What Does Aionios Mean? (part 2, It is wrong to define aionios based on aion)

Mark Corbett · Dec 12, 2017

Having explained the positive case for aionios meaning “eternal” in part 1, let’s now look at a popular argument Universalists put forward to defend aionios meaning “lasting for an age”. I plan to look at other Universalist arguments in future posts.

Note: The numbering system for the outline here continues from part 1.

2. Universalist Argument: The adjective aionios comes from noun aion and therefore must mean “lasting for an age”

This is a popular argument among some Universalists. I’ve come across it in many settings. At the bottom of this post I include a section with examples of this argument. To be fair to Universalists, some of them recognize that this is a flawed argument and they avoid it. But because this argument is fairly common in discussions with Universalists, I feel it is important to respond to it. To those unfamiliar with how words are defined or who haven’t looked carefully at the linguistic data in the New Testament, this argument can sound pretty reasonable. Although it is a common argument, it is wrong. In fact, as I’ll attempt to explain, it is doubly wrong.

2.1 This Universalist argument is wrong because you cannot simply determine the meaning of an adjective from a noun it is derived from.

Etymology does not determine meaning.

It is true that adjective aionios is derived from the noun aion. It is also true that a basic meaning of
aion is an “age,” and sometimes it refers to an age of limited duration. However, this does not mean that aionios means “lasting for an age of limited duration”.

It is common for adjectives to be formed from nouns. Not all adjectives are formed this way, but some are. There is, of course, always some type of relationship between the meaning of the noun and the meaning of the adjective which comes from the noun. However, the relationship in meaning might be very close and obvious, or it may be distant and vague. Looking at some examples in English will clarify what I mean:

Example #1 beauty → beautiful

Here the relationship is very close. If something possesses beauty, it is beautiful.

Example #2: sun → sunny

Here the relationship is fairly obvious. A sunny day is a day when the sun is brightly shining. Yet, even with this example care is needed. The sun is hot, but you can have a sunny day in the middle of winter, or on top of an arctic mountain.

Example #3: time → timely

If you didn’t already know the meaning of “timely”, I’m not sure you could correctly guess it with confidence just based on the fact that it is an adjective which comes from “time”. Reasonably it might mean a number of things like: something which takes a long time, something which happens all the time, or something which happens at a predictable time. The actualy meaning, “done or occurring at a useful or favorable time” is not immediately obvious based on the noun it comes from.

Example #4: fish → fishy

The actualy meaning of “fishy” is very far removed from the noun “fish”. If something is “fishy” that does not mean it is wet, or swims well, or has scales. It can mean that is smells like a fish. Or, more commonly, it means that something is suspicious.

ry evaluating these examples yourself. There is always some relationship between the noun and the adjective, but the nature of the relationship varies quite a bit so that the meaning of the adjective simply cannot be reliably predicted just by knowing the meaning of the noun it comes from:

fortune → fortunately
fire → fiery
Orwell → Orwellian
arctic (n) → arctic (adj)
Italy → Italian (adj)
human →humane

The above examples are easy for us to understand because both the adjective and the noun are familiar to us. There is another example of an English adjective which is even more enlightening. Some Universalists reject the idea of an adjective meaning “eternal” (aionios) coming from the noun for “age” (aion). Yet the English adjective “eternal” itself derives from a Latin noun which meant “age”!

For those of us who grew up speaking English, English examples are easy to understand. It turns out that these examples are part of a broad principle in linguistics which applies to any language. Attempting to derive the meaning of an adjective from the noun it came from is a special case of the etymological fallacy. The etymological fallacy basically consists of claiming that a word’s current meaning is the same as the meaning it had in the past, or the same as the meaning of words it was derived from. This error has also been called “the root fallacy” or “the root word fallacy”. A word’s meaning is not determined by its origin, but rather by its usage. We determined the meaning of aionios based on its usage in the New Testament in part 1.

2.2 Even if You Derived the Meaning of Aionios from the Meaning of Aion in the New Testament, the Most Likely Meaning would Still Be Eternal!

Now, let’s turn to how aion is used in the New Testament. The basic meaning does seem to be “an age”. The New Testament mainly thinks in terms of two ages: this age and the age to come.

Luke 18:29 "Truly I tell you," Jesus said to them, "no one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God
30 will fail to receive many times as much in this age, and in the age to come eternal life."

This age refers to the time period we are now living in until Jesus returns. The age to come refers to the eternal age where those who are saved will live with God in the New Heavens and the New Earth. The New Testament also frequently uses the word aion or its plural in phrases which mean “forever”. Here are some examples:

ESV Lk. 1:33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever (eis tous aionas, literally “into the age”, a idiomatic way of saying “forever”), and of his kingdom there will be no end."

Because the verse clarifies that it is speaking of a reign where “there will be no end”, it leaves us with no doubt that the translators are correct to interpret the phrase eis tous aionas to mean “forever”.

Here is another clear example:

ESV Rom. 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever (eis tous aionas, literally “into the age”, a idiomatic way of saying “forever”) . Amen.

Of course God’s glory is forever, and “forever” fits the context extremely well.

In addition to phrases where aion is used to mean “forever”, if combined with a negative it can mean “not ever” or “never”. Here is an example:

ESV Jn. 11:26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

The single English word “never” translates ou mē . . . eis ton aiona. Literally, the phrase reads “no not . . . into the age”. Jesus is not saying that those who believe in Him will not die for a limited age. He is saying that those who believe in Him will not die for all eternity. In this type of phrase meaning “never”, the word age is referring to an eternal age.

Of the 122 uses of aion in the New Testament, by my count about 70% of them are referring to an age which is eternal. Thus, even if one was going to make the etymological fallacy of simply looking at the noun aion in order to guess the meaning of the adjective aionios, “eternal” would be the best guess. But this is not based on merely statistical usage. If you look at the type of things described as aionios they much better match the type of things found in an eternal age than the types of things found in this current, evil, limited age that we live in.

2.3 A More Nuanced Universalist Form of this Argument

Some Universalists do not argue that aionios means specifically “for a limited age”. They argue that the meaning is simply “pertaining to an age” and that the more precise meaning is determined by the context. This argument continues to make the error of deriving the meaning of an adjective directly and simply from the noun it comes from. However, here the error is mainly one of vagueness.

It would be like saying that fortunately means pertaining to fortune or that humane means pertaining to human or that fishy means pertaining to fish. Such definitions are so vague as to not really be definitions at all. When an adjective is formed from a noun, of course there is some type of relationship between the two. But the adjective takes on its own distinct meaning and does not merely mean pertaing to X. The meaning is determined by examing the actual usage of the word in sentences. When this is done, we see that the meaning of aionios, when looking towards the future, is eternal.

2.4 Conclusion

In part 2 of this series on the meaning of aionios we have examined one Universalist argument against aionios meaning “eternal”. This popular argument commits the etymological fallacy by insisting that since aion means “an age”, aionios means “lasting for an age” (or something similar). Not only is it wrong to determine the meaning of an adjective from the noun it comes from, we also saw that even IF one used that method, based on data from the New Testament, the most likely meaning of aionios would still be “eternal”.

Let’s remember why this is important. If all the widely used English Bible translations are correct in translating aionios as “eternal” or “everlasting”, then the following two verses are fatal to belief in Universalism:

CSB Matthew 25:46 "And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

CSB 2 Thessalonians 1:9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction from the Lord's presence and from His glorious strength

In part 3 I intend to look at arguments about the meaning of aionios based on data from the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint (LXX).

This is a slightly modified version of a post on my blog.

Der Alte · Dec 12, 2017

I have approached the failing of the universalist view from a different perspective.
In the following twenty two verses αἰών and αἰώνιος are defined/described by other words and phrases as eternal, everlasting etc.: 1 Timothy 1:17, 2 Corinthians 4:17-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1, Hebrews 7:24, 1 Peter 1:23, 1 Timothy 6:16, Galatians 6:8, John 6:58, John 10:20, 1 John 2:17, 1 Peter 5:10, Romans 2:7, Luke 1:33, Revelation 14:11, John 10:28, John 3:15, John 3:16, John 5:24, Ephesians 3:21, Romans 20:1, Romans 26:10
In the NT “aion/aionios” are used to refer to things which are not eternal but they are never defined/described as meaning a period of time less than eternal as in the following verses.

[1]1 Timothy 1:17.
(17) Now unto the King eternal, [αἰών/aion] immortal, [ ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos] invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever [αἰών/aion] and ever [αἰώνιος/aionios]. Amen.

In this verse “aion” is paired with “immortal.” “Aion” cannot mean “age(s),” a finite period and be immortal at the same time. Thus “aion” by definition here means “eternal.”

[2]2 Corinthians 4:17-18
(17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] weight of glory;
(18) While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal;[πρόσκαιρος/proskairos] but the things which are not seen are eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios]

In this passage “aionios” is contrasted with “for a moment,” vs. 4, and “temporal,” vs. 5. “Age(s)” a finite period, it is not the opposite of “for a moment”/”temporal/temporary.” “Eternal” is. See Robertson below. “Aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[3]2 Corinthians 5:1
(1)For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] in the heavens.

In this verse “aionios house” is contrasted with “earthly house which is destroyed.” If an “aionios” house is at some time destroyed then it is no different than the earthly house. The aionios house is not destroyed, the opposite of “is destroyed.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.” If the tabernacle in heaven is destroyed, it is no different than the earthly tabernacle.

[4]Hebrews 7:24 but because Jesus lives forever [αἰών/aion] he has a permanent [ἀπαράβατος/aparabatos] priesthood.

In this verse “aion” is paired with “unchangeable.” If “aion” means “age(s),” Jesus cannot continue “for a finite period” and be “unchangeable” at the same time. Thus “aion” by definition here means “eternal.”

[5]1 Peter 1:23
(23) For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, [ ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos] through the living and enduring word of God.
1 Peter 1:25
(25) but the word of the Lord endures forever.[αἰών/aion] " And this is the word that was preached to you.

In verse 23 “word of God” is paired with “incorruptible.” In verse 25 the word of God “endures εις τον αιωνα unto eternity. ” Thus by definition “aion” here means “eternity.”

[6]1 Timothy 6:16
(16) Who only hath immortality, [ ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos] dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting[αἰώνιος/aionios]

In this verse “aionios” is paired with “immortality.” If “aionios” is only a finite period, God cannot be “immortal” and only exist for a finite period at the same time. Thus “aionios” by definition means “eternal.”

[7]Galatians 6:8
(8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption;[φθορά/fthora] but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. [αἰώνιος/aionios]

In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “corruption.” “Fleshly” people reap “corruption” but spiritual people reap “life aionios,” i.e. not “corruption.” “Age(s) is not opposite of “corruption.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal/everlasting.”

[8]John 6:58
(58) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.[αἰώνιος/aionios]

In this verse “aionios life” is contrasted with “death.” If “aionios” is only a finite period, a finite period is not opposite “death.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[9]John 10:28
(28) I give them eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life, and they shall never [αἰών/aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.

In this verse “aionios” and “aion” are paired with not “snatch them out of my hand” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s)” that is not the opposite of “not ‘snatch them out of my hand’” “Aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[10]1 John 2:17
(17) The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever. [αἰών/aion]

In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “pass away” “aionios” cannot mean a finite period, A “finite period” is not opposite of “pass away.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[11]1 Peter 5:10
(10) And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal [αιωνιον/aionion] glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, [ολιγον/oligon] will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast.

In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “little while” “aionios” cannot mean a finite period, A “finite period” is not opposite of “little while.” Thus by definition “aionios” here means “eternal.”

[12]Romans 2:7
(7) To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, [ἀφθαρσία/apftharsia] he will give eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.

In this verse “aion” is paired with “immortality.” If “aion” is only a finite period, believers cannot seek for “a finite period,” and “immortality” at the same time. But they can seek for “eternal life” and “immortality” at the same time. Thus by definition “aion” here means “eternal.”

[13]Luke 1:33
(33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; [αιωνας/aionas] and of his kingdom there shall be no end.[τελος/τελος]

In this verse “aionios” is paired with “without end.” “aionios” cannot be paired with “without end” if it means only “ages” a finite period. “Aionios” by definition here means eternal.

[14]Revelation 14:11
(11) And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever:[εις αιωνας αιωνων/eis aionas aionas] and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

In this verse “aionas aionon torment” is paired with “no rest day or night.” If “aionas, aionon” means “a finite period” at some time they would rest, “Aionas, aionon” by definition here means “forever and forever.”

[15]John 10:28
(28) And I give unto them eternal [αιωνιον] life; and they shall never [εις τον αιωνα] perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

In this verse “aionion” is paired with “[no man can] “pluck them out of my hand.” If “aionion” is only a finite period then at some time they could be plucked out. “Aionion” by definition here means eternal.

[16]John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [αιωνιον] life.

In this verse “aionion” is paired with “shall not perish.” They could perish in a finite period, “aionion” by definition here means eternal.

[17]John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [αιωνιον] life.

In this verse “aionion” is paired with “shall not perish.” They could perish in a finite period, “aionion” by definition here means eternal.

[18]John 5:24
(24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting [αἰώνιος] life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

In this verse “aionios” is paired with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from life unto death.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite period,” by definition here it means “eternal.”

[19]Romans 5:21
(21) That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal [αἰώνιος] life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with death. “A finite period” is not opposite death, “eternal life” is. “Aionios” by definition here means ‘eternal.”

[20]Ephesians 3:21
(21) to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever [του αιωνος/tou aionios] and ever! [των αιωνων/ton aionion] Amen.

In this verse “tou aionios ton aionion” is paired with “all generations.”

[21]Romans 1:20
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal [ἀΐ́διος] power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
[22]Romans 16:26
(26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [αἰώνιος] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

In Romans 1:20 Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. In Rom 16:26 Paul refers to God as “aionios,” therefore Paul considers “aidios” and “aionios” to be synonymous.

=======

• A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament 2 Co 4:17
(17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;
Literally, “the for the moment (old adverb parautika, here only in N.T.) lightness (old word, in N.T. only here and Mat_11:30).”
More and more exceedingly (kath' huperbolēn eis huperbolēn). Like piling Pelion on Ossa, “according to excess unto excess.” See note on 1Co 12:31.
Eternal weight of glory (aiōnion baros doxēs). Careful balancing of words in contrast (affliction vs. glory, lightness vs. weight, for the moment vs. eternal).
• Vincent Word Studies in the New Testament
A far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory (καθ' ὑπερεβολὴν εἰς ὑπερβολὴν αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης)
Rev., more and more exceedingly an eternal weight, etc. An expression after the form of Hebrew superlatives, in which the emphatic word is twice repeated. Lit., exceedingly unto excess. The use of such cumulative expressions is common with Paul. See, for example, Phi 1:23, lit., much more better; Rom 8:37, abundantly the conquerors; Eph 3:20, exceeding abundantly, etc. Note how the words are offset: for a moment, eternal; light, weight; affliction, glory.
Vincent Ephesians 3:21
(21) to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.
Glory Properly, the glory, which is His due.
In the Church
Through which His many-tinted wisdom is to be displayed, and which is His fullness. The variety of the divine wisdom is again hinted at in all that we ask or think.
By Christ Jesus (ἐν)
Rev., better, in. As the Church is the outward domain in which God is to be praised, so Christ is the spiritual sphere of this praise.
Throughout all ages, world without end (εἰς πάσας τὰς γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων)
Lit., unto all the generations of the age of the ages. Eternity is made up of ages, and ages of generations.

Mark Corbett · Dec 12, 2017

Der Alter said:
I have approached the failing of the universalist view from a different perspective.
In the following twenty two verses αἰών and αἰώνιος are defined/described by other words and phrases as eternal, everlasting etc.: 1 Timothy 1:17, 2 Corinthians 4:17-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1, Hebrews 7:24, 1 Peter 1:23, 1 Timothy 6:16, Galatians 6:8, John 6:58, John 10:20, 1 John 2:17, 1 Peter 5:10, Romans 2:7, Luke 1:33, Revelation 14:11, John 10:28, John 3:15, John 3:16, John 5:24, Ephesians 3:21, Romans 20:1, Romans 26:10

....

Der Alter, thanks for you detailed and helpful post. I think overall your analysis is harmonious with mine, only you gave many more examples, which is very helpful.

Oldmantook · Dec 12, 2017

Mark Corbett said:
Having explained the positive case for aionios meaning “eternal” in part 1, let’s now look at a popular argument Universalists put forward to defend aionios meaning “lasting for an age”. I plan to look at other Universalist arguments in future posts.

Note: The numbering system for the outline here continues from part 1.

2. Universalist Argument: The adjective aionios comes from noun aion and therefore must mean “lasting for an age”

This is a popular argument among some Universalists. I’ve come across it in many settings. At the bottom of this post I include a section with examples of this argument. To be fair to Universalists, some of them recognize that this is a flawed argument and they avoid it. But because this argument is fairly common in discussions with Universalists, I feel it is important to respond to it. To those unfamiliar with how words are defined or who haven’t looked carefully at the linguistic data in the New Testament, this argument can sound pretty reasonable. Although it is a common argument, it is wrong. In fact, as I’ll attempt to explain, it is doubly wrong.

2.1 This Universalist argument is wrong because you cannot simply determine the meaning of an adjective from a noun it is derived from.

Etymology does not determine meaning.

It is true that adjective aionios is derived from the noun aion. It is also true that a basic meaning of
aion is an “age,” and sometimes it refers to an age of limited duration. However, this does not mean that aionios means “lasting for an age of limited duration”.

It is common for adjectives to be formed from nouns. Not all adjectives are formed this way, but some are. There is, of course, always some type of relationship between the meaning of the noun and the meaning of the adjective which comes from the noun. However, the relationship in meaning might be very close and obvious, or it may be distant and vague. Looking at some examples in English will clarify what I mean:

Example #1 beauty → beautiful

Here the relationship is very close. If something possesses beauty, it is beautiful.

Example #2: sun → sunny

Here the relationship is fairly obvious. A sunny day is a day when the sun is brightly shining. Yet, even with this example care is needed. The sun is hot, but you can have a sunny day in the middle of winter, or on top of an arctic mountain.

Example #3: time → timely

If you didn’t already know the meaning of “timely”, I’m not sure you could correctly guess it with confidence just based on the fact that it is an adjective which comes from “time”. Reasonably it might mean a number of things like: something which takes a long time, something which happens all the time, or something which happens at a predictable time. The actualy meaning, “done or occurring at a useful or favorable time” is not immediately obvious based on the noun it comes from.

Example #4: fish → fishy

The actualy meaning of “fishy” is very far removed from the noun “fish”. If something is “fishy” that does not mean it is wet, or swims well, or has scales. It can mean that is smells like a fish. Or, more commonly, it means that something is suspicious.

ry evaluating these examples yourself. There is always some relationship between the noun and the adjective, but the nature of the relationship varies quite a bit so that the meaning of the adjective simply cannot be reliably predicted just by knowing the meaning of the noun it comes from:

fortune → fortunately
fire → fiery
Orwell → Orwellian
arctic (n) → arctic (adj)
Italy → Italian (adj)
human →humane

The above examples are easy for us to understand because both the adjective and the noun are familiar to us. There is another example of an English adjective which is even more enlightening. Some Universalists reject the idea of an adjective meaning “eternal” (aionios) coming from the noun for “age” (aion). Yet the English adjective “eternal” itself derives from a Latin noun which meant “age”!

For those of us who grew up speaking English, English examples are easy to understand. It turns out that these examples are part of a broad principle in linguistics which applies to any language. Attempting to derive the meaning of an adjective from the noun it came from is a special case of the etymological fallacy. The etymological fallacy basically consists of claiming that a word’s current meaning is the same as the meaning it had in the past, or the same as the meaning of words it was derived from. This error has also been called “the root fallacy” or “the root word fallacy”. A word’s meaning is not determined by its origin, but rather by its usage. We determined the meaning of aionios based on its usage in the New Testament in part 1.

2.2 Even if You Derived the Meaning of Aionios from the Meaning of Aion in the New Testament, the Most Likely Meaning would Still Be Eternal!

Now, let’s turn to how aion is used in the New Testament. The basic meaning does seem to be “an age”. The New Testament mainly thinks in terms of two ages: this age and the age to come.

Luke 18:29 "Truly I tell you," Jesus said to them, "no one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God
30 will fail to receive many times as much in this age, and in the age to come eternal life."

This age refers to the time period we are now living in until Jesus returns. The age to come refers to the eternal age where those who are saved will live with God in the New Heavens and the New Earth. The New Testament also frequently uses the word aion or its plural in phrases which mean “forever”. Here are some examples:

ESV Lk. 1:33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever (eis tous aionas, literally “into the age”, a idiomatic way of saying “forever”), and of his kingdom there will be no end."

Because the verse clarifies that it is speaking of a reign where “there will be no end”, it leaves us with no doubt that the translators are correct to interpret the phrase eis tous aionas to mean “forever”.

Here is another clear example:

ESV Rom. 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever (eis tous aionas, literally “into the age”, a idiomatic way of saying “forever”) . Amen.

Of course God’s glory is forever, and “forever” fits the context extremely well.

In addition to phrases where aion is used to mean “forever”, if combined with a negative it can mean “not ever” or “never”. Here is an example:

ESV Jn. 11:26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

The single English word “never” translates ou mē . . . eis ton aiona. Literally, the phrase reads “no not . . . into the age”. Jesus is not saying that those who believe in Him will not die for a limited age. He is saying that those who believe in Him will not die for all eternity. In this type of phrase meaning “never”, the word age is referring to an eternal age.

Of the 122 uses of aion in the New Testament, by my count about 70% of them are referring to an age which is eternal. Thus, even if one was going to make the etymological fallacy of simply looking at the noun aion in order to guess the meaning of the adjective aionios, “eternal” would be the best guess. But this is not based on merely statistical usage. If you look at the type of things described as aionios they much better match the type of things found in an eternal age than the types of things found in this current, evil, limited age that we live in.

2.3 A More Nuanced Universalist Form of this Argument

Some Universalists do not argue that aionios means specifically “for a limited age”. They argue that the meaning is simply “pertaining to an age” and that the more precise meaning is determined by the context. This argument continues to make the error of deriving the meaning of an adjective directly and simply from the noun it comes from. However, here the error is mainly one of vagueness.

It would be like saying that fortunately means pertaining to fortune or that humane means pertaining to human or that fishy means pertaining to fish. Such definitions are so vague as to not really be definitions at all. When an adjective is formed from a noun, of course there is some type of relationship between the two. But the adjective takes on its own distinct meaning and does not merely mean pertaing to X. The meaning is determined by examing the actual usage of the word in sentences. When this is done, we see that the meaning of aionios, when looking towards the future, is eternal.

2.4 Conclusion

In part 2 of this series on the meaning of aionios we have examined one Universalist argument against aionios meaning “eternal”. This popular argument commits the etymological fallacy by insisting that since aion means “an age”, aionios means “lasting for an age” (or something similar). Not only is it wrong to determine the meaning of an adjective from the noun it comes from, we also saw that even IF one used that method, based on data from the New Testament, the most likely meaning of aionios would still be “eternal”.

Let’s remember why this is important. If all the widely used English Bible translations are correct in translating aionios as “eternal” or “everlasting”, then the following two verses are fatal to belief in Universalism:

CSB Matthew 25:46 "And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

CSB 2 Thessalonians 1:9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction from the Lord's presence and from His glorious strength

In part 3 I intend to look at arguments about the meaning of aionios based on data from the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint (LXX).

This is a slightly modified version of a post on my blog.

The two proof-text verses that you cite in order to prove fatal to universalism are not fatal at all in my opinion. In proper context, Matt 25:46 references the sheep and the goats. Per the universalist view, this scriptures reads "And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.' (YLT)
When Jesus returns he will judge the goats and sheep. The goats are consigned to age-during punishment, v.41,46 and the sheep to age-during life, v.46. The age that is being referred to is the Millennial age, therefore no contradiction.
In 2 Thess 1:9 "age-during" destruction is also a viable interpretation. The germane question is what is referred to by 'destruction?' If we allow scripture to interpret scripture we find the same word 'destruction' employed in 1 Cor 5:5 "hand this man over to Satan for the destruction (olethron | ὄλεθρον | acc sg masc) of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved on the Day of the Lord. According to this verse, his flesh is destroyed - not the person. This verse is consistent with the universalist view that a person will be refined through fire and eventually saved after spending an age of time in the lake of fire and helps to interpret destruction in 2 Thess 1:9.

Mark Corbett · Dec 12, 2017

Oldmantook said:
The two proof-text verses that you cite in order to prove fatal to universalism are not fatal at all in my opinion. In proper context, Matt 25:46 references the sheep and the goats. Per the universalist view, this scriptures reads "And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.' (YLT)
. . .

I respect you, but I also disagree with you. I addressed Young's Literal Translation (YLT) in part 1. Young translates aionios as "age-during". His translation is terrible English and also a wrong meaning. In the OP above, I provide quite a bit of evidence showing that it is wrong to say that because aion means "age", aionios means "lasting for an age", or in Young's poor English, "age-during". That would be like defining fishy to mean "fish-like". It's just a wrong way to define words. I wonder if you were not committed to universalism if it would not be easy to see this?

Oldmantook · Dec 12, 2017

Mark Corbett said:
I respect you, but I also disagree with you. I addressed Young's Literal Translation (YLT) in part 1. Young translates aionios as "age-during". His translation is terrible English and also a wrong meaning. In the OP above, I provide quite a bit of evidence showing that it is wrong to say that because aion means "age", aionios means "lasting for an age", or in Young's poor English, "age-during". That would be like defining fishy to mean "fish-like". It's just a wrong way to define words. I wonder if you were not committed to universalism if it would not be easy to see this?

The respect is mutual Mark, even though we disagree as your replies are courteous and well-thought out. The problem I have though with your fishy analogy (no pun intended, haha) is that you are using an English idiomatic expression and applying that back in time to the Greek which I think is a etymological faux pas. If one uses our own language, especially idiomatic expressions to read back into another language to interpret its usage, I think that is misapplied hermeneutics. One has to interpret the text given its own particular culture and time. Would you not agree that the two proof texts you cited can be viably explained from a universalist interpretation as I wrote?

Der Alte · Dec 12, 2017

Oldmantook said:
Begin

The two proof-text verses that you cite in order to prove fatal to universalism are not fatal at all in my opinion. In proper context, Matt 25:46 references the sheep and the goats. Per the universalist view, this scriptures reads "And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.' (YLT)
When Jesus returns he will judge the goats and sheep. The goats are consigned to age-during punishment, v.41,46 and the sheep to age-during life, v.46. The age that is being referred to is the Millennial age, therefore no contradiction.
In 2 Thess 1:9 "age-during" destruction is also a viable interpretation. The germane question is what is referred to by 'destruction?' If we allow scripture to interpret scripture we find the same word 'destruction' employed in 1 Cor 5:5 "hand this man over to Satan for the destruction (olethron | ὄλεθρον | acc sg masc) of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved on the Day of the Lord. According to this verse, his flesh is destroyed - not the person. This verse is consistent with the universalist view that a person will be refined through fire and eventually saved after spending an age of time in the lake of fire and helps to interpret destruction in 2 Thess 1:9.

End

Here you have reinterpreted the verse you quoted, so that it supports a universalist view..

1 Corinthians 5:5
(5) hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved [σωθη/sothe] on the day of the Lord.

1 Cor 5:5 does not say the person will definitely be saved. The word translated "may be saved" is σωθη/sothe. It is an Aorist, Passive, Subjunctive
The subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility and potentiality. The action described may or may not occur,

Mark Corbett · Dec 12, 2017

Oldmantook said:
. . . The problem I have though with your fishy analogy (no pun intended, haha) is that you are using an English idiomatic expression and applying that back in time to the Greek which I think is a etymological faux pas. If one uses our own language, especially idiomatic expressions to read back into another language to interpret its usage, I think that is misapplied hermeneutics. One has to interpret the text given its own particular culture and time.

I appreciate the humor. I little light joking can help when we discuss weighty issues like the nature of hell.

The etymological fallacy is an error which applies to any language and even to words which are borrowed between languages. I used an English example because it is far easier for me to think of examples in English and also because it is far easier for the readers of this forum to immediately and intuitively understand examples in English.

But I did look for and find an example in NT Greek. In fact, I found it right in one of the two verses my posts are most focused on:

ESV Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous (dikaios) into eternal life."

Just as aionios is derived from aion, dikaios is an adjective derived from the noun dike. Dike means a penalty or punishment. But dikaios means righteous. How did that happen? It’s hard to say. It may be related to a Greek goddess named Dike who is the goddess of justice, perhaps so named because she punishes those who deserve it. The point is not that there is no relationship between a noun and an adjective derived from that noun. The point is that the relationship is not the simple, direct relationship which many Universalist arguments require in order to work. No one could guess that a noun which means "penalty" would turn into an adjective which means "righteous". In the same way the noun "age" does not have to turn into an adjective meaning "lasting for a limited age".

Oldmantook said:
Would you not agree that the two proof texts you cited can be viably explained from a universalist interpretation as I wrote?

No, I honestly do not think the language and context allow for a universalist interpretation of Matthew 25:46 or 2 Thessalonians 1:9. I think the evidence is very strong that aionios means "eternal" when looking forward in time as used in the New Testament. And a punishment and destruction of any kind which is "eternal" would rule out universalism, wouldn't it?

Almost there · Dec 12, 2017

I defer to here:
1 Corinthians 13:12King James Version (KJV)
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Oldmantook · Dec 13, 2017

Der Alter said:
The two proof-text verses that you cite in order to prove fatal to universalism are not fatal at all in my opinion. In proper context, Matt 25:46 references the sheep and the goats. Per the universalist view, this scriptures reads "And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.' (YLT)
When Jesus returns he will judge the goats and sheep. The goats are consigned to age-during punishment, v.41,46 and the sheep to age-during life, v.46. The age that is being referred to is the Millennial age, therefore no contradiction.
In 2 Thess 1:9 "age-during" destruction is also a viable interpretation. The germane question is what is referred to by 'destruction?' If we allow scripture to interpret scripture we find the same word 'destruction' employed in 1 Cor 5:5 "hand this man over to Satan for the destruction (olethron | ὄλεθρον | acc sg masc) of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved on the Day of the Lord. According to this verse, his flesh is destroyed - not the person. This verse is consistent with the universalist view that a person will be refined through fire and eventually saved after spending an age of time in the lake of fire and helps to interpret destruction in 2 Thess 1:9.
Here you have reinterpreted the verse you quoted, so that it supports a universalist view..

1 Corinthians 5:5
(5) hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved [σωθη/sothe] on the day of the Lord.
1 Cor 5:5 does not say the person will definitely be saved. The word translated "may be saved" is σωθη/sothe. It is an Aorist, Passive, Subjunctive
The subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility and potentiality. The action described may or may not occur,

Thank you for pointing that out as parsing that verb is indeed in the subjunctive mood. That forced me to examine the verse closer. Upon doing so I noticed that I cannot use this verse to support universalism because the man in question may be saved on the day of the Lord which I assume means saved on the day of the Lord's return which concludes this church age and thus rules out any reference to any salvific status being applied during the age of the lake of fire which occurs some time after His return.
That being the case I turned my attention to 2 Thess 1:9 which the OP proposed as a text contradicting the universalist position. The Greek word in question is olethron | ὄλεθρον which can be translated as destruction or ruin. If destruction is the appropriate translation of olethron, then in my mind that would mean that the individual in the lake of fire is somehow destroyed which could mean cessation of existence per the annihilist view. Yet, how can a person cease to exist for an age-during time only? That is why ruin is the better choice as it better fits with the text in my opinion according to a universalist viewpoint as it is possible to experience age-during ruin in the lake of fire. In addition olethron also appears in 1 Tim 6:9 where it is not only translated as ruin but it is also compared with another word translated as destruction which is apōleian. Thus 2 Thess 1:9 in itself does not negate the universalist position.

Oldmantook · Dec 13, 2017

Mark Corbett said:
Just as aionios is derived from aion, dikaios is an adjective derived from the noun dike. Dike means a penalty or punishment. But dikaios means righteous. How did that happen? It’s hard to say. It may be related to a Greek goddess named Dike who is the goddess of justice, perhaps so named because she punishes those who deserve it. The point is not that there is no relationship between a noun and an adjective derived from that noun. The point is that the relationship is not the simple, direct relationship which many Universalist arguments require in order to work. No one could guess that a noun which means "penalty" would turn into an adjective which means "righteous". In the same way the noun "age" does not have to turn into an adjective meaning "lasting for a limited age".

Actually dike and dikaios may not vary in meaning as much as you think. Penalties are often enacted in order to maintain a righteous and just standard. In other words, the former (penalty) is a means to the end which is being righteous. Penalty and righteous both share judicial connotations of meaning that can be observed in the following list.
https://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/written/word_studies/greek/dikaios.pdf
So I would maintain the the adjective dikaios and the noun dike still have similar meaning and do not differ much from each other. On the other hand, the same cannot be said for aion which is of limited duration and ainios/aionion which if translated as eternal means endless duration - polar opposite meaning! That in my opinion is unjustifiable.

Mark Corbett said:
No, I honestly do not think the language and context allow for a universalist interpretation of Matthew 25:46 or 2 Thessalonians 1:9. I think the evidence is very strong that aionios means "eternal" when looking forward in time as used in the New Testament. And a punishment and destruction of any kind which is "eternal" would rule out universalism, wouldn't it?

I know that since you interpret aionios as eternal you don't think the universalist interpretation is valid. But I based my reply demonstrating that age-during applies to the Millennial age which is consistent with the universalist view therefore there is no inconsistency as most claim when using Matt 25:46 as a proof text against universalism. The goats go away to age-during punishment and the sheep to age-during life - during the Millennium. No inconsistency there.

Mark Corbett · Dec 13, 2017

Oldmantook said:
Actually dike and dikaios may not vary in meaning as much as you think. Penalties are often enacted in order to maintain a righteous and just standard. In other words, the former (penalty) is a means to the end which is being righteous. Penalty and righteous both share judicial connotations of meaning that can be observed in the following list.
https://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/written/word_studies/greek/dikaios.pdf

First, thank you for sharing the word study on dikaios. I have book marked the church page where it was shared as they appear to have prepared other word studies as well. I'm always thankful when such carefully prepared resources are shared openly on the internet in a way that they can benefit many.

With respect to our topic, I agree that there is a reasonable and logical connection between the meaning of dike and the meaning of dikaios. Knowing the meaning of both, we can easily imagine how dike, a noun referring to a penalty, could lead to dikaios, an adjective meaning righteous. However, if we started with dike we could not have predicted ahead of time that an adjective formed from it would mean "righteous" because penalties are used to enforce and produce righteousness. Dikaios could just have easily ended up meaning "painful", because penalties are painful, or even "evil", because penalties are given in response to evil.

This illustrates why the meaning of a word cannot be determined by it's roots, by the word or words it comes from. Googling "etymological fallacy" will enable one to find endless examples, and we could brainstorm and think of endless examples on our own.

This doesn't mean etymology is useless. It is often interesting and sometimes will help us feel the flavor of a word a little better and sometimes the etymology does turn out to be very closely related to the current meaning and in those cases can help illustrate it. Still, the meaning of a word is best determined by looking at it's usage. It is especially helpful if we can look at a similar context. Throughout the New Testament wherever aionios looks to the future (which is all but 3 uses out of 71), the meaning "eternal" can fit. And in many cases, the meaning of "eternal" is very obvious from the context.

Oldmantook said:
So I would maintain the the adjective dikaios and the noun dike still have similar meaning and do not differ much from each other. On the other hand, the same cannot be said for aion which is of limited duration and ainios/aionion which if translated as eternal means endless duration - polar opposite meaning! That in my opinion is unjustifiable.

Even IF we attempted to derive the meaning of aionios from aion, "eternal" would be a justifiable guess. That is because aion, while basically meaning "an age", is sometimes used, especially in the New Testament, to refer to an age which is eternal and is also used in phrases which refer to eternal things. Here are a few examples:

John 5: 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever (Literally: "into the age, or into the aion"). This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

NIV John 8:51 Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death."
BGT John 8:51 ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐάν τις τὸν ἐμὸν λόγον τηρήσῃ, θάνατον οὐ μὴ θεωρήσῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

NIV John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.
BGT John 10:28 κἀγὼ δίδωμι αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ οὐχ ἁρπάσει τις αὐτὰ ἐκ τῆς χειρός μου.

NIV John 12:34 The crowd spoke up, "We have heard from the Law that the Messiah will remain forever, so how can you say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted up'? Who is this 'Son of Man'?"
BGT John 12:34 Ἀπεκρίθη οὖν αὐτῷ ὁ ὄχλος· ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν ἐκ τοῦ νόμου ὅτι ὁ χριστὸς μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, καὶ πῶς λέγεις σὺ ὅτι δεῖ ὑψωθῆναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; τίς ἐστιν οὗτος ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου;

NIV Hebrews 5:6 And he says in another place, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."
BGT Hebrews 5:6 καθὼς καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ λέγει· σὺ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισέδεκ,

Oldmantook said:
I know that since you interpret aionios as eternal you don't think the universalist interpretation is valid. . . .

Yes, that is the main point of this series of three posts. I'm convinced that aionios means eternal and that therefore there any universalist interpretation of Matthew 25:46 is not valid:

CSB Matthew 25:46 "And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

ClementofA · Dec 13, 2017

Mark Corbett said:
This age refers to the time period we are now living in until Jesus returns. The age to come refers to the eternal age where those who are saved will live with God in the New Heavens and the New Earth.

Mark, i'd suggest an alternate view that the "age to come" refers to the 1000 year millennial age eon.

With that in mind, the verse you quoted can be interpreted to limit aionios life to the millennium:

Lk 18:29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, 30Who shall not receive manifold more in this age [or eon], and in the age to come lasting [or agelong, eonian] life.

Similarly, Mt.25:46 may be viewed as contrasting destinies in the millennial age eon kingdom of Christ, and to say nothing about final destiny which was addressed earlier in Matthew 1:21; 2:6; 5:26; 12:31-32.

Considering Lk.18:30 above, ECF John Chrysostom limits aionios to a specific age of finite duration:

"For that his[Satan's] kingdom is of this age,[αἰώνιος] i.e., will cease with the present age[αιώνι] ..." (Homily 4 on Ephesians, Chapter II. Verses 1-3).

CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 4 on Ephesians (Chrysostom)

Also, David Burnfield makes an interesting point re Matthew 25:46:

"None of the sins listed in [the context of] Matt.25:46 can be considered blasphemy of the Holy Spirit."

He quotes Mt.12:31:

"Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven." (NASB)

And emphasizes the words "any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people".

He then says "If we can believe what Christ tells us, then the 'only' sin that is 'not' forgiven is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit which obviously does not include the sins listed in Matt.25:34-44."

Then he quotes from Jan Bonda's book "The One Purpose of God...":

"Verse...46, in particular, has always been cited as undeniable proof that Jesus taught eternal punishment. Yet it is clear that the sins Jesus listed in this passage do not constitute the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Assuming Jesus did not utter this word with the intention of contradicting what he said moments before [Matt 12:31], we must accept that the sins mentioned in this passage [Matt 25:46] will eventually be forgiven. This means, however strange it may sound to us, that this statement of Jesus about eternal punishment is not the final word for those who are condemned."

(pg 220-221, Patristic Universalism: An Alternative To The Traditional View of Divine Judgement, 2nd ed, 2016, by David Burnfield)

Spirit blasphemy - unpardonable sin

Oldmantook · Dec 14, 2017

Mark Corbett said:
This illustrates why the meaning of a word cannot be determined by it's roots, by the word or words it comes from. Googling "etymological fallacy" will enable one to find endless examples, and we could brainstorm and think of endless examples on our own.

I'm no language major, much less a linguist but I think you have conflated etymological fallacy with the rules of grammar. The meaning of words no doubt, do change over time however that is not to be confused with how words are grammatically employed withing any given language. In other words in the Koine Greek, does the meaning of an adjective (aionios) formed by adding a suffix to its noun (aion) change its meaning from the noun's meaning? If you could prove that, your claim might have a legitimate basis.

Mark Corbett said:
It is especially helpful if we can look at a similar context. Throughout the New Testament wherever aionios looks to the future (which is all but 3 uses out of 71), the meaning "eternal" can fit. And in many cases, the meaning of "eternal" is very obvious from the context.

One must guard against confirmation bias. If one looks up in a concordance the number of times a word occurs in Scripture, the total is determined by that particular English translation's translation of a Hebrew/Greek word. In many Bible translations except for a few such as YLT, aionios/aionion is translated as eternal. However that doesn't automatically entail that "eternal" is the correct translation. In fact if you look back at the history of this subject you would know that it was Augustine who first began to make popular the notion that hell/LOF is eternal. The great irony is that Augustine was a less the stellar student of the Greek language preferring Latin himself which precipitated our current belief today that hell is eternal. Your view that the context translates to eternal is at odds with many scholars such a G Campbell Morgan (who I don't think was a universalist himself) who wrote: "
Let me say to Bible students that we must be very careful how we 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. – G. Campbell Morgan, God’s Methods with Men, page 185.

Mark Corbett said:
Even IF we attempted to derive the meaning of aionios from aion, "eternal" would be a justifiable guess. That is because aion, while basically meaning "an age", is sometimes used, especially in the New Testament, to refer to an age which is eternal and is also used in phrases which refer to eternal things. Here are a few examples:

I don't understand how an age which by definition is of fixed and limited duration can be "an age which is eternal." Please explain.

Mark Corbett said:
Yes, that is the main point of this series of three posts. I'm convinced that aionios means eternal and that therefore there any universalist interpretation of Matthew 25:46 is not valid:

Like I wrote earlier, when you take an a priori position that ainios means eternal and use Matt 25:46 against a universalist, your claim is based on the supposition that since life is eternal in the second half of that verse, it must certainly mean that punishment in the first half is also eternal since the same word aiōnion is used in both halves. I demonstrated earlier that aiōnion refers to the Millennial age therefore in context "age-during" is an appropriate translation. You can believe that eternal should be the translation but I believe otherwise based on the context of the text itself.

Mark Corbett · Dec 14, 2017

Oldmantook said:
I'm no language major, much less a linguist but I think you have conflated etymological fallacy with the rules of grammar. The meaning of words no doubt, do change over time however that is not to be confused with how words are grammatically employed withing any given language.

Morphology is the study of how words are formed. Etymology is the study of the history of a word. There is overlap between the etymology and morphology because if you have a noun (for example) and someone at some point adds an ending (a morpheme) which makes it into an adjective, than the history of that morphological event happening is part of the word's etymology.

Oldmantook said:
In other words in the Koine Greek, does the meaning of an adjective (aionios) formed by adding a suffix to its noun (aion) change its meaning from the noun's meaning? If you could prove that, your claim might have a legitimate basis.

In comment #8 above I already provided one example from Greek of precisely what you request:
dike (noun meaning "penalty") + -ios → dikaios (an adjective meaning "righteous")

Here is one more example:

ago (verb meaning "lead, bring, carry, take") + tios → axios (adjective meaning worthy, fitting)
(see: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%84%CE%BE%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82 )

Although I'm not unwilling to discuss some of the other points you made, I'm not sure there is much point in trying to go forward if we continue to disagree on one of the main points of the OP. Namely, I am claiming that you cannot determine the meaning of aionios simply based on the meaning of aion. Words simply don't work that way. The meaning of words are determined by how they are used at any given time and in a certain context, and not by examining how the word was formed from another word at some point in the past. This is a pretty basic linguistic fact which I've illustrated and explained in the OP and I've given additional examples in comment #8 and this comment.

The "etymological fallacy" is also sometimes called "the root fallacy" precisely because a words meaning is not determined by its "root word". The "root word" of aionios in aion. I remember being taught this in an introductory course on hermeneutics. It's really not controversial. Here are a couple of sites which discuss this:

Word-Study Fallacies by Robert Cara

Nuts and Bolts 016: The Root Fallacy

It's ok if we just disagree on this for now.

Grace and Peace, Mark

ClementofA · Dec 14, 2017

ClementofA said:
Mark, i'd suggest an alternate view that the "age to come" refers to the 1000 year millennial age eon.

With that in mind, the verse you quoted can be interpreted to limit aionios life to the millennium:

Lk 18:29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, 30Who shall not receive manifold more in this age [or eon], and in the age to come lasting [or agelong, eonian] life.

Similarly, Mt.25:46 may be viewed as contrasting destinies in the millennial age eon kingdom of Christ, and to say nothing about final destiny which was addressed earlier in Matthew 1:21; 2:6; 5:26; 12:31-32.

Considering Lk.18:30 above, ECF John Chrysostom limits aionios to a specific age of finite duration:

"For that his[Satan's] kingdom is of this age,[αἰώνιος] i.e., will cease with the present age[αιώνι] ..." (Homily 4 on Ephesians, Chapter II. Verses 1-3).

CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 4 on Ephesians (Chrysostom)

Also, David Burnfield makes an interesting point re Matthew 25:46:

"None of the sins listed in [the context of] Matt.25:46 can be considered blasphemy of the Holy Spirit."

He quotes Mt.12:31:

"Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven." (NASB)

And emphasizes the words "any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people".

He then says "If we can believe what Christ tells us, then the 'only' sin that is 'not' forgiven is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit which obviously does not include the sins listed in Matt.25:34-44."

Then he quotes from Jan Bonda's book "The One Purpose of God...":

"Verse...46, in particular, has always been cited as undeniable proof that Jesus taught eternal punishment. Yet it is clear that the sins Jesus listed in this passage do not constitute the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Assuming Jesus did not utter this word with the intention of contradicting what he said moments before [Matt 12:31], we must accept that the sins mentioned in this passage [Matt 25:46] will eventually be forgiven. This means, however strange it may sound to us, that this statement of Jesus about eternal punishment is not the final word for those who are condemned."

(pg 220-221, Patristic Universalism: An Alternative To The Traditional View of Divine Judgement, 2nd ed, 2016, by David Burnfield)

Spirit blasphemy - unpardonable sin

As further evidence that the "age to come" is not eternal, Paul speaks of both the age to come & multiple future ages in the same context (Eph.1:21; 2:7). Many other passages of the Bible speak of multiple future ages, not just one future age, such as Rev.11:15; Lk.1:33, etc.

Therefore, since Christ spoke of aionios life being obtained in the age to come (Mk.10:30; Lk.18:30), aionios life in these verses can be interpreted as being finite. Likewise with aionios in Mt.25:46 & re the punishments of 2 Th.1:9 & Dan.12:2-3.

Early Church Father, Origen, BTW, referred to what is "after aionios life". And among the ancient Jews there was a belief in an intermediate period of Messiah's reign before the final age.

But getting back to Dan. 12:2-3...

The context suggests the view that both the life & the punishment referred to in v.2 are of finite duration (OLAM), since v.3 speaks of those who will be for OLAM "and further".

2 From those sleeping in the soil of the ground many shall awake, these to eonian life and these to reproach for eonian repulsion." 3 The intelligent shall warn as the warning of the atmosphere, and those justifying many are as the stars for the eon and further." (Dan.12:2-3, CLV)

The Hebrew word for eonian (v.2) & eon (v.3) above is OLAM which is often used of limited durations in the OT. In verse 3 of Dan. 12 are the words "OLAM and further" showing an example of its finite duration in the very next words after Dan. 12:2. Thus, in context, the OLAM occurences in v.2 could also both be understood as being of finite duration.

Additionally, the early church accepted the following Greek OT translation of the Hebrew OT of Dan. 12:3:

καὶ οἱ συνιέντες ἐκλάμψουσιν ὡς ἡ λαμπρότης τοῦ στερεώματος καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν δικαίων τῶν πολλῶν ὡς οἱ ἀστέρες εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ ἔτι[and further]

Notice the words at the end saying KAI ETI, meaning "and further" or "and still" or "and yet" & other synonyms.

eti: "still, yet...Definition: (a) of time: still, yet, even now, (b) of degree: even, further, more, in addition." Strong's Greek: 2089. ἔτι (eti) -- still, yet

εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ ἔτι means "into the ages and further" as a translation of the Hebrew L'OLAM WA ED[5703, AD]

So this early church Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures agrees with the above translation (& those below) using the words "and further", "futurity", "beyond" & similarly.

3 and·the·ones-being-intelligent they-shall- warn as·warning-of the·atmosphere and·ones-leading-to-righteousness-of the·many-ones as·the·stars for·eon and·futurity (Dan. 12:3, Hebrew-English Interlinear)
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/dan12.pdf

2 and, many of the sleepers in the dusty ground, shall awake,—these, [shall be] to age-abiding life, but, those, to reproach, and age-abiding abhorrence;
3 and, they who make wise, shall shine like the shining of the expanse,—and, they who bring the many to righteousness, like the stars to times age-abiding and beyond. (Dan. 12:2-3, Rotherham)

2 And the multitude of those sleeping in the dust of the ground do awake, some to life age-during, and some to reproaches—to abhorrence age-during.
3 And those teaching do shine as the brightness of the expanse, and those justifying the multitude as stars to the age and for ever*. (Dan. 12:2-3, YLT)
* for "for ever" Young of YLT says substitute "age during" everywhere in Scripture: http://heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/bibles/ylt.pdf

Dan. 12:2-3 was the only Biblical reference to "life OLAM" Jesus listeners had to understand His meaning of "life aionios"(life OLAM) in Mt.25:46 & elsewhere in the New Testament.

Verse 3 speaks of those justifying "many". Who are these "many"? The same "many" of verse 2, including those who were resurrected to "shame" & "contempt"? IOW universalism?

Mark Corbett · Dec 15, 2017

ClementofA said:
As further evidence that the "age to come" is not eternal, Paul speaks of both the age to come & multiple future ages in the same context (Eph.1:21; 2:7). Many other passages of the Bible speak of multiple future ages, not just one future age, such as Rev.11:15; Lk.1:33, etc.

Again, while I don't have time to respond point by point to all your comments, I'll offer what I can.

First, even IF you were correct that "age to come" refers to a future age of limited duration, this would NOT mean that aionios means "lasting for an age of limited duration". You are still making the etymological fallacy. The fact that a person has eternal life while they are in a limited age does not mean their eternal life does not last beyond that age.

However, I do not believe that you are correct about the "age to come" referring to a future age of limited duration. The fact that the Bible speaks of both the "age to come" and multiple future ages does not necessarily mean that the phrase "age to come" refers to an age of limited duration. I believe it refers to an eternal age. This can be illustrated as follows:

Der Alte · Dec 15, 2017

ClementofA said:
. . . Early Church Father, Origen, BTW, referred to what is "after aionios life". And among the ancient Jews there was a belief in an intermediate period of Messiah's reign before the final age. . . .

And no matter how many times this three word out-of-context misquote is corrected, you continue trying to use it to prop up the false teaching of universalism.
.....What exactly did Origen say? What "is 'after aionios life'?" These 3 words are from Origen's Commentary on John, where Origen is commenting on Jn 4:13-14

John 4:13-14
(13) Jesus said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again,
(14) but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

Quote from Origen. This passage says nothing about anything "after eternal life" for the righteous who have eternal life.

(17) He says that eternal life is the [goal], as it were, or the water that springs up, as indeed Solomon says, when he talks about the bridegroom in the Song of Songs, Behold he has come leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the hills.
(18) For, as there, the bridegroom leaps upon souls that are more noble-natured and divine, called mountains, and skips upon the inferior ones called hills, so here the fountain that appears in the one who drinks of the water that Jesus gives leaps into eternal life.
(19) And after eternal life, perhaps it [the fountain] will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life. For Christ is life but he who is greater than Christ is greater than life.
(20) when the promise to the one who is blessed because he hungers and thirsts for righteousness is fulfilled, then he who drinks of the water that Jesus will give will have the fountain of water that leaps into eternal life arise within him.
Commentary on the Gospel According to John

Note the three word misquote does not say that anyone or anything has another life after eternal life. Origen is speculating that after the fountain given by Jesus "leaps into eternal life" "perhaps it will also leap into the father who is beyond eternal life."
Once again Origen says nothing about some kind of life after eternal life.

ClementofA · Dec 15, 2017

Der Alter said:
And no matter how many times this three word out-of-context misquote is corrected, you continue trying to use it to prop up the false teaching of universalism.
...

Der Alter said:
You continue to quote Origen out-of-course even after the error has been pointed out to you. Here is what Origen said "in context"

Origen Commentary on John 13:19, 60
13:19 "And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life"
Origen does not say that anyone or anything does in fact leap into the father. Origen said "perhaps it will leap into the father who is beyond eternal life." Now let's read further in the same source you quoted.

(6o) And he has explained the statement, But “he shall not thirst forever:” as follows with these very words: for the life which comes from the well is eternal and never perishes, as indeed, does the first life which comes from the well,; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it.
Commentary on the Gospel According to John
I think we can safely assume that Origen used the same Greek or Latin word for eternal in both 13:19 and 13:60. Therefore Origen proves absolutely nothing! Note the language in para. 60 is not speculative, Origen makes five direct statements "eternal" life "never perishes,""remains.""is not taken away,""[is not] consumed,""[does not] perish."

All of what follows is from previous discussions of this topic:

Der Alter said:
I like how unis hold up Origen as a poster boy for ECF universalism but when something Origen says contradicts universalism, as does Comm John 13:60, they have all kinds of arguments why Origen is wrong. This is trying to eat your cake and have it too.

What contradiction? There's no contradiction to universalism there.

Origen makes it clear that "eternal fire" (Mt.25:46) is remedial, corrective & temporary:

"Chapter 10. On the Resurrection, and the Judgment, the Fire of Hell, and Punishments."

"1. But since the discourse has reminded us of the subjects of a future judgment and of retribution, and of the punishments of sinners, according to the threatenings of holy Scripture and the contents of the Church's teaching— viz., that when the time of judgment comes, everlasting fire, and outer darkness, and a prison, and a furnace, and other punishments of like nature, have been prepared for sinners— let us see what our opinions on these points ought to be."

"...nevertheless in such a way, that even the body which rises again of those who are to be destined to everlasting fire or to severe punishments, is by the very change of the resurrection so incorruptible, that it cannot be corrupted and dissolved even by severe punishments. If, then, such be the qualities of that body which will arise from the dead, let us now see what is the meaning of the threatening of eternal fire."

"...And when this dissolution and rending asunder of soul shall have been tested by the application of fire, a solidification undoubtedly into a firmer structure will take place, and a restoration be effected."

[De Principis Book 2]

CHURCH FATHERS: De Principiis, Book II (Origen)

Der Alter said:
There is no contradiction! In 13:19 there was one speculative comment "after [eternal life,] perhaps it will also leap into the Father." In 13:60 Origen makes five definitive, NOT speculative, statements about eternal life. "eternal life," "[1] never perishes,""[2]remains.""[3]is not taken away,""[4] is not consumed,"[5] does [not] perish."

If you say [a] "it looks like it will rain today, maybe it will rain" & then say "it won't rain today", then [c] you are contradicting yourself. Both statements cannot be true.

As to aionios life, if it refers to life during the aions and, as Origen says, the aions end, then when all will leap into the Father, who is "beyond eternal life", then it "remains" & is "not taken away" during the aions. It isn't "consumed" but, as Origen said "leaps" into the Father who is "beyond eternal life". Notice BTW that it doesn't say "maybe" the Father is "beyond eternal life", but that He - is - "beyond eternal life".

"And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life".

The word "perhaps" is related to the "it will also leap", whatever "it" refers to. Not to the statement before which definitively speaks of there being an "after eternal life", nor to the phrase after it, "beyond eternal life".

What is the Greek word for "never" in "never persishes"? In some bible translations it involves a deceptive rendering of the word aion which means literally eon, not "never". So your opinion about what Origen said in section 60 can be easily explained away. And be in harmony with what he said earlier in statements about after/beyond "eternal life".

Der Alter said:
.....It appears to me that "pope" Ramelli is pushing her agenda and ignoring everything in Origen which contradicts her.

What gives you that idea & why speak of her as pope? She has read Origen in the original Greek & Latin. You haven't. She is a partistic scholar, especially of Origen. You are not.

Der Alter said:
Where can I review the complete text of Origen Comm John to verify that the alleged quotes are correct?

As you've been previously informed, this is where i got the Greek text of Origen that i posted:

TLG - Home

Der Alter said:
Go to the same source from which you quoted all the Greek in the other thread. The Greek for comm John 13:60 will be right there.

I may do that. Although when i checked last year most texts of Origen were unavailable in the ancient koine Greek language.

Der Alter said:
Not relevant! I don't see any Greek here. What exactly do you think this proves?

It opposes your opinions based on English translations alone, such as in section 60 above & your claims re Origen's "definition" of aion & aionios as "eternal". And it opposes your claims that the definition of aion/ios & olam in the Scriptures is "eternal" & always means "eternal" except when used in hyperbole.

Clearly your arguments don't have even half a leg to stand on.

Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism

Universalism – The Truth Shall Make You Free

Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell

-----------------------

Der Alter said:
Then De Principiis contradicts commentary on John.

How is that?

Der Alter said:
Since you do not know what "it" refers to how can you cite this paragraph as evidence of anything? Try reading the paragraph in-context at your link maybe you will understand it then. I suggest you read para.18

Whatever "it" refers to doesn't change the fact of Origen speaking of "after eternal life" and "beyond eternal life", which was supported also by:

Evagrius's Kephalaia Gnostika

Evagrius's Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from ...
By Ilaria L.E. Ramelli (pages 10- 11)

Where again Origen refers to what is after eternal life, as well as after "the ages", beyond "ages of the ages" [often mistranslated forever & ever] and all ages.

Further re Origen & aionios:

"That threats of aionios punishment are helpful for those immature who abstain from evil out of fear and not for love is repeated, e.g. in CC 6,26: "it is not helpful to go up to what will come beyond that punishment, for the sake of those who restrain themselves only with much difficulty, out of fear of the aionios punishment"; Hom. in Jer. 20 (19), 4: for a married woman it is better to believe that a faithless woman will undergo aionios punishment and keep faithful, rather than knowing the truth and becoming disloyal;" (p.178-9).

Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp.)

CHURCH FATHERS: Contra Celsus, Book VI (Origen)
CHURCH FATHERS: Contra Celsus, Book VI (Origen)

Furthermore re Origen & aionios, Origen makes it clear that "eternal fire" (Mt.25:46) is remedial, corrective & temporary:

"Chapter 10. On the Resurrection, and the Judgment, the Fire of Hell, and Punishments."

"1. But since the discourse has reminded us of the subjects of a future judgment and of retribution, and of the punishments of sinners, according to the threatenings of holy Scripture and the contents of the Church's teaching— viz., that when the time of judgment comes, everlasting fire, and outer darkness, and a prison, and a furnace, and other punishments of like nature, have been prepared for sinners— let us see what our opinions on these points ought to be."

"...nevertheless in such a way, that even the body which rises again of those who are to be destined to everlasting fire or to severe punishments, is by the very change of the resurrection so incorruptible, that it cannot be corrupted and dissolved even by severe punishments. If, then, such be the qualities of that body which will arise from the dead, let us now see what is the meaning of the threatening of eternal fire."

"...And when this dissolution and rending asunder of soul shall have been tested by the application of fire, a solidification undoubtedly into a firmer structure will take place, and a restoration be effected."

[De Principis Book 2]

CHURCH FATHERS: De Principiis, Book II (Origen)

Links to the Works of Origen in English, Greek, and Latin
Links to the Works of Origen in English, Greek, and Latin

And yet more re Origen & aion/ios:

"Origen, the greatest exegete of the early Church, was well aware of the polysemy of aión and its adjectival forms. In Hom. in Ex. 6.13 he writes: “Whenever Scripture says, ‘from aeon to aeon,’ the reference is to an interval of time, and it is clear that it will have an end. And if Scripture says, ‘in another aeon,’ what is indicated is clearly a longer time, and yet an end is still fixed. And when the ‘aeons of the aeons’ are mentioned, a certain limit is again posited, perhaps unknown to us, but surely established by God” (quoted in Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, p. 161). And Comm. in Rom. 6.5: “In Scriptures, aión is sometimes found in the sense of something that knows no end; at times it designates something that has no end in the present world, but will have in the future one; sometimes it means a certain stretch of time; or again the duration of the life of a single person is called aión” (quoted in Ramelli, p. 163).

Sometimes Eternity Ain’t Forever: Aiónios and the Universalist Hope

Der Alter said:
Origen did NOT say there was a beyond eternal life.

He did. You saw the English translation saying so. And the Greek as well. Sorry to disappoint you, but the vast majority of people are not going to be kept alive only to be tortured forever by Love Omnipotent.

Der Alter said:
I couldn't find it at TLG.

Did you pay for the service?

Der Alter said:
If most texts of Origen were unavailable how were you able to copy from Origen's commentary on John?

John's commentary of the portion i quoted was available. AFAIK the site has many Greek works, but no Latin. Much of what Origen wrote is in Latin.

ClementofA · Dec 16, 2017

Mark Corbett said:
Again, while I don't have time to respond point by point to all your comments, I'll offer what I can.

First, even IF you were correct that "age to come" refers to a future age of limited duration, this would NOT mean that aionios means "lasting for an age of limited duration". You are still making the etymological fallacy. The fact that a person has eternal life while they are in a limited age does not mean their eternal life does not last beyond that age.

However, I do not believe that you are correct about the "age to come" referring to a future age of limited duration. The fact that the Bible speaks of both the "age to come" and multiple future ages does not necessarily mean that the phrase "age to come" refers to an age of limited duration. I believe it refers to an eternal age. This can be illustrated as follows:

Mark, i've been reading what well known Conditionalist Edward W. Fudge thought on aionios in "The Fire That Consumes". He says the word has more to do with quality than quantity of time. He also agrees with this quote, that aionios is "in fact literally 'of the age (to come)' " (p.37).

IMO your interpretations here above in your comments are conceivable, just as it is possible aionion life is restricted to an age or ages to come that are finite. Which, in my estimation, leaves this point at more or less of a stalemate.

Even if aionios means eternal in the vast majority of cases in the NT, or even in all except those referring to punishment, universalism may still be true. So arguing from non punishment uses of aionios is not conclusive. And, indeed, many universalists will fully agree that many of the instances of aionios mean eternal in the NT.

Though, personally, i haven't see one instance that is conclusively meaning eternal, either in the NT or LXX. Some URists even take the position that aionios & olam never mean eternal anywhere in the Scriptures, and that all aions, along with the times aionion, will cease. This could occur either by time itself ending, or when God's purpose of the eons (Eph.3:9) to head up "all" IN Christ (Eph.1:9-10) is accomplished & He becomes "all in all" (1 Cor.15:22-28).

If you are arguing that aionios at Mt.25:41 means eternal as regards the punishment of Satan, would you equate this eternal punishment to Satan's forever and ever torments in Rev.20:10? In that case would aions and aionian be equivalent?

In the following thread i have 12 points of 'evidence' from the Scriptures that "forever & ever" ends, which weighs against aionios being eternal. Posts 130 and 131 here detail those 12 points:

What is the 2nd Death? (Annihilationsim vs. Eternal Torment)

What Does Aionios Mean? (part 2, It is wrong to define aionios based on aion)

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads