"Aionios" NEVER means "eternal"

[Guest]

Homer.

Things I don't understand I find embarrassing. I'll be the first one to admit that. No I am not suggesting that the "kindest" apologetic is the right one.

What I am saying is that the paradox of the state of the "lost/wicked/unelect/forsaken" and a God who "could" in fact save all mankind and does not (in orthodox theology ) is NOT something I just brush a side. Of course this is a whole other debate.

Could/Can God Save all man Kind??

One thing though is I do appreciate your input here. As man sharpens Man so Iron sharpens Iron.

I don't have a permanent opinion on this subject so please don't label me. What I do have is past personal research that may or may not support the UR view. I am not a convinced UR.

The one thing I do know for sure is that Jesus is Lord and that there is not other name under heaven by which we must be saved.

Daily I grieve for those who have been lost to judgment be it eternal or of the age. Maybe my grief is misplaced

I'll respond to more on your thoughts and questions on the weekend as I work full time. Until then be encouraged and take care.

[Guest]

The word "eternal" describes something that has always existed, something that has no beginning or end. Describing God as the Eternal God makes perfect sense due to the fact that He has always existed and will continue without end.

With this in mind, 'eternal life' is describing a kind of life that has always existed. One in which we can partake through faith in Christ. However, it is also possible to fall back into condemnation if one forsakes following Christ for worldliness. Therefore, 'eternal life' is not describing a duration but a kind of life which has always existed in which we can partake.

Likewise, 'eternal fire' describes God's distaste for sin and injustice which has always existed. He will never change His mind - As long as there is any injustice He will continue punishing until it is wiped out. But the point is, at some point it will be wiped out (Christ must reign until all his enemies are under His feet). The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death - death will be swallowed up in victory.

Todd

[Guest]

Philman,

You wrote:

One thing though is I do appreciate your input here. As man sharpens Man so Iron sharpens Iron.

Thanks, but, as I learned long ago, iron dulls iron also so we must be careful!

[Guest]

Paidion wrote:

Insistance that "proskairos" in 2 Corinthians 4:18 means "temporal" and thus "aiōios" in the same verse ( because it is contrasted with "proskairos") must mean "eternal" is ludicrous ---- for the following reason:

Firstly, "proskairos" does not mean "temporal", that is, referring to "time" as contrasted with "eternity". Rather, "proskairos" means "temporary".

Websters: 1 temporary adj [L temporarius, fr. tempor-, tempus] : lasting for a limited time -

I suppose temporary never relates to time in the way that aionios never means eternal. Perhaps you would like to try again; you are casting into doubt who is being ludicrous here. Methinks it might not be me!

[Guest]

Continuing my thoughts from my last post....

That which is eternal is, by its nature, without beginning or end: God, the eternal Father.

Things that do not change with time (are constant) are eternal. The laws of physics are eternal. Nothing can become eternal because, by definition, something that is eternal has always been and changes not.

With this in mind, how is 'eternal life' eternal? Can we say that our life in Christ has no beginning? I don't think so. Our life in Christ begins when we place our faith in Him. Conversely, is it possible that our life in Christ could have an end? I think it can in if we fall away. So then, eternal life must be speaking of something other than our life.

Eternal life then is something that has always existed....something that we can have part in through faith in Christ. Something that comes from knowing God. The truth may be found in these verses...

John 17:3
And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

1 John 5:20
And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

Todd

[Guest]

Re: Eternal Punishment

Using the same argument from my last post, how can punishment be 'eternal'? If things eternal have no beginning how could this apply to punishment? If you believe that God's judgment is yet future, then how could it be described as eternal? If it has a beginning, it could therefore have an end. It must not be the punishing that is eternal but something else. The eternal part of 'eternal punishment' must be God's eternal disdain for unrighteousness.

Therefore, one can logically conclude that the punishment suffered by an individual has a beginning and an end. It is not the punishing that is eternal, but God's attitude toward sin.

Todd

[Guest]

Websters: 1 temporary adj [L temporarius, fr. tempor-, tempus] : lasting for a limited time -

I suppose temporary never relates to time in the way that aionios never means eternal. Perhaps you would like to try again; you are casting into doubt who is being ludicrous here. Methinks it might not be me!

Well, I don't intend to exchange insults with you, Homer.

I didn't state that you were being ludicrous. I indicated that your argument is ludicrous. The two are not equivalent.

Why do you suggest I am being ludicrous? Is that just retaliation? Why are you suggesting that I might mean that "temporary" never relates to time? Are you getting frustrated or what?

You refer to my "repeated gasconades". In what way am I being boastful in my statements?

You seem to be attempting to bully me into conceding the truth about the meaning of "aiōnios". By the grace of God, I cannot be bullied.

The fact that "temporary" does refer to a limited time as per Webster actually supports my position.

As I showed, the passage on which you seem to rest your case, actually says the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are permanent.

I see "temporary" and "permanent" as being good translations, and likely to be close to, if not exactly, what Paul had in mind when he wrote the statement. For "temporary" means "lasting for a limited time" as per Webster, whereas "permanent" means "long lasting" as several dictionaries indicate.

Thus the contrast in the passage is not between "temporal" (that which related to time) and "eternal" (that which is outside of time), but rather between "temporary" (lasting for a limited time) and "permanent" (lasting for a long time or lasting forever).

[_Benzoic]

Paidion:

The word that contrasts with "temporary" is "permanent" (not "eternal")

"permanent" (lasting for a long time or lasting forever).

Things which are permanent are not necessarily eternal.

(In reference to aiwnios) It never means "eternal". There are no exceptions. Yet it sometimes applies to that which is eternal.

If aiwnios can mean ‘permanent’ and permanent, in your view, can sometimes mean eternal, how is it that aiwnios can never mean eternal? How can you be so dogmatic and say that aiwnios never means eternal when it is used to describe God? Why is it so illogical and ludicrous? Why could it never be a remote possibility that aiwnios is being used to show that God is eternal?

Secondly, whatever does not last is deemed as temporary. It doesn’t matter what it is in reference to; the point is that temporary things have an end while that which is eternal does not.

I do not believe this interpretation of 2 Cor 4:18 is the disparity Paul was trying to get across (remove permanent to rule out any interpretation of a contrast between temporary and eternal):

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are temporal too, but just last longer.

Why would Paul try to make a distinction between terminal things and longer lasting terminal things? It's not reasonable to say aiwnios has a 0% chance of meaning eternal in 2 Cor 4:18.

This is what I have gathered from your posts Paidion:

1. Permanent can mean both temporary and eternal

2. Aiwnios should be translated as permanent, but it never has the possible meaning of eternal like permanent does.

3. There are places in the Bible where aiwnios is used to describe the eternal God, but in no way does this imply that aiwnios may mean eternal.

[Guest]

Paidion,

Ran across this as part of an article on aionios. Comments?

[Philo]

The sentence is in De Mundo, 7, en aioni de oute pareleluthen ouden, oute mellei, alla monon iphesteken. Such a definition needs no explanation: in eternity nothing is passed, nothing is about to be, but only subsists. This has the importance of being of the date and Hellenistic Greek of the New Testament, as the others give the regular, and at the same time philosophical force of the word, aion, aionios. Eternity, unchangeable, with no 'was' nor 'will be,' is its proper force, that it can be applied to the whole existence of a thing, so that nothing of its nature was before true or after is true, to telos to periechon. But its meaning is eternity, and eternal. To say that they do not mean it in Greek, as Jukes and Farrar and S. Cox, and those they quote, is a denial of the statements of the very best authorities we can have on the subject. If Plato and Aristotle and Philo knew Greek, what these others say is false. That this is the proper sense of aionios in Scripture, is as certain as it is evident. In 2 Corinthians 4: 18, we have ta gar blepomena proskaira, ta de me blepomena aionia. That is, things that are for a time are put in express contrast with aionia, which are not for a time, be it age or ages, but eternal. Nothing can be more decisive of its positive and specific meaning.

[2 Cor 4:18]:
"Since we consider and look not to the things that are seen[temporal - temporary] but to things that are unseen [spiritual - eternal]; for the things that are visible are temporal (brief and fleeting), but the things that are invisible are deathless and everlasting
..............................................................[Grk] "aionios"

Here in this passage the contrast is between the temporal and the eternal - the material and the spiritual. The Greek word "aionios" could not be translated to mean "age" in this passage because that still portrays a temporary duration for spiritual things which are eternal. This meaning makes no sense in the context which Paul is establishing which is a permanence of spiritual things over the temporary nature of the material world.

Therefore the Greek word "aionios" must mean eternal or everlasting.

[Compare Ro 16:26]:
"But now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of
the....everlasting..........God,
tou ...aioniou ...............Theou
the ...everlasting ..........God
made known to all nations for the obedience of faith."

The Greek word "aioniou" in this passage is an adjective. An adjective is used here to modify the noun "Theou." Notice that "aioniou" agrees with "Theou" in gender, number and case. So the word "aioniou" is an adjective of duration which thereby describes the duration of God:
tou .............aion- iou .........The - ou
def article..stem .ending....stem .ending
article .......adjective .........noun
masculine .singular ...........genitive
If the adjective "aioniou" is restricted to refer to a time period called an "age," as some maintain, and if "aioniou" modifies "Theou" rendered "God,' as it does in Romans 16:26, then the time period of God, i.e., His duration of existence is an age. He is therefore not an everlasting God, but an 'age lasting' God.

To get around this problem of calling God an 'age lasting' God by insisting that "aioniou" means age, some maintain that Romans 16:26 is supposed to say "the God of the age." But the Greek would have to look like it does in 2 Cor 4:4, (referring to Satan):
(2 Cor 4:4 GREEK) "ho ......................theos ....................tou ................aiOnos"
..................................."the ....................god .......................of the ............age"
.....................................def article .........noun .....................def article .....noun
.....................................gen. sing .........................................gen. sing
Notice that the form of the Greek word "aion" is no longer an adjective but a noun, hence it no longer modifies the duration of God but What God is sovereign over.

Adjectives may be used in three distinct ways in Greek: attributively, predicatively and substantively.

Attributive case
The attributive use of the adjective is that use in which the adjective attributes a quality to the noun modified. In the attributive construction there are two possible positions of the adjective in relation to the noun:
either before the noun as in Romas 16:26:
tou aioniou Theou
or
after the noun which would then look like this:
tou Theou tou aioniou
Note that the adjective "aioniou" is immediately preceded by the definite article "tou" when it occurs after the noun.

In the attributive case the adjective "aioniou" modifies "Theou" in whichever position the adjective is placed. Since God is an eternal God the adjective "aioniou" must be translated eternal or everlasting in the above two examples. It cannot be translated to mean something limited to "age lasting" because the duration of the existence of God is not limited to an age. Nor can it be translated "of the ages" because "aioniou" is not a noun nor an adjective used as a noun as in the substantive case below.

Predicative case
The second case for adjectives is the predicative case. Romans 16:26 in the predicative case would have to look like -
1) this:
"tou Theou aioniou"
(Notice: no definite article before "aioniou.")
2) or this:
"aioniou tou Theou"
In the predicative case the adjective "aioniou" modifies "Theou" in whichever position the adjective is placed. Since God is an eternal God the adjective "aioniou" must be translated eternal or everlasting in the above two examples. It cannot be translated to mean something limited to "age lasting" because the duration of the existence of God is not limited to an age. Nor can it be translated "of the ages" because "aioniou" is not a noun nor an adjective used as a noun as in the substantive case below.

Substantive case
The third and final case for adjectives is the substantive case in which the adjective itself is used as the noun in order to be the subject of the sentence. But in Romans 16:26, the Greek word "Theou" rendered "God" is the noun and the subject. Since there already is a subject in the passage, then there is no need for an adjective to act as a noun. Therefore, in Romans 16:26 the Greek adjective "aioniou" is in the attributive case and it therefore modifies "Theou" and must be translated everlasting or eternal God and not 'God of the ages' or an 'agelasting (not eternal) God' because the grammar and the context does not support those interpretations. An 'agelasting' god makes no sense in this passage.

.


the Ages God or God of the Ages makes sense to most people. Not sure why the adjective HAS to be of "eternal" in characteristic. God is God of everything so why not? An "adjective" applied to God, such as "aionios" doesn't have to be of an "eternal" nature.


Satan is the god of the age. or age god. so why can't God be the converse as in "ages".

Jealous God doesn't mean that his jealousy must be "eternal" in nature
"unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me" (Deut. 5:9).

translating "age-lasting" isn't honest representation of literal translation in my limited experience.

belonging to the ages or of ages is more accurate.

[Guest]

If aiwnios can mean ‘permanent’ and permanent, in your view, can sometimes mean eternal, how is it that aiwnios can never mean eternal?

Benzoic, please read carefully what I said. Not once have I said that "permanent" can sometimes mean "eternal". Rather I have clearly stated that "aiōnios" or "permanent" can be applied to that which is eternal, just as "green" can be applied to things which fly. But that doesn't imply that "green" means "that which flies".