Sin is still sin (and God is still good) even "if God makes you do it"

[The following is a response to an article by Rick Farwell entitled, "IF GOD MAKES YOU DO IT, THEN YOU'RE NOT SINNING" (http://thedifferentiator.net/IFGOD.HTML)] 

Mr. Farwell begins his article with the following quote by A.E. Knoch: 

"All evil which is done with due authority, such as paternal or political, whether inflicted by parents upon their children, or masters upon their servants, or the state on its subjects, or God on His creatures (of which the rest are but figures) loses its "immoral" quality because it is salutary and corrective. Its morality lies, not in the evil, but in the relation sustained between the one who inflicts and the one who suffers. Consequently, even moral evil, committed by criminal men, loses its immoral quality when referred back to the One Whose purpose was being effected by the evil and Who not only has the undoubted right to inflict it but Whose every act will yet receive the undivided applause of the universe."  

A.E. Knoch believed that sin and evil are an essential part of God's redemptive plan for creation, and that God is ultimately responsible for their existence in the universe. He also affirmed that God is perfectly good and benevolent, and thus has the best interests of all his creatures at heart (see, for example, Knoch's insightful work "The Problem of Evil," which can be read here: http://concordant.org/expositions/problem-evil-judgments-god-contents/). 

I agree with Knoch on this. My understanding is that what makes an intention or action sinful is the motive behind it. Because I believe God's motive in bringing about the circumstances that result in sin being committed by his creatures is entirely benevolent, God is entirely blameless in everything he does. The "immoral quality" of any choice made by a human or celestial being is found in the motive of the sinning creature, and not in the motive of God, who is sinless. This, I believe, is essentially what Knoch was affirming in the above quote. However, it needs to be stressed that, although I will be defending this position against some of the assertions made by Mr. Farwell in his article, it is not merely because Mr. Knoch (or anyone else) believed it. It is because my own study of Scripture and my own reflection on this subject over the years has brought me to the same conclusion concerning the "problem of evil" to which Mr. Knoch arrived.  

After some brief remarks concerning what Mr. Farwell believes to have influenced A.E. Knoch's theology (which, according to Mr. Farwell, was the "fatalistic teaching of the State Church of the Lutherans and the atheistic Rationalists"), Mr. Farwell goes on to assert, "Since God IS good, nothing He causes any of His created beings to do, even if it is said to be "evil" is a sin. Since God is GOOD, everything He creates in its original state will be good, because it is created "out of God", Who is Good."

Notice that Mr. Farwell first uses the word "good" in reference to God. Now, it is clear that, when used by Mr. Farwell to describe God, the word "good" has a moral or ethical meaning, and refers to God's perfectly sinless and righteous character or nature. But notice that Mr. Farwell then uses the same word to describe "everything [God] creates in its original state." Is it really Mr. Farwell's view that "everything" that was created by God was originally "good" in the same sense that God is good? I doubt it. For in the sense that Mr. Farwell is saying that God is "good" (which refers to God's perfectly righteous character), "good" can be applied only to moral/rational/intelligent beings. It would be nonsense to say that rocks, trees, clouds, goats and stars are "good" in the same sense that God is good, or in the sense that Jesus Christ is good. The word "good" does not mean the same thing when used in reference to amoral things and animals as it does when used in reference to moral beings. So it seems that Mr. Farwell is being somewhat careless with his words here, and is (unintentionally, I'm sure) guilty of the informal logical fallacy known as "equivocation."

But what about Farwell's assertion that "nothing [God] causes any of His created beings to do...is a sin?" Does this follow necessarily from the fact that God is good? I don't think so. Suppose that, before sin had ever been introduced into the universe, God chose to bring into existence a being whose character and disposition was such that he was incapable of not sinning. Suppose also that God's motive in bringing about this state of affairs (i.e., the introduction of sin into the universe through the creation of a being who cannot help but sin) was completely pure and benevolent, and that the creation of this sinful being will ULTIMATELY contribute to the maximum glorification of God and the maximum happiness of every created being, both in the heavens and on earth.

Now, Mr. Farwell, of course, doesn't believe any of this. The above scenario is purely hypothetical, as far as he is concerned. And that's fine. But unless Mr. Farwell can show that the scenario described above is implicitly or explicitly contradicted by Scripture - or that it is somehow incoherent and logically impossible - then Mr. Farwell's belief that God's goodness is inconsistent with his causing a created being to sin is not something which anyone need feel Biblically (or rationally) obligated to share. Mr. Farwell would have to show that it is either contradicted by Scripture or that it is somehow logically impossible for sin to in any way contribute to the glorification of God or to the ultimate happiness of all in order for his conclusion to necessarily follow. And I honestly don't think Mr. Farwell (or anyone else) could prove such a thing. But apart from Mr. Farwell's being able to prove this, no one need agree with his assertion. For if (as I believe can be reasonably inferred from Scripture) God's purpose to glorify himself and bring about the maximum happiness of all requires the (temporary) existence of sin and evil in the universe, then God would be fully justified (and would remain fully benevolent and good) in bringing about such a state of affairs to achieve his goal. If the end result is the maximizing of God's glory and the securing of the best interests of all - and if this end result cannot be realized apart from the temporary existence of sin and evil in the universe - then God would be fully justified in bringing this about. The end, in this case, WOULD justify the means.  

Mr. Farwell then quotes the passages from Genesis where God pronounces his creation "good" and "very good." But these pronouncements by God had absolutely nothing to do with the ethical/moral goodness of the creation. God was not saying, "Creation is morally good and blameless in character, just like me." For if that were the case, then it would mean that, for the period of time during which Adam was alone (Gen. 2:18), creation was morally impure and sinful (for notice that God said it was "NOT GOOD that the man should be alone...")! But that, of course, is ridiculous. The fact is that God was not talking about the moral goodness of his creation here. 

The Hebrew word translated "good" is ṭôb, and carries the same broad range of meaning as the English word "good" (see, for example, Strong's definition). For example, we're later told that God "made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good (ṭôb) for food" (Gen 2:9; cf. 3:6). Obviously, the "goodness" of these trees had nothing to do with their moral/ethical character (for they had none). Their being "good for food" simply meant that they were desirable, suitable or fit for food. Similarly, God's creation was "very good" simply in that it was perfectly suited to accomplish his divine purpose. It was favorable for the accomplishment of his purpose, and in accord with what he desired it to be. God's appraisal of his creation as "very good," then, was a value judgment. It was his approval of his creation as being in accord with what he desired it to be, and as perfectly suited for its chosen function. 

Mr. Farwell goes on to say, "If everything Satan did was the result of God doing it, it would be impossible for him to SIN (miss the mark), if what Adam did in the garden, by eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, was God's doing, then it wouldn't have been a sin, or transgression, or disobedience, or an offense against God, since Adam would have only been doing God's will, and since God is Good, and not an evil being, or a criminal organization, it could not have been rebellion, it would have been following God's orders, doing the will of God, even His intention." 

Sin, according to the apostle John, is "lawlessness" (1 John 3:4). At its heart, sin is essentially a violation of what Christ called the two greatest precepts or commandments, on which he said depend (or are "hanging") all the law and the prophets: "You shall be loving the Lord your God with your whole heart, and with your whole soul, and with you whole comprehension," and "You shall be loving your associate as yourself" (Mark 12:28-31). According to Paul, to love another is to fulfill God's law, and the saying "You shall love your associate as yourself" (which in James 2:8 is called the "royal law") sums up God's precepts (Rom 13:8-10). John even goes so far as to say that anyone who professes to love God while failing to love his brother is a liar (John 4:19-21). To love God requires that one love one's associates as one loves oneself. Whenever one is failing to do this, one is guilty of "lawlessness," and is thus sinning. 

But what if one's failure to love God and to love others is ultimately due to circumstances outside of one's control (and which were ultimately brought about by God himself)? Does a failure to keep these precepts cease to be sin just because God is the ultimate explanation for why one is failing to do this? I see no good reason why this should be the case. Regardless of the ultimate explanation for WHY one is failing to love God and one's associates (whether it's in accordance with God's sovereign purpose, or the result of the "free will" of his creatures, as Mr. Farwell seems to believe), the fact is that the failure of any moral being to keep these precepts makes them a sinner. So it's simply not true that a person cannot be considered a sinner simply because God is ultimately responsible (and the ultimate explanation) for what they do and why they do it. For again, sin essentially consists in a violation of God's precepts to love him supremely and to love one's associate as oneself. A failure to love God supremely and to love one's associate as oneself doesn't cease to be sin/lawlessness just because God is the ultimate explanation for WHY one is failing to love. A failure to keep these precepts is, at its essence, precisely what sin IS.  

Thus, contrary to the view of Mr. Farwell, sin is sin regardless of whether it is a part of God's plan for a being to sin, or not. If God's plan involved the creation of a spiritual being whose character and disposition is such that he can't help but fail to love God and human beings, this being would still be a sinner. His failure to love God and the human beings within the sphere of his influence wouldn't cease to be sinful merely because it was God's will that he have this sinful character. Nor would his sinful actions cease to be sinful merely because he is acting in accord with the counsel of God's will. 

Consider, for example, the activity of Satan as described in the opening chapters of the book of Job. Were not Satan's actions in accord with the counsel of God's will? I'm not sure how this could be denied. Had it not been God's will that Satan do what he did, he could have (and would have) prevented Satan from doing it. God was just as capable of taking away Satan's power and authority (or even having him thrown into the lake of fire) in Job's day as he will be in the future. But this God did not do. Instead, God gave Satan the full authority to do exactly what he (Satan) ended up doing. Satan's actions after he left the divine throne room did not take God by surprise. God had perfect knowledge of Satan's character and disposition, and knew exactly what he would do if given the opportunity. There was nothing that Satan did that God did not fully expect him to do, and which he did not give him the authority to do; consequently, everything that Satan did must be understood as being in accord with the counsel of God's will. And it should be noted that Job himself understood all the evil that he suffered as ultimately coming from God, and as being in accord with God's will: "Yahweh gave, and Yahweh has taken away; blessed be the name of Yahweh" (Job 1:21-22). "Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?" (Job 2:10).  

Now, I believe that God is good, and that everything he does is in the best interests of all his creatures. Consequently, his motive in giving Satan the authority to do what he did was perfectly pure. But what was Satan's motive in doing what he did? Did he do it out of love for God and for Job? I don't see any good reason to believe that he did. Instead, we have every reason to believe that Satan's heart was just as full of malice as it was when he tempted Eve in the garden of Eden. When Satan took almost everything of value away from Job (including his children), it was not because he loved God. Nor was it because he loved Job as he loved himself. Satan's actions were not motivated by love for God or Job, but rather by a malicious desire to expose Job as one who didn't really love God. His desire was that Job would, in response to the adversity brought upon him, curse God to his face (Job 1:9-11; 2:5). In other words, what Satan did was sinful; he did not have Job's best interests at heart. And his actions did not cease to be sinful merely because they were in accord with the counsel of God's will.  

Consider also Christ's temptation by Satan in the wilderness. Did Satan do what he did at this time out of a love for Christ? Did he have Christ's best interests at heart? Were his motives pure and in harmony with what Christ called the greatest precepts? No; we have every reason to believe that Satan's desire was that Christ yield to every temptation presented to him, and that he take Satan up on his offer, and worship him in exchange for all the kingdoms of the world and their glory (Matt 4:8-9). 

Satan's actions during this time were undoubtedly sinful and wicked, and betrayed a lack of love for both God and his Son. And yet, it was evidently in accord with God's will that Satan do exactly what he did, for it was the spirit that led Jesus into the wilderness to be tried by Satan (Matt. 4:1; Mark 1:12). Had it not been God's will for Jesus to undergo this trial by Satan, the spirit would not have led Jesus into the wilderness to be tried by him. Thus, we have yet another example of the sinful activity of Satan being in accord with the counsel of God's will. 

In response to the position that Satan began his existence in a sinful state, Mr. Farwell writes: "When did Satan, first LIE? When did he become a MAN-KILLER? Well, the first man was Adam, so Satan couldn't have been a man-killer before there was a man to kill." 

With regards to Satan's being a sinner, one of the following must be true: either he was created by God with a sinful character/disposition, OR he began his existence in a morally pure/upright (or morally neutral) state, and then acquired a sinful character/disposition later on. Although both positions cannot be true, both views are consistent with the position that God is sovereign over all circumstances, and is thus ultimately responsible for Satan's present sinfulness. For regardless of which view is correct, it could be affirmed that God is ultimately responsible for Satan's being a sinner. With that said, I believe that Scripture affirms the former view. 

It is clearly stated in Scripture that Satan has been sinning "from the beginning" (1 John 3:8) and that Satan has been a man-killer "from the beginning" (John 8:44). From the beginning of what? Evidently, the beginning of his creation, or existence. When Christ used the same expression in reference to Adam and Eve (Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6), the "beginning" in view refers to the time of their creation - i.e., the beginning of their existence. When used in reference to Satan, therefore, it is most natural to understand the "beginning" to refer to the time of his creation - i.e., the beginning of his existence. 

But how could Satan be a "man-killer" before there were human beings in existence to kill? First, it should be noted that a person could be considered a murderer or "man-killer" without actually killing anyone. This is evident from the apostle John, who taught that anyone who has hatred for his brother is a man-killer (1 John 3:15). Thus, being a "man-killer" concerns the malicious disposition of a person's heart, and not necessarily the act of taking someone's life. Second, if God's intention in creating Satan was that he would be the adversary of mankind and would desire and seek their destruction and ruin, then it would be true to say that Satan was a "man-killer from the beginning." For being a "man-killer" - i.e., being one who hates and seeks the destruction and ruin of human beings - would be the purpose and role for which Satan was created by God (at least, with regards to the eons). Thus, Satan can be said to have been a man-killer from the beginning if (in accordance with God's "purpose of the eons") he was created by God with a sinful and malicious disposition that is antagonistic and hostile towards human beings, and which caused him to seek their destruction and ruin as soon as they were created.  

But again, it should be emphasized that, regardless of whether one believes that Satan began his existence as a sinful being or not, one can still affirm that (1) God is ultimately responsible for Satan's being a sinner, and (2) God is good, and does only that which is in the best interests of all his creatures. 

Mr. Farwell goes on to say, "And if Satan had been doing God's work in the Garden, he wouldn't have sinned, and if what he said to Eve had been God's words, then he wouldn't have been a father of lies or a liar."

If God's sovereign plan for Satan in the garden was that Satan act in a way that was unloving toward the human beings within the sphere of his influence, it would neither make God unloving nor make Satan loving. Satan's antagonism toward humanity doesn't become love just because it is in accord with God's plan. His failure to love the human creatures within the sphere of his influence is still sin, even if God was ultimately responsible for his being this way. Similarly, if God's sovereign plan required that Satan speak falsehoods to Eve in the garden, it would neither make God a liar nor make Satan a truth-teller. Satan's lies don't become truths just because his being "a liar and the father of it" is in accord with God's sovereign plan. 

In the final paragraph of his article, Mr. Farwell says, "So, the solution to this (sin-evil problem) is not in some sort of Calvinist-Fatalistic nightmare in which the only One Who is GOOD, is really not so good after all, and is a "the end justifies the means" Deity (differing little from a manipulating narcissist). No, the solution is that God has delegated certain abilities to some of His creatures, and given a certain freedom in areas where they will be judged according to what they have done with these powers and abilities (this is why Libertarian Free Will exists within these creatures—man and celestial beings)."  

Opponents of the Biblical position that all is out of God (Rom 11:36) frequently deride this view as "fatalism," or as being "fatalistic." Is this a fair charge or description of this position? Fatalism says, "Whatever is, must be." This philosophical position does not take into account the existence of a personal (let alone a wise and benevolent) God or the unfolding of an all-encompassing divine plan. One popular definition of fatalism is, "The belief that events are determined by an impersonal fate and cannot be changed by human beings." In contrast to this view, Scripture affirms that it is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ - not a blind, impersonal fate - who is operating all in accord with the counsel of his will (Eph 1:11).

Although Mr. Farwell is clearly not a fan of "fatalism," he evidently has no problem believing in something that is equally philosophical in nature: "libertarian free will." Since I've already written an article against this position (http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2014/07/a-critical-look-at-christian-doctrine.html), there's no need to spend much time on the subject here. As I demonstrate in my article, any choices that are "free" in the libertarian sense would be nothing more than events of a completely random nature, and any being who is "free" in the libertarian sense would essentially be a random event generator. Any future event which is uncertain (and thus only possibly one way or another) from the perspective of not only God's creatures but God himself must necessarily be understood as a purely chance event. 

Consider, for example, the movement of a quantum particle. If it is uncertain to God whether a particle will swerve to the left or to the right, then its swerving to the left or to the right would be a purely random event from God's perspective. Whether it went one direction or another would, from God's perspective, be a matter of pure chance. And since God's perspective is the ultimate and absolute perspective, any such event would, absolutely speaking, be completely random and (therefore) inexplicable. There would be no reasonable explanation that God could provide as to why one outcome was actualized rather than the other. And the same, I believe, would go for any choices made by his creatures IF such choices were "free" in the libertarian sense. 

If it is uncertain to God how a human or angelic being will exercise their libertarian free will - if God is unable to know with certainty the outcome of such a volitional event - then the being's choice would be a purely random event, absolutely speaking. It would not be random and inexplicable merely in the sense that no finite being with limited knowledge could predict it. No, it would be random and inexplicable in that not even God himself could predict it. And if God himself could not predict such a volitional event and know with certainty what the outcome would be, a reasonable explanation as to why one choice was made rather than another would be impossible, even for God. The volitional event and its outcome would be inexplicable and utterly random in nature. Thus, in the attempt to relieve God of the responsibility for evil in the world and "free" people from his absolute control over all things, those who believe in "libertarian free will" end up making us all slaves to pure chance and randomness.

Mr. Farwell goes on to say, "God did a very difficult thing in giving His creation a great amount of liberty, it proved very costly, for many times God was grieved (even to the point of wiping out all but eight people in a flood) as only a Good and Loving Being could be when His creatures misuse their gifts and become lost, and relinquish some of their power to others."

It would seem to be Mr. Farwell's belief that God's being described as grieving or regretting the decisions of his creatures supports his position that they have "libertarian free will." The example Mr. Farwell uses is the regret/grief God is described as having in response to the wickedness of mankind prior to the flood. Now, it would seem that Mr. Farwell is a proponent of the philosophical/theological position known as "Open Theism" (or is at least sympathetic towards this position). According to Open Theism, much of the future is "open" (i.e., uncertain) from God's perspective until human and angelic beings exercise their "libertarian free will." According to Open Theism, much of the future depends on the "free will" choices of humans and angelic beings for its becoming "settled." Until then, the future is "open" and only POSSIBLY this way or that way - not just from the relative perspective of human and angelic beings (which would be the case even if the future was settled from God's perspective), but from the absolute perspective of God himself. However, even an Open Theist would have to admit the absurdity of thinking that, after Adam and Eve failed to resist a single temptation from Satan in the garden of Eden, God would have expected subsequent generations of human beings to fare any better under much less ideal and favorable circumstances. 

Scripture affirms that God declares "the end from the beginning" (Isaiah 46:10), that all is "out of" and "through" God (Rom 11:36), and that God is operating "all things in accord with the counsel of his will" (Eph. 1:10). This being the case, we can conclude that God knew how corrupt mankind was going to become in Noah's day before he created mankind, or even before he created the heavens and the earth. Nothing that took place prior to the flood took God by surprise, or was in any way contrary to his expectation. 

What then of God's being represented as grievously regretting his decision to make man? This is likely an example of the literary device known as anthropomorphism. God's "regret" should not be understood any more literally than what we read in Gen 2:9 (where God is represented as being ignorant of Adam's location in the garden of Eden), Gen 9:13-17 (where God sets the rainbow in the sky in order "to remember the age-abiding covenant" he made with Noah), or Gen 18:20-21 (where God speaks as if he doesn't have full knowledge of the past or present). God is described as regretting his decision to create mankind to give emphasis to the radical wickedness and corruption of mankind at this time and to the unexpected, cataclysmic event that was about to transpire to remedy this problem.

Moreover, it should be noted that, according to Mr. Farwell's view, it was always a possibility to God that mankind would become as evil as they became prior to the flood. And yet God (according to Mr. Farwell) apparently valued man's "libertarian free will" enough to take that risk! Thus, the God of Libertarian Free Will/Open Theism allowed for this possibility when he willed to create a world in which such a possibility might be actualized. In order to achieve what he viewed to be a greater good, he preferred that such a thing be possible rather than not possible. Thus, God is just as much an"end justifies the means Deity" according to Mr. Farwell's position as he is according to the position that he opposes. According to Mr. Farwell's position, there would have been no evil apart from God's decision to give his creatures "libertarian free will." 

Apparently, God valued the existence and exercise of such "freedom" more than he valued a world in which evil could not and would not be actualized, and thus considered the creation of beings with this sort of "freedom" worth the risk of evil being actualized in every possible way in which it has been (and will be) actualized. According to Mr. Farwell's view, then, our having libertarian free will is a "greater good" that justifies the possibility of (what he would probably consider to be) gratuitous evil. God's creating a world in which gratuitous evil is possible should, therefore (according to Mr. Farwell's view), be considered a necessary means to an end - i.e., the realization of a "greater good" that could not be realized apart from the existence of libertarian free will (and thus apart from the possibility of gratuitous evil). 

According to what Mr. Farwell seems to believe, God's plan and expectation when he created the heavens and the earth was that his creation would remain forever free from sin. If this is the case, then we have a sad and pathetic God indeed - a God who is more deserving of our pity than our praise. For if this were God's plan and expectation, then he experienced - and is continuing to experience - the greatest disappointment imaginable. And not only that, but we would have no good reason to put our trust in God. We could have no assurance that the ultimate redemptive purpose of God will ever be accomplished if anything has ever happened contrary to his plan and expectation - especially if that which was contrary to his plan and expectation was the introduction of sin and evil into the universe. If, however, God's sovereign plan all along was that sin and evil would enter his creation, remain for a time, and then be abolished through the redemptive work of his Son, then his plan is truly the expression of a perfectly wise, competent and good Being.

Eternal or Eonian? Part Seven (Then Comes the End; God All in All)

 "Then Comes the End"

The apostle Paul makes it clear that, contrary to popular Christian belief, Christ's reign is not going to be "eternal" or "everlasting" in duration. In 1 Cor. 15:23-28, we read: 

"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For 'God has put all things in subjection under his feet.' But when it says, 'all things are put in subjection,' it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all." 

Christ's reign over the earth - when "all peoples, nations and languages" shall serve him - will begin when he comes with the clouds of heaven (Dan. 7:13-14; Rev. 1:7). And according to Paul in the above passage, his reign will continue "UNTIL he has put all his enemies under his feet." The word "until" is key, and indicates that the placing of Christ's enemies under his feet is the goal of his reign. When this goal is reached, there will no longer be any need for Christ to continue reigning. We are then told by Paul that the last enemy to be destroyed is death. Thus, the "end" (or "consummation") referred to in v. 24 comes after death, the last enemy, is finally abolished (through the vivification of every last member of Adam's dead and dying race). After the destruction of death, Christ then "delivers the kingdom to God the Father." 

"But," it may be objected, "Daniel 7:14 says that Christ's dominion "shall not pass away!" Yes, but notice the next words, "...and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." This is likely an example of Hebrew parallelism, where (for the sake of emphasis) the same idea is stated in two different ways. Thus, for the Messiah's dominion to "pass away" would imply the forceful removal of it, and the destruction of his kingdom. Moreover, in the context, the expression "shall not pass away" is clearly meant to be understood as contrastive with what is said concerning the dominion of the "beasts" mentioned just two verses earlier. In Daniel 7:12 we read, "As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time." The Hebrew word translated "taken away" here (‛ădâ',‛ădâh) is the same word translated "pass away" in v. 14. In v. 12 the word clearly denotes a forced and involuntary removal of the beast's dominion. This is made even more evident in v. 26, where we read that the dominion of the Antichrist (the "little horn" of Dan. 7:8 and 11) shall also be "taken away" (‛ădâ', ‛ădâh), which is explained to mean that it would be "consumed and destroyed to the end." Thus, in the context, the meaning of Dan. 7:14 is simply that the dominion of the Messiah would not be forcefully and involuntarily taken away from him (implying the destruction of his kingdom). This does not, however, mean that Christ (after having accomplished what he was sent by the Father to do) will not one day voluntarily deliver his kingdom to the One from whom he received it. 

Gabriel vs. Paul? 

Some see the words of the celestial messenger Gabriel in Luke 1:32-33 as undermining the idea that the eons of Christ's reign will eventually end. In these verses we read that Gabriel told Mary, "And the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for the eons [eis tous aionas]. And of his kingdom there shall be no end." The words, "and of his kingdom there shall be no end," are understood by most Christians to mean that Christ will never stop reigning. However, were this the correct meaning of Gabriel's words, they would be in direct conflict with the words of the apostle Paul. 

Since it is evident from what Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:24-28 that Christ's reign will end when he abolishes death, how do we harmonize this with what Gabriel told Mary? As noted earlier, the word aionas (in the expression eis tous aionas) is simply the plural form of the Greek noun aión. The expression literally means "for the eons." Since we can understand Gabriel to be referring to the final eons prior to the "end" or "consummation" referred to in the above passage, this part is not problematic. But what about the words, "and of his kingdom there shall be no end?" To understand this, we must keep in mind that, according to Paul, Christ is ultimately going to "deliver the kingdom to God, the Father." This will take place after Christ has abolished death and subjected all to himself. Moreover, the kingdom that Christ is going to deliver to the Father is the same kingdom which he is prophesied as receiving from God (the "Ancient of Days") in Daniel 7:13-14. It is this kingdom which will be his [Christ's] for the eons to come, thus making it the "eonian kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 1:11), since it belongs to Christ during the coming eons of his reign. But when the kingdom is returned to God at the end of Christ's reign (and at the consummation of the eons during which Christ reigns), the kingdom is not going to end. It will simply cease to be the "eonian kingdom" of Christ (for the eons of Christ's reign will have ended), becoming the everlasting kingdom of the Father. 

Thus, as first revealed in Gabriel's words to Mary, the kingdom that is going to belong to Christ for the final eons of redemptive history shall have no consummation or end. It's simply going to be returned to its Source (God, the Father), and continue for all time. 

Eonian Life and Immortality 

Some see Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 4:16-18 and 5:1 as undermining the idea that he employed aiónios in reference to temporary periods of time. There, Paul writes, 

"So we do not lose heart. Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed day by day. For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eonian (aiónios) weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient (proskairos), but the things that are unseen are eonian (aiónios). For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eonian (aiónios) in the heavens. For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked." 

Here Paul is contrasting the present, mortal body of the believer (and the hardships to which it is necessarily subjected) with the future, immortal body with which believers will be "clothed" when that which is mortal is "swallowed up by life" (see 1 Cor. 15:21-28, 50-54). Our "outer nature" (which is "wasting away") refers to our present, mortal bodies. Our "inner nature," on the other hand (which, for the believer, is being "renewed day by day"), likely refers to our mind (cf. Romans 12:2). 

Now, in this passage, Paul is using proskairos and aiónios in contrast with each other. But notice that he is not contrasting time (which would be the word "chronos" in Greek) with timelessness. Instead, Paul is contrasting two different measures of temporal duration (i.e., two different measures of time). In Matthew 13:21, Christ employs proskairos to denote a relatively short measure of time. It is used in reference to those who hear the gospel and endure in their faith for only "a short while" in contrast to those who, after hearing the word, keep it and go on to produce fruit. Christ is not contrasting a temporary period of time with an endless measure of time; rather, Christ is contrasting a relatively short measure of time which does not result in the production of "fruit" with a relatively longer period of time that does (similarly, in Hebrews 11:25, proskairos is translated "a short season" or "fleeting" in some translations, and denotes the relatively short-lived enjoyment that sin brings). But the opposite of proskairos isn't endless duration, for proskairos doesn't mean finite duration. Its meaning is clearly relative to whatever is in view. Again, when Christ uses the word in Matt 13:21, he isn't contrasting a person who endures in his faith for a finite period of time with a person who endures in his faith for an infinite period of time; he's contrasting a relatively short period of time with a relatively longer period of time (i.e., relative to a person's mortal lifespan).

In the context of 2 Corinthians 4-5, proskairos conveys a relatively short measure of time (i.e., duration confined to a mortal lifetime, during which time one can see and experience one's mortal self "wasting away"). Aiónios, on the other hand - while not meaning endless duration - denotes a much longer duration of time (i.e., the duration of the eons to come, the full length of which is not explicitly revealed in Scripture). So when Paul says that "the things that are seen" are proskairos (i.e., fleeting, or pertaining to a relatively short measure of time) while "the things that are unseen" are aiónios (i.e., pertaining to, or enduring through, the eons to come) he places our present, mortal bodies in the former category of things, and our future, immortal bodies in the latter category of things. 

But why does Paul refer to our immortal bodies as "eonian, in the heavens," since this word does not denote endless duration? It's because he has in view the blessing that will be enjoyed exclusively by believers, prior to the time that Paul calls "the consummation" (i.e., when death is abolished by Christ and all are vivified or "made alive" in him). Paul has in view only those who are members of the body of Christ, and the heavenly allotment they alone will enjoy during these coming eons. This blessing for believers (in which they will enjoy immortality in heaven during the final two eons) is eonian in duration, not "eternal." When the last two eons (the eons of Christ's reign) come to an end, the believer will not lose his immortality. He will continue to live. But his life will, at this time, no longer pertain to (or be enduring through) the eons of Christ's reign. The special, eonian salvation he enjoyed as a result of being in the body of Christ will have come to an end. For at this time, God's "purpose of the eons" will have reached its goal: all people will have been made immortal and saved, and God will be "all in all."

Eternal or Eonian? Part Six (The Eonian God; The Kingdom of God; Eonian Life)

The Eonian God

As a review of the conclusions at which we've arrived in this study so far, let's now consider Paul's words in Romans 16:25-27. Below is the passage as it appears in three of the most literal translations of Scripture we have:

Now to Him Who is able to establish you in accord with my evangel, and the heralding of Christ Jesus in accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian, yet manifested now and through prophetic scriptures, according to the injunction of the eonian God being made known to all nations for faith-obedience―to the only, and wise God, through Christ Jesus, be glory for the eons of the eons. Amen! (Romans 16.26-27 CV)

And to Him who is able to establish you, according to my good news, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the secret, in the times of the ages having been kept silent, and now having been made manifest, also, through prophetic writings, according to a command of the age-during God, having been made known to all the nations for obedience of faith―to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, to him be glory to the ages. Amen. (Romans 16.25-27 YLT)

Now unto him who hath power to establish you according to my glad-message―even the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of a sacred secret in age-past times kept silent but now made manifest, and through means of prophetic scriptures according to the command of the age-abiding God for obedience of faith unto all the nations made known unto a God wise alone, through Jesus Christ, [unto whom] be glory unto the ages. Amen. (Romans 16.25-27 REB)

By referring to God as the eonian/age-during/age-abiding God, the emphasis is simply being put on God's relationship to the eons he created. As noted earlier, we are told that there was a time before the eons began (2 Tim 1:9; Tit 1:2), and that God created the eons by his word (Heb 1:2, 11:3). Paul even calls God the "King of the eons" (1 Tim. 1:17). As the "eonian God," God endures through (and, by implication, is actively involved in) the eons he created, and of which he is King. But God's being the "eonian God" in no way limits his existence to these periods of time. As noted earlier, to argue this would be like saying that the words, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" limits God to these three patriarchs only. But of course, this expression is simply emphasizing his covenant relationship with these three men. Likewise, Paul's calling God the "eonian God" simply emphasizes his relationship to the eons he created, and through which he endures. When the eons are complete and the goal of God's redemptive plan (the "purpose of the eons") is reached, God will cease to be both the "King of the eons" and the "eonian God." However, he will continue to be who he has always been (i.e., the uncreated and incorruptible God, whose existence had no beginning and has no end).

In the last verse above, Paul writes, "...to the only, and wise God, through Christ Jesus, be glory for the eons of the eons." As is the case with the expression "the eonian God," there is no reason to believe that Paul was limiting God's glory to the ages/eons in view when he wrote these words (as if God will cease to receive glory from his creation when the final eon ends). Instead, Paul was simply putting an emphasis on the glory that God will receive during the final, most glorious eons of redemptive history (which will be in contrast to the glory he is receiving from his creation during this present, wicked eon, of which Satan is said to be the "god"; see 2 Cor. 4:4; cf. Eph. 2:2). And this point brings us to the final topic of this study: the kingdom of God and the eons of Christ's reign.

The Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven

In the previous installments of this study, we saw that the word commonly translated "eternal" in many English translations of the NT is aionios. This word means "age-lasting," "age-during" or "eonian" (enduring through, or pertaining to, an eon, or eons). Significantly, a number of contemporary, evangelical Christian scholars acknowledge that the expression translated "eternal life" in most English translations (zoe aionios) should best be understood to refer to life during what Scripture speaks of as the "age to come."[1] While it is true that these scholars would still argue that this future blessing is endless in duration, this is only because they understand the age, or eon, to come to be endless in duration. But this is surely a mistaken belief on their part. Scripture clearly speaks of more than one age or eon to come. Thus, logically, the next eon to come can't be endless in duration. However, while the Christian scholars I referred to are very much mistaken about the duration of the eon to come, we are in agreement on this one important point: whenever the adjective aionios appears in scripture, the reader should understand that a certain eon (or eons) is in view. As used in Scripture, the word does not mean "eternal." Rather, it always pertains to an eon or eons, whether past or future.

But what eon(s) are in view in the expression "eonian life?" The answer to this question is crucial, for misidentifying the eon(s) would most certainly distort the meaning of a significant portion of scripture. Fortunately, Scripture does not leave us in any doubt as to what eons are in view. First, let's take notice of the fact that, for a believing Israelite, entering, inheriting or possessing "eonian life" and entering/inheriting the "kingdom of God" or "kingdom of heaven" were equivalent blessings, for Christ spoke of them interchangeably (Matt 19:16-17, 23-24; 25:34, 46; Mark 9:45-47; 10:17-31; Luke 18:18-30; John 3:3, 5, 15). But what is the "kingdom of God" or "kingdom of heaven?" It was on the topic of this coming kingdom that Christ placed an overwhelming amount of emphasis during the time of his earthly mission in the land of Judea. From the very beginning of his ministry, Christ's message was, "The era is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand! Repent and believe in the gospel!" (Mark 1:14-15; Matt 3:1-2; 4:17) Jesus' hearers would have understood this proclamation concerning the kingdom of God as referring to the imminent fulfillment of important Messianic prophecies found in the Hebrew Scriptures. Of special importance is the prophecy found in Daniel 2:44, where we read,

"And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever [Hebrew: olam; LXX:eis ton aion, or "for the eon"]..."

It is from this verse in Daniel that the expressions "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven" are derived. That this kingdom refers to the Messianic kingdom is evident from Daniel 7:13-14. There, Daniel writes,

"I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting [olam]dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed."

The Messianic kingdom is called "the kingdom of God" or "the kingdom of heaven" because (as foretold in Daniel's prophecy) it was to be a kingdom set up by "the God of heaven." It is also appropriately referred to as the kingdom of Christ, or the kingdom of God's Son (Eph 5:5; Col 1:13). The apostle Peter referred to the Messianic kingdom as "the eonian kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Pet 1:11). Christ himself referred to it as his kingdom (John 18:36), and as a kingdom which had been assigned to him by his Father (Luke 22:29). Although Jesus will be the "king of kings" in this kingdom, others will sit on thrones and reign during this time as well.

In Daniel 7:18 we are told that "the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom to the eon, even to the eon of the eons." We are also told that "the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an eonian kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them" (v. 27). Echoing this prophecy, Jesus himself told his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” And in Revelation 5:9-10, we are told that the saints in view will be a “kingdom” that will “reign on the earth” (cf. Rev 22:5).

Eonian Life: Life During the Eons of Christ's Reign

Although the expression zoe aionios ("eonian life") is common in the New Testament, it appears only once in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (the LXX).[2] In Dan 12:1-2 (ESV), we read:

"At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

In the Hebrew text, the expression translated above as "everlasting life" is chayei olam. In the LXX, the expression is translated zoe aionios, or "eonian life." Since I believe a correct understanding of this passage from Daniel can shed much light on what "eonian life" refers to, let's ask (and then try to answer) the following question: To what time period, and to what event, is Daniel 12:1-2 referring?

We are told that this resurrection (as the language surely indicates is in view) will take place during "a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time" (or, "a time of distress unlike any other from the nation's beginning up to that time" - NET). And considering the context of Daniel, it seems clear that this "time of trouble" will involve Daniel's "own people" (i.e., the people of the nation of Israel). Employing similar language, Christ spoke of a "time of trouble" as taking place just before his return to earth in power and glory, when he comes to set up his kingdom: "For then shall there be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be" (Matt 24:21; cf. Luke 21:20-23).

We are also told that everyone among Daniel's "people" (i.e., Jews, or Israelites) whose names were found written in "the book" would "be delivered" (or "escape" -NET). From Jesus we learn that those in view here are the Jewish believers who will be alive at the time when the events prophesied in Daniel 12 begin to unfold. What exactly this "deliverance" or "escape" entails is made clear in Matt 24:15-20, where Christ declared,

"So when you seethe abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house, and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath."

And just a few verses later, we read:

"Now immediately after the affliction of those days [i.e., the "time of trouble" referred to in Daniel 12:1] the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not be giving her beams, and the stars shall be falling from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Mankind in heaven, and then all the tribes of the land shall grieve, and they shall see the Son of Mankind coming on the clouds of heaven with power and much glory" (Matt. 24:29-30).

From this we can conclude that the time at which the faithful among Daniel's people (believing Israelites) will be raised to enjoy eonian life is around the time of Christ's return to earth to establish his kingdom, for it is with this event that the present eon ends and the eon to come begins (Matt. 24:3). Thus, the eons to which "eonian life" pertains are the eons during which Christ is going to reign over the earth (Mark 10:29-31; Luke 18:29-30; Matthew 19:28-30; Luke 22:29-30; Eph. 1:20-21; cf. Rev. 5:9-10). It is these eons which are going to succeed what Paul called the "present wicked eon" (Gal 1:4), and which both Christ and Paul had in view when they spoke of the "eon to come" (which is the first eon of Christ's reign) and the "eons to come" (Matthew 12:32; Mark 10:29-31; Luke 18:29-30; Eph. 1:21; Heb 6:5). Thus the eons to which the expression "eonian life" refers are simply the eons during which Christ reigns.[3]

Moreover (and as has been noted already), we know from Revelation 20:4 that the first eon of Christ's future reign will last for about a thousand years. And while the duration of the second eon is not revealed in Scripture, the time period is nonetheless referred to as an "eon," just like the duration of the thousand-year kingdom. By virtue of its being one of two eons (and not an "eternity"), it is a period of time that has a beginning and an end. In fact, because it is the last of the two eons during which Christ reigns, we know it will ultimately end. How can we know this? Because, according to Paul, Christ's reign is one day going to end.

---

[1] See, for example, C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the First Gospel, pp. 144-50; George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, pp. 290-292; J.I. Packer, "The Problem of Eternal Punishment," Crux XXVI.3, September 1990, 23; "Evangelical Annihilationism in Review," Reformation & Revival, Volume 6, Number 2 - Spring 1997; John Painter, 1, 2 and 3 John (Sacra Pagina), p. 195; Alan Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament, pp.73-74; John G. Stackhouse, Jr. "Jesus Christ," The Oxford Handbook of Evangelical Theology, p. 151; N.T. Wright, Romans, p. 530.

[2] The expression also appears in 2 Macc. 7:9; 4 Macc. 1 5:3; and Ps. Sol. 3:12, but these examples are found in apocryphal books which, although of historical value and importance, I don't consider to be inspired Scripture. 

[3] One verse in which the first eon of Christ's reign is mentioned is Matt 19:28, which refers to this time as "the new world" (ESV) or "the regeneration" (NKJV). The Holman Christian Standard Biblerenders this expression "in the Messianic Age." And the NET Bible reads, "In the age when all things are renewed," and says in a footnote, "The Greek term translated the age when all things are renewed(παλιγγενεσία, palingenesia) is understood as a reference to the Messianic age, the time when all things are renewed and restored." 

http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?search=Matt%2019:28&book=matt&chapter=19&verse=28

Eternal or Eonian? Part Five (The Greek Adjective Aiónios)

The Greek Adjective Aiónios

Thus far we have considered the Hebrew noun, olam, and the Greek noun, aion (which appears in both the singular and the plural form in the LXX and the New Testament). We now come to the word that was used by the LXX and the authors of the New Testament in place of olam as the adjective form of the noun aion: aiónios (αἰώνιος). As the adjective form of aion, aiónios should best be understood to mean "belonging to, or lasting for, an eon." Hence it is rendered "age-abiding" in Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, "age-during" in Young's Literal Translation, and "eonian" in the Concordant Literal New Testament. Just as "color" is to "colorful," "length" is to "long," and "day" is to "daily," so aion is to aionios. And just as "daily" can never mean "yearly" (because its limit is defined by the noun "day" from which it is derived), so aionioscan never refer to something other than an aion or "eon." Because aion is not used in Scripture to mean "eternity," the adjective form of the word (aionios) should not be understood to mean "eternal."

Commenting on Matt. 25:46, English theologian Charles Ellicott has the following to say on the adjective, aionios:

"...the Greek word which is rendered "eternal" does not, in itself, involve endlessness, but rather, duration, whether through an age or succession of ages, and that it is therefore applied in the N.T. to periods of time that have had both a beginning and an ending (Rom. 16:25), where the Greek is "from aeonian times;" our version giving "since the world began." (Comp. 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:3)--strictly speaking, therefore, the word, as such, apart from its association with any qualifying substantive, implies a vast undefined duration, rather than one in the full sense of the word "infinite."" (Ellicott's Commentary on the Whole Bible)

The first definition of aionios provided by A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature(edited by Frederick William Danker) is "pertaining to a long period of time." In The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (edited by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan), the concluding comments for aionios are as follows:

"Without pronouncing any opinion on the special meaning which theologians have found for this word, we must note that outside the NT, in the vernacular as in the classical Greek (see Grimm-Thayer), it never loses the sense of perpetuus....the spirit of [which is illustrated in] Job 19:24 [`With iron pen and lead, that they should be hewn in rock for the future!']....In general, the word depicts that of which the horizon is not in view, whether the horizon be at an infinite distance...or whether it lies no farther than the span of Caesar's life."[1]

In his Word Studies in the New Testament (Vol. IV) 19th century Bible scholar Marvin Vincent wrote,

"The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective in themselves carries the sense of 'endless' or 'everlasting.' Aionios means, ‘enduring through or pertaining to a period of time.’ Out of the 150 instances in the LXX (Septuagint), four-fifths imply limited duration."

And on the Perseus Library Greek Dictionary, aiónios is defined as “lasting for an age.”[2]

Dr. F.W. Farrar - a well-versed scholar in the Biblical languages - states in his book Mercy and Judgment (p. 378):

"Since aion meant 'age,' aionios means, properly, 'belonging to an age,' or 'age-long,' and anyone who asserts that it must mean 'endless' defends a position which even Augustine practically abandoned twelve centuries ago. Even if aion always meant 'eternity,' which is not the case in classic or Hellenistic Greek—aionios could still mean only 'belonging to eternity' and not 'lasting through it.'"

This common-sense fact is inexplicably overlooked by Thayer’s Greek-English lexicon (1886), as well as that by Arndt and Gingrich (1957). In both of these lexicons, the adjective aiónios is presented as having three meanings: (1) without beginning; or (2) without end; or (3) without beginning or end. Such a definition as this should most likely be attributed to theological bias and presuppositions; apart from the fact that this threefold definition of aióniosbears no resemblance whatsoever to the noun form of the word (from which it was derived), this definition simply cannot be applied consistently in the New Testament (see, for example, Romans 16:25, 2 Timothy 1:9, and Titus 1:2, which will be considered below).

Nor does this definition work consistently in the LXX. As noted in the quote from Dr. Vincent above, the wordaiónios appears 150 times in the LXX. This ancient translation of the Hebrew Bible was in common use among the Jews in the 1st century and frequently quoted by the authors of the New Testament.[3]It can therefore shed much light on how the authors of the New Testament would've most likely understood and used the term aiónios in their own writings. As one of the words with which olam was translated,aiónios was used in the LXX in reference to long periods of time. It refers to things of long-lasting (but limited) duration that were, at the time, considered past[4] as well as to things of long-lasting (but limited) duration that were, at the time, consideredfuture.[5]

Paul used the word with this very meaning in Romans 16:25. There, Paul speaks of a mystery kept secret for "chronos aiónios" (literally, "during times eonian") but "now revealed." It is evident that aionios cannot mean "without beginning" here, for Paul's use of the expression pro chronon aionion ("before times eonian") in 2 Tim. 1:9 and Titus 1:2 implies that the chronos aiónios had a beginning. Nor can aiónios here mean "without end," for it is connected with a period of time during which a mystery was kept secret but later "revealed." It is evident that Paul is simply referring to those long periods of history that elapsed before the gospel of grace was revealed to Paul and began to be proclaimed. If the word aionios did carry the idea of endlessness here, then the "mystery" or "secret" of which Paul wrote would have never been revealed to people. This meaning of aiónios is entirely consistent with its usage in the LXX, with which Paul (as well as the other authors of the New Testament Scriptures) were very familiar.

Aiónios in Extra-Biblical Literature

We may further note that aiónios was used by first-century Jewish writers to describe those things that are of a limited duration. Philo used the exact phraseology we find in Matthew 25:46 - just as Christ used it - in the context of temporal affairs between people of different socio-economic classes:

"It is better not to promise than not to give prompt assistance, for no blame follows in the former case, but in the latter there is dissatisfaction from the weaker class, and a deep hatred and everlasting punishment (kolasis aiónios) from such as are more powerful" (Fragmenta, Tom. ii., p. 667).

Josephus also employed aiónios to refer to things of temporal duration (such as the period between the giving of the law to Moses and that of his own writing, to the period of the imprisonment of the tyrant John by the Romans, and to the period during which Herod's temple stood, before its destruction by the Romans). In one Jewish work (Solomon’s Parables) we read, "These they called aiónios, hearing that they had performed the sacred rites for three entire generations." Here, the expression "three entire generations" warrants the use of the adjective aiónios.

When speaking of things that he believed would be of endless duration, Josephus employed words other than aionios. For example, concerning the beliefs of the Pharisees in the first century, Josephus stated: "They believe that souls have an immortal rigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or according to vice in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison [eirgmon aidion], but that the former shall have power to revive and live again" (D. Ant. 18.14-15).

Here we find that the Pharisees believed the subterranean place of punishment for wicked immortal souls was an "eternal [aidion, not aionion] prison." And in another place (B. War 2.162-64), Josephus states that the Pharisees "say that all souls are imperishable, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment." The words translated "eternal punishment" are aidios timoria, and should not be confused with Jesus' words in Matthew 25:46 (kolasin aiónios, or "chastening eonian"). Similarly, in describing the doctrine of the Essenes (another Jewish sect), Josephus says they believe that“the souls of the bad are sent to a dark and tempestuous cavern, full of incessant punishment [adialeiptos timoria].” This was the language used by the Pharisees and the Essenes when describing their views of the punishment that the wicked would endure. But Christ and his apostles refrained from using such language, instead using aiónios (eonian) when referring to punishment.

But what about the Greek philosopher, Plato? Some theologians have come to the conclusion that aiónios means "eternal" in Scripture based on how Plato used the word in his writings. But surprisingly, Plato's philosophical use of aión and aiónios actually supports the position being defended in this study. Like the authors of Scripture (as well as the translators of the LXX), Plato understood the word aiónios to be the adjective form of the noun aion, and consistently employed the word in this way. But in stark contrast to its usage in the LXX and New Testament, Plato contrasts aion with time (chronos). Time, for Plato, is but a "moveable image of aionos," and that of which time is an image is the unchanging, timeless realm of ideas, which transcends the ever-changing world we experience and perceive.[6]Thus, Plato used aión to denote an unchanging, timeless realm (i.e., "eternity" in the absolute, metaphysical sense), and contrasted it with all changing, temporal duration.

Now, just as Plato used aionios as the adjective form of the noun aion/aionos, so did the inspired authors of the New Testament. But the key difference (a difference which those theologians who've derived their understanding of the meaning of aionos from Plato have failed to appreciate) is this: whereas Plato used the noun aion to denote an unchanging, timeless realm (i.e., "eternity"), the authors of the New Testament and the translators of the LXX did not. In contrast to Plato, they used aion to refer to a particular period or duration of time.In other words, they used the word to mean the exact opposite of what Plato meant by it! For them, aion and its derivatives were the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew olam. And since aionios is used as the adjective form of aion (which, in the New Testament and LXX, means "eon" or "age"), it follows that the adjective should be understood in the New Testament to mean "lasting for, or belonging to, an eon" (or simply, "eonian") - not "eternal," as in Plato.

Plato:                    1. AION (noun) means "ETERNITY" (noun).

                              2. AIONIOS (adjective) means "ETERNAL" (adjective).

This is consistent. Plato used the noun "aion" to mean "eternity," and used the adjective form of the noun to mean "eternal."

Literal Bibles:      1. AION (noun) means "EON" or "AGE" (noun).

                                2. AIONIOS (adjective) means "EONIAN," "AGE-LASTING," or "AGE-                                       DURING" (adjective.)

This, too, is consistent. The most literal Bible translations (such as Young's Literal Translation, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible and the Concordant Version) translate the noun aion as "eon" or "age," and translate the adjective form of the noun in a way that is consistent with (and reflects the meaning of) the noun.

However, when we turn to most Bible translations (such as the KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, etc.), the inconsistency is glaring:

Most Translations:       1. AION (noun) means "AGE" (noun).

                                         2. AIONIOS (adjective) means "ETERNAL" (adjective).

What the translators of most Bibles have done (at least part of the time) is correctly translate aion with a word that, in English, denotes a long but temporary span of time (an "age"), and then (inconsistently) translated aiónios according to its Platonic/philosophical meaning (using the word "eternal"). 

---

[1] James Hope Moulton and George Milligan; London: Hodder and Stoughton, Limited, 1949, p.16

[2] http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ai)w%2Fnios&la=greek

(See also the first definition provided by LSJ/Middle Liddell)

[3] It is difficult to deny that God directed the authors of the New Testament (the Greek Scriptures) to use the Septuagint when its translation was preferable. Among all the "Old Testament" books from which the inspired authors quoted most frequently (i.e., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Psalms and Isaiah), the LXX was quoted from more often than the Masoretic text. Only when Job, Zechariah and Malachi are referenced is the Masoretic text used more often. As a rule, each New Testament author agrees with the LXX translators more frequently than with the Massoretes, with the most striking contrasts found in John's gospel, Acts, Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, James and 1 Peter.

[4] See, for example, Job 22:15; Ps 24:7; Ps 24:9; Ps 77:5; Pro 22:28; Pro 23:10; Isa 58:12; Isa 61:4; Isa 63:11; Jer. 6:16; Jer. 18:15; Ez. 26:20; Ez. 36:2; Hab. 3:6

[5] See, for example, Gen 17:7; Gen 17:8; Gen 17:13; Gen 17:19; Gen 48:4; Ex 12:14; Ex 12:17; Ex 27:21; Ex 28:43; Ex 29:28; Ex 30:21; Ex 31:16; Ex 31:17; Lev 6:18; Lev 6:22; Lev 7:34; Lev 7:36; Lev 10:9; Lev 10:15; Lev 16:29; Lev 16:31; Lev 16:34; Lev 17:7; Lev 23:14; Lev 23:21; Lev 23:31; Lev 23:41; Lev 24:3; Lev 24:8; Lev 24:9; Lev 25:34; Num 10:8; Num 15:15; Num 18:8; Num 18:11; Num 18:19; Num 18:23; Num 19:10; Num 19:21; Num 25:13; 1Ch 16:17; Job 3:18; Job 10:22; Job 21:11; Job 41:4; Ps 76:4; Ps 77:5; Ps 78:66; Ps 105:10; Isa 24:5; Isa 55:13; Isa 60:15; Isa 61:4; Jer.5:22; Jer. 18:16; Jer. 20:17; Jer. 23:40; Jer. 25:9; Jer. 25:12; Jer. 51:39; Ez. 35:5; Ez. 35:9; Jon 2:6; Mic. 2:9.

[6] Plato wrote, "When the father creator saw the creature which he had made moving and living, the created image of the eternal (aidios) gods, he rejoiced, and in his joy determined to make the copy still more like the original; and as this was eternal (aidios), he sought to make the universe eternal (-), so far as might be. Now the nature of the ideal being was eternal (aiõnios), but to bestow this attribute in its fullness upon a creature was impossible. Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternity (aiõnos),and when he set in order the heaven, he made this image eternal (aiõnios) but moving according to number, while eternity (aiõnos) itself rests in unity; and this image we call time (chronos).For there were no days and nights and months and years before the heaven was created, but when he constructed the heaven he created them also. They are all parts of time, and the past and future are created species of time, which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the eternal (aidios) essence; for we say that he "was," he "is," he "will be," but the truth is that "is" alone is properly attributed to him, and that "was" and "will be" only to be spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which is immovably the same cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did or has become, or hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all to any of those states which affect moving and sensible things and of which generation is the cause. These are the forms of time, which imitates eternity (aiõnos) and revolves according to a law of number. Moreover, when we say that what has become is become and what becomes is becoming, and that what will become is about to become and that the non-existent is non-existent -- all these are inaccurate modes of expression. But perhaps this whole subject will be more suitably discussed on some other occasion."