark iv:19, same as Matt. i:22. Mark x:30. "But he shall receive a hundred fold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in theworld to come eternal life." Literally, in the age to come the life of that age," i.e., gospel, spiritual, Christian life. We have shown that the world to come denotes the Christian dispensation.-Mark xi:;14. "No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever," that is "in the age," meaning the period of the tree's existence.-John xii:34. "The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abidethfor ever;" (to the age). The Jews believed that their dispensation was to continue, and Messiah would remain as long as it would last. This language means that Christ was to remain through the Mosaic epoch. So the Jews thought.-John xiii:8. "Thou shalt never wash my feet" is equivalent to "Thou shalt not wash my feet."-John xiv:16. "And I will pray the Father and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever,"eis ton aióna, "unto the age," that is, accompany them into the coming or Christian era.-John vi:51. 58, "If any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever;" eis ton aióna, into the age, that is, enjoy the life of the world that is to come, the Christian life. Its duration is not described here at all.-John viii:35. "And the servant abideth not in the house for ever; (to the age,) but the Son abideth ever."- The Jews are here told that their religion is to be superseded by the Christ only. They are to leave the house because slaves to sin, while the Son will remain to the age-permanently.-John viii:51, 52. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying he shall never see death. Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying he shall never taste of death." Moral, spiritual death is impossible to a man as long as he keeps the saying of Christ, is the full meaning of the words.
OCCURRENCE OF THE ADJECTIVE.
The adjective aiónios is (incorrectly) said by Professor Stuart to(53) occur sixty-six times in the New Testament, be we make it seventy-two times. Of these fifty-seven are used in relation to the happiness of the righteous; three in relation to God or his glory; four are of a miscellaneous nature; and seven relate to the subject of punishment. Now these fifty-seven denote indefinite duration, "everlasting life" being a life that may or may not -- certainly does not always -- endure forever.
Thus the great preponderance of usage in the New Testament is indefinite duration. But if the preponderance were against this usage, we ought, in order to vindicate God's character, to understand it in the sense of limited when describing a Father's punishment of his children.
APPLIED TO PUNISHMENT.
How many times does the word in all its forms describe punishment? Only fourteen times in thirteen passages in the entire New Testament, and these were uttered on ten occasions only. The Noun, Matt. xii:32, Mark iii:29, 2 Pet. ii:17, Jude 13, Rev. xiv:11, xix:3, xx:10. The Adjective, Matt. xviii:8, xxv:41, 46, Mark iii:29, 2 Thess. i:9, Jude 7, Heb. vi:2.
Now if God's punishments are limited, we can understand how this word should be used only fourteen times to define them. But if they are endless how can we explain the employment of this equivocal word only fourteen times in the entire New Testament? A doctrine that, if true, ought to crowd every sentence, frown in every line, only stated fourteen times, and that, too, by a word whose uniform meaning everywhere else is limited duration! The idea is preposterous. Such reticence is incredible. If the word denotes limited duration, the punishments threatened in the New Testament are like those that experience teaches follow transgression. But if it means endless, how can we account for the fact that neither Luke nor John records one instance of its use by the Savior, and Matthew but four, and Mark but two, and Paul employs it but twice in his ministry, while John and James in their epistles never allude to it? Such silence is an unanswerable refutation of all attempts to foist the meaning of endless into the word. "Everlasting fire" occurs only three times, "everlasting punishment" only once, and "eternal damnation" once only. Shall any one dare suppose that the New Testament reveals endless torment, and that out of one hundred and ninety-nine occurrences of the word aion it is applied to punishment so seldom, and that so many of those who wrote the New Testament never use the word at all? No. The New Testament usage agrees with the meaning in the Greek classics, and in the Old Testament. Does it not strike the candid mind as impossible that God should have concealed this doctrine for thousands of years, and that for forty centuries of revelation he continually employed to teach limited duration the identical word that he at length stretched into the signification of endless duration? The word means limited duration all through the Old Testament; it never had the meaning of endless duration among those who spoke the language, (as we have demonstrated,) but Jesus announced the doctrine of endless punishment, and selected as the Greek word to convey his meaning the very word that in the Classics and the Septuagint never contained any such thought, when there were several words in the copious Greek tongue that unequivocally conveyed the idea of interminable duration! Even if Matthew wrote in Hebrew or in Syro-Chaldaic, he gave a Greek version of his gospel, and in that rejected every word that carries the meaning of endlessness, and appropriated the one which taught nothing of the kind. If this were the blunder of an incompetent translator, or the imperfect record of a reckless scribe, we could understand it, but to say that the inspired pen of the evangelist has deliberately or carelessly jeoparded the immortal welfare of countless millions by employing a word to teach the doctrine of ceaseless woe that up to that very hour taught only limited duration, is to make a declaration that carries its own refutation.
We come now to the sheet-anchor of the great heresy of the partialist church,
THE PRINCIPAL PROOF-TEXT
of an error hoary with antiquity, and not yet wholly abandoned. Matt. xxv:46, is the great proof-text of the doctrine of endless punishment: "These shall go away into everlasting punishment, and the righteous into life eternal." We shall endeavor to establish the following points against the erroneous view of this Scripture. 1. The punishment is not for unbelief, but for not benefitting the needy. 2. The general antecedent usage of the word denoting duration here, in the Classics and in the Old Testament, proves that the duration is limited. 3. One object of punishment being to improve the punished, the punishment heremust be limited; 4. The events here described took place in this world, and must therefore be of limited duration. 5. The Greek word kolasin, rendered punishment, should be rendered chastisement, as reformation is implied in its meaning.
1. THE AIONIAN PUNISHMENT IS FOR EVIL WORKS.
Practical benevolence is the virtue whose reward is here announced, and unkindness is the vice whose punishment is here threatened, and not faith and unbelief, on which heaven and hell are popularly predicated. Matt. xxv:34-45. "Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was a hungered, and ye game me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee a hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you,Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was a hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee a hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."
If cruelty to the poor --neglect of them even,--constitutes rejection of Christ --as is plainly taught here --and all who are guilty are to suffer endless torment "who then can be saved?" the single consideration that works, and not faith are here made the test of discipleship, cuts away the foundation of the popular view of this text.
2. THE WORD AIONION DENOTES LIMITED DURATION.
This appears in Classic and Old Testament usage. It is impossible that Jesus should have used the word rendered everlasting in a different sense than we have shown to have been its meaning in antecedent literature.
3. GOD'S PUNISHMENTS ARE REMEDIAL.
All God's punishments are those of a Father, and must therefore be adapted to the improvement of his children. Heb. xii:5, "My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons: for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? Furthermore, we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence. Shall we not much rather be in subjection to the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous; nevertheless, afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby." Prov. iii:11, 12. "My son, despise not the hastening of the Lord; neither be weary of his correction: For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth." Lam. iii:31, 33. "For the Lord will not cast off forever: But though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies. For he doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men." See also Job v, xxv; Lev. xxvi; Psalms cxxix:67, 71, 75; Jer. ii:19.
4. THESE EVENTS HAVE OCCURRED.
The events here described too place in this world within thirty years of the time when Jesus spoke. They are now past. In Matt. xxiv:4, the disciples asked our Lord when the then existing age would end. The word (aión) is unfortunately translated world. Had he meant world he would have employedkosmos, which means world, as aión does not. After describing the particulars he announced that they would all be fulfilled, and the aión end in that generation, before some of his auditors should die. If he was correct the end came then. And this is demonstrated by a careful study of the entire discourse, running through Matthew xxiv and xxv. The disciples asked Jesus how they should know his coming and theend of the age. They did not inquire concerning the end of the actual world, as it is incorrectly translated, but age. This question Jesus answered by describing the signs so that they, his questioners, the disciples themselves, might perceive the approach of the end of the Jewish dispensation (aión). He speaks fifteen times in the discourse of his speedy coming, (Matt. xxiv:3, 27, 30, 37, 39, 42, 46, 48, 50, and xxv:6, 10, 13, 19, 27, 31). He addresses those who shall be alive at his coming. Matt. xxiv:6. "Ye shall hear of wars, etc." 20. "Pray that your flight be not in the winter." 33, 34. "So likewiseye when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
Campbell, Clarke, Wakefield, and Newton(54) translate the phrase, end of the world (sunteleia tou aiónos) "conclusion of the age," "end of this dispensation." The question was, then, what shall indicate thy second coming and the end of the Mosaic economy (aión)? "When shall all these things be fulfilled?" Mark xiii:1, 34. He spoke of the temple (Luke xxi:5, 7,) saying one stone should not be left on another, and the question of his disciples was, how shall we know when this is to take place? The answer is, "Ye shall hear of wars." xxiv:6. "Ye shall see the abomination of desolation." 15. "Pray that your flight be not in winter." 20. The adverbs "Then" and "When" connect all the events related in the two chapters in one unbroken series. And what infallible token did he give that these events would occur "then?" Matt. xxiv:34. "Verily I say unto you this generation shall not pass tillallthese things be fulfilled." What things? The "son of man coming in his glory in the clouds," and the end of the existing aión, or age. Mark phrases it: "This generation shall not pass till all these things be done." See Luke xxi:25, 32. This whole account is a parable describing the end of the Jewish aión, age, or economy, signalized by the destruction of Jerusalem, and the establishment if the new aión, world, or age to come, that is the Christian dispensation. Now on the authority of Jesus himself the aión then existing ended within a generation, namely, about A.D. 70. Hence those who were sent away into aiónionpunishment, or the punishment of that aión, were sent into a condition corresponding in duration to the meaning of the word aión, i.e., age-lasting. A punishment cannot be endless, when defined by an adjective derived from a noun describing an event, the end of which is distinctly stated to have come.
5. THE WORD TRANSLATED PUNISHMENT MEANS IMPROVEMENT.
The word is Kolasin. It is thus authoritavely defined: Greenfield, "Chastisement, punishment." Hedericus, "The trimming of the luzuriant branches of a tree or vine to improve it and make it fruitful."Donnegan, "The act of clipping or pruning --restriction, restraint, reproof, check, chastisement." Grotius, "The kind of punishment which tends to the improvement of the criminal, is what the Greek philosophers called kolasis or chastisement." Liddell, "Pruning, checking, punishment, chastisement, correction." Max Muller, "Do we want to know what was uppermost in the minds of those who formed the word for punishment, the Latin pæna or punio, to punish, the root pu in Sanscrit, which means to cleanse, to purify, tells us that the Latin derivation was originally formed, not to express mere striking or torture, but cleansing, correcting, delivering from the stain of sin." That it had this meaning in Greek usage we cite Plato:(55) "For the natural or accidental evils of others, no one gets angry, or admonishes, or teaches or punishes (kolazei) them, but we pity those afflicted with such misfortunes. ** For if, O Socrates, you will consider what is the design of punishing (kolazein) the wicked, this of itself will show you that men think virtue something that may be acquired; for no one punishes (kolazei) the wicked, looking to the past only, simply for the wrong he has done,--that is, no one does this thing who does not actLIKE A WILD BEAST, desiring only revenge, without thought --hence he who seeks to punish (kolazein) with reason, does not punish for the sake of the past wrong deed, ** but for the sake of the future, that neither the man himself who is punished, may do wrong again, nor any other who has seen him chastised. And he who entertains this thought, must believe that virtue may be taught, and he punishes (kolazei) for the purpose of deterring from wickedness." Like many other words this is not always used in its exact and full sense. The apocrypha employs it as the synonym of suffering, regardless of reformation. See Wis. iii:11, xvi:1; I Mac. vii:7. See also Josephus.(56) It is found but four times in the New Testament. Acts iv:21, the Jews let John and Peter go, "finding nothing further how they might punish them" (kolazo). Did they not aim to reform them? Was not their punishment to cause them to return to the Jewish fold? From their standpoint the word was certainly used to convey the idea of reformation. 1 John iv:18. "Fear hathtorment." Here the word "torment" should be restraint. It is thus translated in the Emphatic Diaglot. The idea is, if we have perfect love we do not fear God, but if we fear we are restrained from loving him. "Fear hath restraint." The word is used here with but one of its meanings. In 2 Peter ii:9, the apostle uses the word as our Lord did: the unjust are reserved unto the day of judgement to be punished (kolazomenous). This accords exactly with the lexicography of the word, and the general usage in the Bible and in Greek literature agrees with the meaning given by the lexicographers. Now, though the word rendered punishment is sometimes used to signify suffering alone, by Josephus and others, surely Divine inspiration will use it in its exact sense. We must therefore be certain that in the New Testament, when used by Jesus to designate divine punishment, it is generally used with its full meaning. The lexicographers and Plato, above, show us what that is, suffering, restraint, followed by correction, improvement.
From this meaning of the word, torment is by no means excluded. God does indeed torment his children when they go astray. He is a "consuming fire," and burns with terrible severity towards us when we sin, but it is not because he hates but because he loves us. He is a refiner's fire tormenting the immortal gold of humanity in the crucible of punishment, until the dross of sin is purged away. Mal. ii:2,3, "But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire and like fuller's soap. And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold or silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness." Therefore kolasis is just the word to describe his punishments. They do for the soul what pruning does for the tree, what the crucible of the refiner does for the silver ore.
Even if aiónion and kolasis were both of doubtful signification, and were we only uncertain as to their meaning we ought to give God the benefit of the doubt and understand the word in a way to honor him, that is, in a limited sense, but when all but universal usage ascribes to aiónion limited duration, and the word kolasin is declared by all authorities to mean pruning, discipline, it is astonishing that a Christian teacher should be found to imaginethat when both words are together, they can mean anything else than temporary punishment ending in reformation, especially in a discourse in which it is expressly declared that the complete fulfillment was in this life, and within a generation of the time when the prediction was uttered.
Therefore, (1) the fulfillment of the language in this life, (2) the meaning of aiónion, (3) and the meaning of kolasis, demonstrate that the penalty threatened in Matt. xxv:46, is a limited one. It is a threefold cord that human skill cannot break. Prof. Tayler Lewis thus translates Matt. xxv:46. "These shall go away into the punishment (the restraint, imprisonment,) of the world to come, and those into the life of the world to come." And he says "that is all that we can etymologically or exegetically make of the word in this passage."
Hence, also, the zoen aiónion (life eternal) is not endless, but is a condition resulting from a good character. The intent of the phrase is not to teach immortal happiness, nor doeskolasin aiónion indicate endless punishment. Both phrases, regardless of duration refer to the limited results wronging or blessing others, extending possibly through Messiah's reign until "the end" (1 Cor. xv.). Both describe consequences of conduct to befall those consequences antedate the immortal state.
A COMMON OBJECTION NOTICED.
"Then eternal life is not endless, for the same Greek adjective qualifies life and punishment." This does not follow, for the word is used in Greek in different senses in the same sentence; as Hab. iii:6. "And the everlasting mountains were scattered --his ways are everlasting." Suppose we apply the popular argument here. The mountains and God must be of equal duration, for the same word is applied to both. Both are temporal or both are endless. But the mountains are expressly stated to be temporal --they "were scattered," --therefore God is not eternal. Or God is eternal and therefore the mountains must be. But they cannot be, for they were scattered. The argument does not hold water. The aiónionmountains are all to be destroyed. Hencethe word may denote both limited and unlimited duration in the same passage, the different meanings to be determined by the subject treated.
But it may be said that this phrase "everlasting" or "eternal life" does not usually denote endless existence, but the life of the gospel, spiritual life, the Christian life, regardless of its duration. In more than fifty of the seventy-two times that the adjective occurs in the New Testament, it describes life. What is eternal life? Let the Scriptures answer. John iii:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life." John v:24, "He that believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but IS PASSED from death unto life." John vi:47, "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." So verse 54. John xvii:3, "THIS IS LIFE ETERNALto know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Eternal life is the life of the gospel. Its duration depends on the possessor's fidelity. It is no less the aiónion life, if one abandon it in a month after acquiring it. It consists in knowing, loving and serving God. It is the Christian life, regardless of its duration. How often the good fall from grace. Believing, they have the aiónion life, but they lose it by apostasy. Notoriously it is not, in thousands of cases, endless. The life is of an indefinite length, so that the usage of the adjective in the New Testament is altogether in favor of giving the word the sense of limited duration. Hence Jesus does not say "he that believeth shall enjoy endless happiness," but "hehath everlasting life," and "is passed from death unto life."
It scarcely need here be proved that the aiónion life can be acquired and lost. Heb. vi:4, "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance: seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." A life that can thus be lost is not intrinsically endless.
That the adjective is thus consistently used to denote indefinite duration will appear from several illustrations, some of which we have already given. 2 Cor. iv:17, "A far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory," or, as the original reads, "exceeding an aiónionweight of glory excessively." Now eternal, endless cannot be exceeded, but aiónion can be, therefore aiónion is not eternal. Again, Rev. xiv:6, "Theeverlasting gospel." The gospel is good news. When all shall have learned its truths it will no longer be news. There will be no such thing as gospel extant. Faith will be fruition, hope lost in sight, and the aióniongospel, like the aiónion covenant of the elder dispensation, will be abrogated, not destroyed, but fulfilled and passed away. Again, 2 Pet. i:11, "The everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." This kingdom is to be dissolved. Jesus is to surrender his dominion. 1 Cor. xv:24, "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God even the Father," etc. The everlasting kingdom of Christ will end.
The word may mean endless when applied to life, and not when applied to punishment, even in the same sentence, though we think duration is not considered so much as the intensity of joy or the sorrow in either case.
WORDS TEACHING ENDLESS DURATION.
But the Blessed Life has not been left dependent on so equivocal a word. The soul's immortal and happy existence is taught in the New Testament, by words that in the Bible are never applied to anything that is of limited duration. They are applied to God and the soul's happy existence only. These words are akataluton, imperishable; amarantos andamarantinos, unfading; aphtharto, immortal, incorruptible; and athanasian, immortality. Let us quote some of the passages in which these words occur:
Heb. vii:15, 16, "And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest, who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless (akatalutos, imperishable) life." 1 Pet. i:3, 4, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, (aphtharton,) and undefiled, and that fadeth not (amaranton) away." 1 Pet. v:4, "And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory thatfadeth not (amarantinos) away." 1 Tim. i:17, "Now unto the King eternal,immortal, (aphtharto,) invisible, the only wise god, be honor and glory forever and ever, Amen." Rom. i:23, "And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man." 1 Cor. ix:25, "Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible." 1 Cor. xv:51-54, "Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, (aphthartoi,) and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, (aphtharsian,) and this mortal must put on immortality (athanasian). So when this corruptible shall have put onincorruption, (aphtharsian,) and this mortal shall have put on immortality, (athanasian,) then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory." Rom. ii:7, "To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor andimmortality, (aphtharsia,) eternal life." 1 Cor. xv:42, "So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption (aphtharsia)." See also verse 50, 2 Tim i:10, "Who brought life and immortality (aphtharsian) to light, through the gospel." 1 Tim. vi:16, "Who only hath immortality (athanasian)."
Now these words are applied to God and the soul's happiness. They are words that in the Bible are never applied to punishment, or to anything perishable. They would have been affixed to punishment had the Bible intended to teach endless punishment. And certainly they show the error of those who declare that the indefinite word aiónion is all the word, or the strongest word in the Bible declarative of the endlessness of the life beyond the grave. A little more study of the subject would prevent such reckless statements and would show that the happy, endless life does not depend at all on the pet word of the partialist critics.
THOMAS DE QUINCEY'S VIEWS.
It will be of interest to give here the views of Thomas De Quincey, one of the most accurate students of language, and profoundest reasoners and thinkers among English scholars. He states the facts of the case with almost perfect accuracy: "I used to be annoyed and irritated by the false interpretation given to the Greek word aión, and given necessarily, therefore, to the Greek adjective aiónios as its immediate derivative. It was not so much the falsehood of this interpretation, as the narrowness of that falsehood that disturbed me. . . . . . . . That reason which gives to this word aiónion what I do not scruple to call a dreadful importance, is the same reason, and no other, which prompted the dishonesty concerned in the ordinary interpretation of this word. The word happened to connect itself --but that was no practical concern of mine, --me it had not biased in the one direction, nor should it have biased any just critic in the counter direction --happened, I say, to connect itself with the ancient dispute upon the duration of future punishment. What was meant by the aiónion punishments of the next world? Was the proper sense of the wordeternal, or was it not? . . . That argument runs thus --that the ordinary construction of the word aiónion, as equivalent to everlasting, could not possibly be given up, when associated with penal misery, because in that case, and by the very same act, the idea of eternity must be abandoned as applicable to the counter bliss of paradise. Torment and blessedness, it was argued, punishment and beatification stood upon the same level; the same word it was, the word aiónion, which qualified the duration of either; and if eternity, in the most rigorous acceptation, fell away from the one idea, it must equally fall away from the other. Well, be it so. But that would not settle the question. It might be very painful to renounce a long cherished anticipation, but the necessity of doing so could not be received as a sufficient reason for adhering to the old unconditional use of the wordaiónion. The argument is --that we must retain the old sense of eternal, because else we lose upon one scale what we had gained upon the other. But what then? would be the reasonable man's retort. We are not to accept or to reject a new construction (if otherwise the more colorable,) of the word aiónion, simply because the consequences might seem such, as, upon the whole, to displease us. We may gain nothing; for by the new interpretation our loss may balance our gain, and we may prefer the old arrangement. But how monstrous is all this! We are not summoned as to a choice of two different arrangements that may suit different tastes, but to a grave question as to what is the sense and operation of the wordaiónion. . . Meantime all this speculation, first and last, is pure nonsense. Aiónian does not mean eternal, neither does it mean of limited duration. Nor would the unsettling ofaiónian in its old use, as applied to punishment, to torment, to misery, etc., carry with it any necessary unsettling of the idea in its application to the beatitudes of Paradise.
What is an aión? The duration or cycle of existence which belongs to any object, not individually of itself, but universally, in right of its genius. . . . Man has a certain aiónianlife; possibly ranging somewhere about the period of seventy years assigned in the Psalms. . . . The period would in that case represent the "aión" of the individual Tellurian; but the "aión" of the Tellurian race would probably amount to many millions of our earthly years, and it would remain an unfathomable mystery, deriving no light at all from the septuagenarian "aión" of the individual; though between the two aións I have no doubt that some secret link of connection does and must subsist, however undiscoverable by human sagacity. . . . .
This only is discoverable, as a general tendency, that the aión, or generic period of evil is constantly towards a fugitive duration. The aión, it is alleged, must always express the same idea, whatever that may be; if it is less than eternity for the evil cases, then it must be less for the good ones. Doubtless the idea of an aión is in one sense always uniform, always the same, --viz., as a tenth or a twelfth is always the same. Arithmetic could not exist if any caprice or variation affected their ideas --a tenth is always more than an eleventh, always less than a ninth. But this uniformity of ratio and proportion does not hinder but that a tenth may now represent a guinea, and the next moment represent a thousand guineas.The exact amount of the duration expressed by an aión depends altogether upon the particular subject which yields the aión. It is, as I have said, a radix, and like an algebraic square-root or cube-root, though governed by the most rigorous laws of limitation, it must vary in obedience to the nature of the particular subject whose radix it forms." De Quincey's conclusions are:
A. That man who allows himself to infer the eternity of evil from the counter eternity of good, builds upon the mistake of assigning a stationary and mechanic value to the idea of anaión, whereas the very purpose of Scripture in using the word was to evade such a value.The word is always varying for the very purpose of keeping if faithful to a spiritual identity. The period or duration of every object would be an essentially variable quantity, were it not mysteriously commensurate to the inner nature of that object as laid open to the eyes of God. And thus it happens, that everything in the world possibly without a solitary exception,has its own separate aión; how many entities, so many aións.
B. But if it be an excess of blindness which can overlook the aiónian differences amongst even neutral entities, much deeper is that blindness which overlooks the separate tendencies of things evil and things good. Naturally, all evil is fugitive and allied to death.
C. I, separately, speaking for myself only, profoundly believe that the Scriptures ascribe absolute and metaphysical eternity to one sole being --viz., God; and derivatively to all others according to the interest which they can plead in God's favor. Having anchorage in God, innumerable entities may possibly be admitted to a participation in divine aión. But what interest in the favor of God can belong to falsehood, to malignity, to impurity? To invest them with aiónian privileges, is, in effect, and by its results, to distrust and to insult the Deity. Evil would not be evil, if it had that power of self-subsistence which is imparted to it in supposing its aiónian life to be co-eternal with that which crowns and glorifies the good."(57)

Now please explain to me why this overly long, meandering copy/paste is meaningless? Who is Prof. Tayler Lewis and why should we accept anything he says? What is the name and publication date of the publication this was C/P from? Who are the people quoted in this article and why should we accept anything they say? Just because you find an article online which supports your assumptions/presuppositions does not mean it is valid. Here you have done exactly what you accused me of in post #162, above.

 

[Oldmantook]

I understand.


Well, I summarized my reasons for siding with the traditional view of the matter, so I am left to entertain any counter argument that might be forthcoming. That's not so say that you have to provide one simply because you commented to the extent that you did. This is just where I think the matter rests now, as far as I'm involved.

I think that's fair enough. If I understand your position correctly, you have conveyed your view that there are not enough scriptures to support the Universalism stance. Just to be clear, I do believe in a literal lake of fire and that Jesus' atoning blood sacrifice is the only propitiation for sin and that all who do not believe in this end up in the lake of fire. My difference is that I don't believe the duration spent in "hell" is everlasting and that one day God will reconcile all to himself. At a glance various factors - pro & con - have been discussed on this thread so I don't think it is helpful to rehash them unless you desire to do so. I think what the issue boils down to is do the scriptures really mean "all" when it says "all?" If it is not "all" then the Good News is really not good news for only a small minority of humankind ends up being saved. For the great majority the Good News in reality, is bad news. Secondly, is the duration of punishment/chastisement in lake of fire eternal or only for an age of time? Dr. G. Campbell Morgan, sometimes referred to as “the prince of expositors” in his book "God's methods with man in time: past, present, and future" wrote on p. 185-86 “Let me say to Bible students that we must be very careful how to use the word ‘eternity.’ We have fallen into
great error in our constant use of that word. There is NO word in the whole Book of God corresponding with our ‘eternal,’ which as commonly used among us, means absolutely without end.”
If one takes the view that all really means all and that aion and aionios, aionion, aioniou, etc. cannot mean eternity and eternal respectively, then I would submit there is more than enough scriptural evidence to support Universalism.

 

[Albion]

I think that's fair enough. If I understand your position correctly, you have conveyed your view that there are not enough scriptures to support the Universalism stance.

That's true.

Just to be clear, I do believe in a literal lake of fire and that Jesus' atoning blood sacrifice is the only propitiation for sin and that all who do not believe in this end up in the lake of fire. My difference is that I don't believe the duration spent in "hell" is everlasting and that one day God will reconcile all to himself. At a glance various factors - pro & con - have been discussed on this thread so I don't think it is helpful to rehash them unless you desire to do so. I think what the issue boils down to is do the scriptures really mean "all" when it says "all?" If it is not "all" then the Good News is really not good news for only a small minority of humankind ends up being saved. For the great majority the Good News in reality, is bad news. Secondly, is the duration of punishment/chastisement in lake of fire eternal or only for an age of time? Dr. G. Campbell Morgan, sometimes referred to as “the prince of expositors” in his book "God's methods with man in time: past, present, and future" wrote on p. 185-86 “Let me say to Bible students that we must be very careful how to use the word ‘eternity.’ We have fallen into
great error in our constant use of that word. There is NO word in the whole Book of God corresponding with our ‘eternal,’ which as commonly used among us, means absolutely without end.”
If one takes the view that all really means all and that aion and aionios, aionion, aioniou, etc. cannot mean eternity and eternal respectively, then I would submit there is more than enough scriptural evidence to support Universalism.

What I would take exception to most of all in that summary is the part about the good news. That's an unofficial, non-scriptural rationale for universalism, but it assumes that everyone deserves salvation, or, if not that, that God is evil if he doesn't save everyone.

I believe that since all humans deserve hell (unless there is someone who's kept the Law perfectly throughout life), if God chooses to save ANY OF US, for any reason, he's merciful and good.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Quoting from accredited language resources is not circular reasoning or begging the question.

It is when the translation of the word is being evaluated.

So we should blindly trust your translation although you have not demonstrated any expertise in Koine Greek?

No, you shouldn't blindly trust anything anyone is teaching you (that's what you're doing with the circular reasoning of citing translation to prove translation). What you should be doing is using basic reasoning. You've not address the obvious error in translating "aion/ios" as "eternal/eternally" which renders absurd passages such as "end of the eternal" "before the beginning of eternity" "eternally hidden, now revealed" : you could also see the verses in the OP which come into contradiction with your teaching. How do you resolve the idealistic contradiction you're causing between the bible's "Saviour of all men" and your "most men will suffer forever unsaved"? Between the bible's "to reconcile all things to Him" to your "virtually no thing will be reconciled to Him"? Between the bible's "takes away the sin of the world" and your "takes away the sin of almost no one" Etc.

Also, the point of the evaluation of "aion/ios" isn't to create certainty (that is apparently your desire, not mine) it is to make known that the word is highly debated, and has been for thousands of years. Thus all of your "support" for "eternal suffering" is based on a single word which is highly questionably translated as "eternal" by some English translators (usually with a strong theological bias, as yours). Not only this, but again, even with the highly questionable translation of "aion" as "eternal"; you still have no support for your doctrine but a single verse in the Revelation. This in opposition to the myriad scriptures speaking of universal reconciliation, none of which hinge on a highly questionably translated word, but a common and undisputed word "pas/all"

Blasphemy cannot be committed unintentionally

You can certainly injure someone's reputation unintentionally. If someone tells you your neighbor is a rapist, and you believe them, and repeat the teaching; you're blaspheming the name of your neighbor if what you're telling others about him is untrue.