Hi folks, I’ve entered your domain in need of your help with some Greek words that seem to be causing much confusion: aion and aionios. I’ve been studying the New Testament (in English I hasten to add). I’m trying to determine the meaning of some verses and in order to do this I’ve been looking at some of the Greek words, as sometimes the English translation may not do justice to the full meaning that was intended in the Greek. Many articles I’m reading are saying that ‘aionios’ can’t mean ‘eternal’ or ‘everlasting’ as is claimed by the leading concordances. If ‘aion’ means ‘age’, then why does ‘aionios’ not mean ‘pertaining to an age’? or something similar? How can a word have opposite meanings? I know a word can have more than one meaning and you can determine this via the context, but surely a word’s meanings as varied as they may be, can’t have ‘opposite’ meanings e.g ‘black’ can’t sometimes mean ‘white’, ‘high’ can’t sometimes mean ‘low’. This would be crazy? I hope someone can help me with this, as a very important long held ‘belief’ rests upon the correct understanding of ‘aionios’. 
I’ll offer two points:
- You need to consider idiomatic expressions as well as definitions.
- What makes you think that “eternal” has an opposite meaning to the concept of “age”?
as a very important long held ‘belief’ rests upon the correct understanding of ‘aionios’. >
Wouldn’t happen to be Hell would it?
Thanks for your feedback so far guys. Yes, it is ‘hell’. I haven’t believed in a literal ‘hell’ for many years anyway, but it’s good to be sure what the scriptures are actually saying about this very important subject. I’ve been debating with a pastor of a local church about the four words used to translate ‘hell’ in the OT and the NT and it’s proving hard work trying to understand not only words like ‘hades’ and ‘gehenna’, as again, many articles and scholars seem to differ in their understanding of these words, but there seems to be a big divide over ‘aionios’ in particular. NathanSmith, you asked what makes me think that “eternal” has an opposite meaning to the concept of "age’'? I have always understood ‘eternal’ to be the same as ‘everlasting’ or ‘for ever’ ie without end, in contrast to an ‘age’ which has a beginning and an end.
Is the ‘kolasis aionios’ that Christ speaks of ‘without end’ or is it ‘pertaining to a period of time or age’? Surely an adjective or adverb agrees with the meaning of the noun? If ‘aion’ means an ‘age’ which is a period of time with a beginning and an end’, (as Strong’s for instance agrees) why then do the concordances I’ve checked not give ‘aionios’ a meaning pertaining to an ‘age’? This doesn’t seem consistant. A lot of the scriputures I’ve checked, in the NT and the Septuagint, where ‘aionios’ is used, MUST mean for a set period of time, otherwise the context wouldn’t make sense: e.g Jonah 2:6 (‘‘it’s bars closed behind me forever’’ - so Jonah was in the belly of the whale forever?? Of course not!!), Hab 3:6 (eternal mountains??). These two examples show that the period of time in question can be as little as three days, or thousands of years, but the period of time does end.
aion can also mean eternity, e.g. eis tous aionas (ton aionon), literally “to the ages (of ages)” which means “for ever.” But it doesn’t seem odd that a word referring to a long time could be extended to mean for ever. In fact, “eternal” shows the same development since you have Latin aeternalis < aeternus < aevum = aion (both in meaning and they’re in fact cognate). I think opposite is much too strong. You always have to watch out for etymological fallacies with arguments of this sort. I’m not saying that the conclusion is wrong, but that the argument is not valid.
With Jonah 2:6, that comes from a prayer while he’s in the whale – it makes sense that he would describe his situation as “eternal”. In Hab 3:6, you have to allow for non-literal uses of words. Consider these examples found online for eternal: “The Caribbean is home to many powdery beaches, eternal sunshine, and sparkling aquamarine waters…” or “I was warned about November - the month of the eternal rain, wind and lack of sunshine.” I don’t see anything wrong with describing mountains as eternal, even though they technically do not last for ever.
Thanks for your help modus.irrealis. Maybe ‘opposite’ isn’t quite right, but on the one hand we have a definition that conveys a period of time that goes on and on with no end, or a period of time that is indefinite in its duration but will have an end (and if it’s your eternal fate that is at stake, or rather to be understood, I think determining which definition is correct is vitally important). I disagree with your thoughts on Jonah when he thought he was going to perish in the Whale. I’m sure he was aware of the resurrection hope so he would have known that his fate would not be ‘forever’.
The other examples you give of how we use words in a non literal way is a good point to consider. Your examples all show clearly that certain words are exaggerated. We can’t really mistake the intended meaning though and so too with an example like ‘eternal mountains’. We know mountains don’t go on existing without end. I fail to see why the translators have not translated it ‘age enduring mountains’, as surely this is permissable if we’ve agreed that ‘aion’ can mean an ‘age’. If they’ve used the word ‘eternal’ in a non literal way, and the word really does mean ‘eternal’ (which I don’t think it can), then you could argue that Jesus didn’t really mean the kolasis of the ‘goats’ would be ‘forever’, maybe he was exaggerating. I don’t think that is the case. It makes more sense that just as mountains will crumble and end, Jonah would ‘come forth’ one day sooner or later (‘on the last day’), and so too, the kolasis aionios is corrective punishment 'pertaining to the ‘age’ or for as long as is necessary to accomplish its purpose. What do you think… 
I’ve never thought of this, since I’ve always thought the word means eternal. In the Greek church for example, in the memorial service, there’s a hymn that goes aionia he mneme “(may his) memory (be) everlasting”, so it certainly came to have that meaning. But this seemed interesting so I went through the GNT examples, and some of them cannot imply any sort of end – it’s used of theos in Rom. 16:26 and qualities of God (time and kratos) in 1 Tim. 6:16, so “eternal” seems to be a meaning of aionios. I think “pertaining to the age” is the right translation for most of the other cases, but referring to the age to come (which as far as I can tell was thought of as being endless). I mean, “eternal” as applied to god must go both ways in time (or be outside of time in a sense), which isn’t true of eternal life. The thing with aionios kolasis is that it’s contrasted with aionios zoe, and in Mat. 25:41, just before, it doesn’t sound like they’re being sent off in order to return. How would you understand aionios zoe?
I won’t argue over Jonah as I don’t know the book well, but about translating it as “eternal mountains”, if it’s a non-literal usage in the Hebrew bible and the word happens to have the same non-literal usage in English, I’d say it’s preferable to translate it that way. But I don’t know anything about Hebrew, so I can’t say anything to that.
If we establish that ‘aionios’ as used in the original Greek, means ‘pertaining to the age’ rather than ‘age enduring’ which is a translation also offered, then the various scriptures like the two you quoted and most importantly Matt 25: 46 (zoe aionios, kolasis aionios) do make sense. God is a God who deals in ages (Rock of Ages). This in no way limits Him or calls into question His endlessness. He operates in time and through our ages.
The verses I quoted from the OT were from the Septuagint and thus were using ‘aionios’. (Interestingly, the Septuagint is the translation that the apostles must have also used, because if you check where Jesus quotes from the OT, many times, the exact wording lines up with the Septuagint rather than the OT scriptures in the Hebrew language).
I would value your opinion on this article:
http://www.mercifultruth.com/eternity.htm
It’s not that long and goes into the Greek meanings etc. It also thoroughly explains the meaning of ‘zoe aionios’ and ‘kolasis aionios’, as this verse is often used to ‘prove’ that ‘aionios’ must mean eternal or everlasting.
Hope you get a chance to read it and can give me some feedback. I’m rather disadvantaged in making sure of all these things, as I haven’t studied Greek (I’m considering doing an on line course but my brain cells are not as quick as they used to be) and etymology and the such so I appreciate the help you guys are giving me.
About the article, I only read the first bit, and I’ll try to read the rest a bit later, but some initial comments:
"One useful way to discover a word’s meaning is to look at its parts. "
This is the etymological fallacy right there. A word might originally have been the sum of its parts but it doesn’t have to be and it can quickly change. This is the same sort of argument that says antisemitism doesn’t mean prejudice against Jews because Jews aren’t the only Semites, but that is exactly what the word means. But aionios means, among other things, “eternal” in Modern Greek, so what happens to the aion+ios argument there? And in Modern Greek, the main meaning of aionas (the modern from of aion) is “century”, and only secondarily means “a long period of time.”
There’s also too much emphasis in that article on English translations. I looked up the Vulgate translation of “the scriptures they use to support their false assumption”:
John 3:16 vitam aeternam
Mat 18:8 ignem aeternum
Rom 16:26 Dei aeterni
And the Latin translators were surrounded by Greek speakers, and we’re talking about a time not long after the NT was written, so if you don’t think what the word meant in later Greek has any bearing.
The other thing is that it can’t be denied that Greek speakers understood it to mean eternal. I found a passage in the works of John of Damascus on the word “aion” – there’s a translation online at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.ii.i.html – but the thing that struck me is aionios de zoe kai aionios kolasis to ateleuteton tou mellontos deloi (aionois life and aionios punishment shows the unending of the future [age]), where the word aionios is clearly understood as meaning endless, otherwise it wouldn’t show that the age to come will be endless.
John Chrysostom, in his commentary on Romans – there’s a translation at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vii.xxvii.html#vii.xxvii-Page_525 – he says that there will never be a release in the other life, and brings in Mark 9:44 and the passage in Matthew and says if life is aionios, then punishment is aionios. I can’t see any other way to understand this passage than to take aionios as meaning everlasting – I don’t see what else would make sense in context.
I’m just bringing this up to show that there can be no linguistic argument against understanding aionios to mean “eternal”. Perhaps there are good reasons to think it doesn’t in specific cases, but those can’t be reasons based on the language. Much of those arguments in the article seem to be more theological in nature, and I’m not equipped to discuss that so much, but I’ll try it out.
Hi all,
I was led to this page regarding the above article which I wrote. I just wanted to clear something up about what modus said. He said “that is the etymological fallacy” regarding my examination of the word parts. However, to my knowledge the etymological fallacy says that it is not correct to assume the meaning of the word based SOLELY on its etymology. That is why I was careful to say “one useful way to discover a word’s meaning…” Even dictionaries use etymology simply as one way to communicate meaning even just to show how the meaning changed. Etymology is just one way, but not the only way. I think I should have driven that point home a little more, by not only focusing on the Biblical usage to follow, but also in contemporary secular society showing alternative usage.
The information I included about the eymology of aionios is meant to show that it does not mean eternal of it’s own parts, but must evolved based on interpretation in order to mean “eternal.” To my knowledge translation is not a perfect science but relies heavily on interpretation given etymology AND contemporary usage. The word aionios can mean “peanut butter sandwich” if everyone in contemporary society agrees. So to your point about John of Damascus: he was a Christian who lived 200 years after the doctrine of eternal torment had been established. Of course he will say it means eternal because it has to align with the doctrine he already believed. But, here are some alternative examples of usage, some of which are sources who are indifferent to Christian doctrine:
-
Augustine (A. D. 400-430) was the first known to argue that aiónios signified endless. He at first maintained that it always meant thus, but at length abandoned that ground, and only claimed that it had that meaning sometimes. He “was very imperfectly acquainted with the Greek language.”
-
A. D. 410 Avitus brought to Spain, from Jerome, in Palestine, a translation of Origen, and taught that punishments are not endless; for “though they are called everlasting, yet that word in the original Greek does not, according to its etymology and frequent use, signify endless, but answers only to the duration of an age.”
-
The Emperor Justinian (A. D. 540), in calling the celebrated local council which assembled in 544, addressed his edict to Mennos, Patriarch of Constantinople, and elaborately argued against the doctrines he had determined should be condemned. He does not say, in defining the Catholic doctrine at that time “We believe in aiónion punishment,” for that was just what the Universalist, Origen himself taught. Nor does he say, “The word aiónion has been misunderstood, it denotes endless duration,” as he would have said had there been such a disagreement. But, writing in Greek with all the words of that copious speech from which to choose, he says, “The holy church of Christ teaches an endless aiónios (“ATELEUTETOS aiónios”) life to the righteous, and endless (ateleutetos) punishment to the wicked.” Aiónios was not enough in his judgement to denote endless duration, and he employed ateleutetos. This demonstrates that even as late as A. D. 540 aiónios meant limited duration, and required an added word to impart to it the force of endless duration.
-
Plato (De Repub. Lib. ii.) The Adjective. Referring to certain souls in Hades, he describes them as in aiónion intoxication. But that he does not use the word in the sense of endless is evident from the Phædon, where he says, “It is a very ancient opinion that souls quitting this world, repair to the infernal regions, and return after that, to live in this world.” After the aiónion intoxication is over, they return to earth, which demonstrates that the world was not used by him as meaning endless. Again, he speaks of that which is indestructible, (anolethron) and not aiónion. He places the two words in contrast, whereas, had he intended to use aiónion as meaning endless, he would have said indestructible and aiónion.
-
In Rome there were certain periodical games known as the secular games, from the Latin seculum, a period, or age. The historian, Herodian, writing in Greek, calls these aiónian games, that is, periodical, occurring at the end of a seculum. It would be singular, indeed, to call them eternal or everlasting games. Cremer, in his masterly Lexicon of New Testament Greek, states the general meaning of the word to be ‘Belonging to the aión.’" Herodotus, Isocrates, Xenophon, Sophocles, Diodorus Siculus use the word in precisely the same way. Diodorus Siculus says ton apéiron aióna, “indefinite time.”
Here is an interesting note:
In the sixteenth century Phavorinus was compelled to notice an addition, which subsequently to the time of the famous Council of 544 had been grafted on the word. He says: “Aión, time, also life, also habit, or way of life. Aión is also the eternal and endless AS IT SEEMS TO THE THEOLOGIAN.” Theologians had succeeded in using the word in the sense of endless, and Phavorinus was forced to recognize their usage of it and his phraseology shows conclusively enough that he attributed to theologians the authorship of that use of the word. Alluding to this definition, Rev. Ezra S. Goodwin, one of the ripest scholars and profoundest critics, says,(10) “Here I strongly suspect is the true secret brought to light of the origin of the sense of eternity in aión. The theologian first thought he perceived it, or else he placed it there. The theologian keeps it there, now. And the theologian will probably retain it there longer than any one else. Hence it is that those lexicographers who assign eternity as one of the meanings of aión uniformly appeal for proofs to either theological, Hebrew, or Rabbinical Greek, or some species of Greek subsequent to the age of the Seventy, if not subsequent to the age of the Apostles, so far a I can ascertain.”
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html
In conclusion, the linguistic argument is not that it “cannot mean eternal.” Like I said, it can mean “peanut butter sandwich” if everyone agrees. But the argument is that it does not mean eternal without interpretation or evolution of the word. Some clues exist as to when the evolution of aionios into “eternity” (as being a word which can be interpreted no other way) began as being the only way to understand the word:
From: HISTORY OF OPINIONS ON THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF RETRIBUTION By Edward Beecher, D.D.
Some centuries, then, after the death of Origen, that great theologian in his own esteem, the Emperor Justinian, directed Mennas, the Patriarch of Constantinople, to call a local council in the year 544 to condemn errors of Origen. Among these errors was the doctrine of universal restoration. Justinian, in his letter to Mennas, presents an elaborate argument against that doctrine among others, and concludes it with a careful statement of the true faith. Here, now, was a call for an unambiguous word to denote eternal, as applied to life and punishment. The emperor, writing in Greek, had his choice of words. What word, then, from the full vocabulary of Greece, did he select? Did he rely on the word aionios as, of itself, sufficient for his purpose? Not at all. As if aware that it could denote simply “pertaining to the world to come,” he prefixes to it a word properly denoting eternal, so that his language is this, “The Holy Church of Christ teaches an endless aionian life to the righteous and endless punishment to the wicked.” Here the word used to denote endless in both cases is ateleutetos. In the case of punishment he omits aionios entirely. To denote the endless life of the righteous he uses the same unambiguous word ateleutetos, but prefixes it to aionios. But when he thus said the Church teaches an endless aionian life to the righteous, did he mean so flat a tautology as an endless endless life? Or did he prefix to the life of the world to come, as used in the creeds, a word that truly denotes eternal?
It deserves, also, particular notice, that, in a deliberate and formal effort to characterize the punishment of the wicked as strictly eternal, he does not rely on or use the word aionios at all, but employs an entirely different word, ateleutetos.
There was good reason for the distrust of Justinian of the power of the word aionios to express endless life and endless punishment. One of his contemporaries, the philosopher Olympiodorus, had pointedly used the word as directly opposed to endless punishment, and denoting a limited period. Speaking of the punishments of Tartarus, he says, Do not suppose that the soul is punished for endless aions [Greek letters here] in Tartarus. Very properly, the soul is not punished to gratify the revenge of the divinity, but for the sake of healing. But we say that the soul is punished for an aionion period [Greek letters here], calling its life, and its allotted period of punishment, its aion.” Of the very worst, he says that they need a second life, and a second period of punishment, to be made perfectly pure, and that Plato called this double period their aion. With this distinct denial of endless punishment before his eyes, and a recognition in its place of aionian punishment as the direct antithesis to it, how could Justinian express endless punishment except by another word denoting endlessness?
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Retribution/retribution19.htm
So my point was not to submit etymology as the final and only indicator but to start from that, and then to show Biblical USAGE of it.
Hi LMD, thanks for joining us and clarifying some points raised from your well written article. 
This is a question that requires a lot of looking into things, but here are some quotes that seem to me to suggest aionios = eternal from early on. From Plato’s Timaeus (37c-d):
ὡς δὲ κινηθὲν αὐτὸ καὶ ζῶν ἐνόησεν τῶν ἀιδίων θεῶν γεγονὸς ἄγαλμα ὁ γεννήσας πατήρ, ἠγάσθη τε καὶ εὐφρανθεὶς ἔτι δὴ μᾶλλον ὅμοιον πρὸς τὸ παράδειγμα ἐπενόησεν ἀπεργάσασθαι. καθάπερ οὖν αὐτὸ τυγχάνει ζῷον ἀίδιον ὄν, καὶ τόδε τὸ πᾶν οὕτως εἰς δύναμιν ἐπεχείρησε τοιοῦτον ἀποτελεῖν. ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ ζῴου φύσις ἐτύγχανεν οὖσα αἰώνιος, καὶ τοῦτο μὲν δὴ τῷ γεννητῷ παντελῶς προσάπτειν οὐκ ἦν δυνατόν: εἰκὼ δ’ ἐπενόει κινητόν τινα αἰῶνος ποιῆσαι, καὶ διακοσμῶν ἅμα οὐρανὸν ποιεῖ μένοντος αἰῶνος ἐν ἑνὶ κατ’ ἀριθμὸν ἰοῦσαν αἰώνιον εἰκόνα, τοῦτον ὃν δὴ χρόνον ὠνομάκαμεν.
There are all sorts of opinions on this text – what’s the difference between aidios and aionios? — but as far as I can see it says that the ideal world is aionios a property which it was impossible to attach to the physical world, and so he created an aionios moving image of the aion, the image being what we call time. This suggests to me that Plato is here trying to express eternity and used the word aion to do so.
From Philo, De Plantantione:
τὸ δὴ “θεὸς αἰώνιος” ἴσον ἐστὶ τῷ ὁ χαριζόμενος οὐ ποτὲ μὲν ποτὲ δὲ οὔ, ἀεὶ δὲ καὶ συνεχῶς, ὁ ἀδιαστάτως εὐεργετῶν, ὁ τὴν τῶν δωρεῶν ἐπάλληλον φορὰν ἀπαύστως συνείρων, ὁ τὰς χάριτας ἐχομένας ἀλλήλων ἀνακυκλῶν δυνάμεσιν ἑνωτικαῖς καθαρμοσάμενος, ὁ μηδένα καιρὸν τοῦ ποιεῖν εὖ παραλείπων, ὁ κύριος ὤν, ὡς καὶ βλάπτειν δύνασθαι.
I can’t find an English translation but as I understand it, it’s saying “‘theos aionios’ is the same as 'he who gives not sometimes, sometimes not, but always and continuously, he who does good continuously, he who unceasingly connects…” where the emphasis is on aionios implying some continuous, unending aspect of god.
And then aionios is sometimes contrasted to proskairos (“temporary”). For example from Gregory of Nyssa (a translation can be found at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.viii.i.xii.ii.html):
εἰ οὖν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τῷ υἱῷ ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή, ἆρα ψευδὴς ἁλώσεται ὁ εἰπὼν ὅτι Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ζωή, ἢ ζωὴ μὲν ἐστίν, οὐκ αἰώνιος δέ; ἀλλὰ τὸ μὴ αἰώνιον πρόσκαιρον πάντως, τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτο τῆς ζωῆς εἶδος κοινὸν καὶτῶν ἀλόγων ἐστίν.
“that which is not aionion is temporary”
Also, from Ignatius (translation can be found at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_I/IGNATIUS/Epistle_to_the_Trallians:_Shorter_and_Longer_Versions/Chapter_XI.)
φεύγετε καὶ τὰ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἔγγονα Θεόδοτον καὶ Κλεόβουλον, τὰ γεννῶντα καρπὸν θανατηφόρον, οὗ ἐάν τις γεύσηται, παραυτίκα ἀποθνήσκει οὐ τὸν πρόσκαιρον θάνατον, ἀλλὰ τὸν αἰώνιον.
“dies not the temporary death but the aionios death”
I don’t see how this has anything to do with Augustine, besides the fact that he had very little influence on the Orthodox East so I doubt he could have started a shift in the meaning of a Greek word.
Hi,
Alright, thanks for clarifying.
I read a bit more on the article, and I noticed that where you discuss 1 Tim. 1:17 you use the translation “immortal” for “aftharton”. But the basic meaning of the latter is “incorrupted/ible”, which might imply and be implied by “immortal” in certain cases. I don’t see the support for this translation, especially since you’re being very precise about the meaning of aionios. And again with 2 Tim 1:10, where you take “aphtharsia” as “immortality”, but I read it as “incorruptibility”.
Just curious, do you believe the King James Bible translators were incorrect in their translation of aphtharsia as “immortality?” The basic meaning of aphtharsia is incorruptible, but most scholars agree that the general meaning is immortality. So, even if it means incorruptible (not able to decay), the addition of “life” shows that Paul saw a distinction between “aphtharsia” and “life” enough to mention it separately several times. The question is: what, then, is the Bible’s OWN definition of the compound term “aionios life” regardless of what WE think it could be, and why is it distinguished from aphtharsia? The Bible is very specific about its definition, which I cover. Due to its definitions of aionios life it is unncessary to contrast “aionios life” with “aionios kolasin (chastisement)” to prove both being infinite. The Bible promises both the life of the ages, and resurrection to incorruptibility. Since “aionios life” is a term applied to “knowledge of God” which is internalized, available now in the aion of today, contrasted with death in sin and recommended as a cure, then simple simple biological conscious is not what the Scripture intends. Therefore aphtharsia as immortality is implied by the distinction.
You see, the argument is not that aionios can NEVER be used as eternal. It can mean “donkey.” But, if I am Plato and I want to express the difficult concept of eternity, I would refer to an endless aion, then, very naturally, I would use aionios to point to that aion. If used enough in THAT particular context by everyone everywhere at all times, then we can say that the word always means eternal. That wouldn’t mean that aionios meant eternity of its own merit (which Christians assume), it would just mean that aionios is being used to refer to a linear endless aion, or an aion above time and that it had enveloped all other usages, which is not the case. In fact, many scholars admit that the general usage around 1-500 AD was that aionios referred to time intervals. The argument is really against the idea, from theologians, that aionios can NEVER be rendered as temporary, which I think you would agree with based on what you have said. That aionios is/was never used mean temporal is clearly false throughout history, given that scholars have referenced it as such.
Also, I just wanted to mention one thing about the statement on that website: He says “For if the Apostle plainly says that what is not eternal is temporary”. That quote from Corinthians is a very rushed misquote. The Bible never says that. It does not contrast eternal with temporal but “seen” and “not seen”. It contrasts the the pain and suffering of the present which is seen and passing, with the weight of glory regarding an age which is not yet seen, being that it is yet in the future: http://mercifultruth.com/eternity-detailedstudy.htm
I’d say incorrect, yes. What I learned growing up was incorruptibility and immortality (as applied to us) were different things, the first referring to the fact that our bodies would not become sick or hungry and so on, while the second referred to that there would be no physical death (separation of soul and body). In my own reading, I haven’t seen anything that would contradict that, so it’s strange to me that it would be translated as immortal, especially when applied to God, but also in any other setting. I agree with you that aionois zoe is something different than both immortality and incorruptibility, but I don’t see any reason to merge the latter two. Do you know what the evidence would be to take it as immortality?
About Plato, though, he doesn’t use any modifier to make aion mean eternity. The word, together with aionios, could mean eternity and imply endlessness. I agree with you that’s not always the case – it’s clearly not always the case just in the NT. As to whether the word implies endlessness when used with κολασις, that seems more of a theological question. I disagree with you on what the text says but I’m not sure I’m up for such a debate.
About the Gregory of Nyssa quote – I’m not sure whether he is referring to that Corinthians passage (although he probably is). But even if it’s a misunderstanding I think it still is evidence of what kind of meaning aionios had for him.
First I want to say that one thing I have learned about word definitions is that they rely largely on a preponderance of evidence, and a decision of belief, regarding what they mean. Christians in particular believe that translation is a cold science, because it helps them to believe that the KJV is infallible. But, actually, translation is interpretive. And, there really is no final authority on it. There is no Websters Dictionary to tell us what aionios means as an evolved word from its parts. Even if there was, Webster would be viable only if we all agreed on it.
If I say that movie was “bad” I could mean “good” or “bad” based on many factors, like how I say the word, the environment that I am in. Then to interpret my meaning 2000 years later, someone would have to look at common usage and acknowledge the possibility for both interpretations. For example, an urbanite from present day would insist I meant “good” but a briton might say I meant “bad” and they would both have evidence of each usage being common in my day. So while I believe that the common usage of aionios is important and so is the etymology, I must ultimately consider both, but defer to the source (the usage in the Bible) and derive clues from there. Certainly, aionios as a time-frame was in wide enough use for Justinian, as an example, to qualify it with an extra word to push it into the endless meaning, and the etymology is clear that it means “of aion” and aion is generally regarded in the NT to be age in many many, if not all usages. When you add to the fact that “aionios life” is never defined as infinite existence but is in fact distinguished from imperishability in the Bible, it convinces me.
Note: there are many more theological reasons that I believe in universal salvation, not just this word. This is only one reason.
Regarding the incorruptibility question. A telling sign of how the apostle writers viewed the word is in Rom 1:23 where it says “(they) changed the glory of the uncorruptible (aphthartos) God into an image made like to corruptible (phthartos) man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” God, being Spirit and not physical flesh, is not subject to decay based on His very nature, so I think the usage here is that of a much stronger implication than simply “not to get sick” but of that which is “not able to be perishable.” It is this imperishable state that is distinguished from “zoe” - particularly “aionios zoe” in Romans 2:7 “To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality (aphthartos), eternal life (aionios zoe).” Again, this is the Bible’s usage, not necessarily ALL usage in all cases in all places. However, given the usage of aphthartos specifically in the NT, in relation to God, and future resurrection to incorruptibility, I think one would have to split hairs pretty fine to deny that the NT writers did not intend physical and conscious “immortality” when they used the word. IMHO
Being that the Bible is very clear about its definition of aionios life, I think the distinction being made in the NT is between the future gift of imperishability and the “life of the aion” which is the internalized knowledge of God through Christ now. That evidence is striking enough for me to believe the intent of the writers meant imperishability rather than simply sick-proof.
Why the emphasis on the KJV? Most Christians couldn’t care less whether it’s infallible or not.
–
I looked into the Justinian quote about “The Holy Church of Christ teaches an endless aionian life to the righteous and endless punishment to the wicked.” Unless I’m looking at the wrong quote, that’s not what the Greek says:
ἡ ἁγία γὰρ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκλησία ὥσπερ τοῖς δικαίοις ἀτελεύτητον κηρύσσει τὴν αἰώνιον ζωήν, οὕτω καὶ τοῖς ἀσεβέσιν ἀτελεύτητον κόλασιν παραδίδωσι.
For the holy church of God, just as it proclaims that the aionios life is endless for the just, so does it teach an endless punishment for the impious.
ateleutetos is not modifying aionios and is certainly not prefixed to it, like your source claims. It doesn’t really say anything on the meaning of aionios.
And I also tracked down the quote from Olympiadorus. I don’t have a problem with the translation but it leaves out the part from before, which is
εἰς οὓς ἐμβάλλονται αἱ ψυχαὶ κατὰ τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν ἁμαρτάδων, αἱ μὲν ἀιδίως κολασθησόμεναι διὰ τὸ ἀνίατα ἡμαρτηκέναι ἐν τῷ Ταρτάρῳ. πλὴν εἰ καὶ λέγω ἀιδίως, μὴ δὴ νομίσῃς, ὅτι εἰς ἀπείρους αἰῶνας κολάζεται ἡ ψυχὴ ἐν τῷ Ταρτάρῳ (εὖ γε οὐ διὰ μῆνιν τοῦ θείου κολάζεται ἡ ψυχή, ἀλλ’ ἰατρείας χάριν), ἀλλ’ αἰωνίως φαμὲν κολάζεσθαι τὴν ψυχὴν αἰῶνα καλοῦντες τὸν αὐτῆς βίον καὶ τὴν μερικὴν αὐτῆς περίοδον.
It says the souls will be punished aidios and despite the fact that he says that, he says don’t think the soul is punished for endless ages. Aidios, though, means “everlasting”, and here we seem him equate aionios with aidios, so I don’t see how this passage can be used to show that ainios doesn’t mean eternal – in fact I think it’s evidence that it does. He’s just interpreting what “eternal” means, just as you could in English.
–
God is not subject to death by nature either, and in the end, Paul could have always used athanatos and thnetos if he wanted to, but I guess we’ll just disagree on this.
Protestant Christians do think the KJV is infallible. They are the ones who will insist that aionios means eternal of its own merit, and in all cases.
The Justinian quote does show that he is equating a sense of endlessness to aionios life, and endlessness to punishment to reinforce aionios as endless. So also with Olympiadorus. And it is especially interesting that Justinian says that in opposition/contrast to Origin (who used the same word) who taught remedial aionios kolasin. I don’t see why aionios must mean eternal in either case.
Yes, God is not subject to death by nature, or decay. However, I see no reason why either one could not be used to communicate a sense of conscious immortality. In the case of the NT they use both synonymously. But that does mean that you don’t have to wonder why the translaters associated “non perishable” with God; it’s because the Greek writers do it. BTW, just as a side note it is very interesting that the Bible contrasts “aionios kolasin” with “aionios zoe” rather than contrasting it with “anathasia zoe” (not a biblical term) or “apharthsia zoe” (not a biblical term). I just think that’s interesting.
Alright. It came straight out of left field for me but now I guess I see why you brought it up.
The Justinian quote does show that he is equating a sense of endlessness to aionios life, and endlessness to punishment to reinforce aionios as endless. So also with Olympiadorus. And it is especially interesting that Justinian says that in opposition/contrast to Origin (who used the same word) who taught remedial aionios kolasin. I don’t see why aionios must mean eternal in either case.
My point was that it doesn’t show that aionios required any qualifications to mean endlessness, as you claimed. If you look at Justinian’s argument he see “aionios” as itself implying endlessness, as he quotes 2 Thess 1:9, where his only point could be the use of aionios. With Olympiadorus, the interesting thing is that he also says the punishment is aidios, but that’s a word that simply means “everlasting.” If he thinks an everlasting punishment can come to an end, then his use of aionios can’t imply anything about whether the word meant “eternal” or not. Or to put in another way, it’s not evidence that he thought aionios didn’t mean everlasting because he didn’t think everlasting meant everlasting.
Yes, God is not subject to death by nature, or decay. However, I see no reason why either one could not be used to communicate a sense of conscious immortality. In the case of the NT they use both synonymously. But that does mean that you don’t have to wonder why the translaters associated “non perishable” with God; it’s because the Greek writers do it. BTW, just as a side note it is very interesting that the Bible contrasts “aionios kolasin” with “aionios zoe” rather than contrasting it with “anathasia zoe” (not a biblical term) or “apharthsia zoe” (not a biblical term). I just think that’s interesting.
How do you know they’re used synonymously? I read something like 1 Cor. 15:53-54 and see them as clearly having different meanings, and I don’t see why that should be any different in the other contexts.