Thank you sven.
I found that interesting.
But how do you understand the meaning of phrase as used in the context of Rev. 10:6 and 15:7 (where the life of God is in view)?
Did any of the Fathers (particularly universalist leaning Fathers) comment on the meaning of these passages (or others like them)?
No.
God is eternal, therefore in every age God lives.
Are the Septuagint translators attempting to render the double expression, לעולם ועד, into Greek in these verses?
And is this double expression also used in Joshua 4:7?
So, as a universalist, what do you take the term to mean?
[size=150]Does this make sense?[/size]
[size=150]
It becomes evident, then, that it is just as sensible (even if most are not familiar with the expression) to declare that He will be living tomorrow, namely, in the glorious scriptural morrow of the oncoming eons. The fact that He Who is living during this current era will also be living “for” (actually, “into,” eis) the eons of time ahead, constitutes a further word of assurance concerning His providential care during these future long eras of time.
It is to be regretted that the hazy English “for” can be misused in connection with the eons. The literal rendering “into,” in such cases, however, would unduly strain English idiom. Opposers imprudently couple “for” with their own gratuitous inference “only (for)” in order to “disprove” the meaning of aion as eon. “This is done in order to make the meaning eon appear to be obviously mistaken with regard to the revelation that God is living eis tous aionas ton aionon (“for the eons of the eons,” CV). The Authorized Version rendering, “God, Who liveth for ever and ever,” adds to the confusion, and lends support to the popular misunderstanding. For it makes the reference appear to be to the length of God’s life, when it instead is a reference to a particular time during which God will be living (“God, Who is living for the eons of the eons,” CV).
Inasmuch as the word aion appears in both classes of passages, crude reasonings from the usual mistranslations of those passages which interconnect God, or Christ (Rev.1:18), a form of the word “life,” and the word aion, are routinely set forth as clear proof in favor of “everlasting aionion punishment” (e.g., Matt.25:46). That is, since God “liveth for ever and ever,” and it is felt that the thought here must be that His life never ends, it is concluded that the punishment of the lost must likewise be endless, since the same Greek word is used concerning these respective revelations.
This conclusion, however, is based on mistaken premises, ones which are derived from false inferences and mistranslation: (1) the injecting of “only (for)” into “for” (in relation to the phrase “for the eons”) while failing to note the literal “into”; (2) the AV mistranslation “liveth” (“lives” in modem English) instead of the correct form “is living”; (3) the gross mistranslation “for ever and ever” instead of the accurate rendering “for the eons of the eons.”
Whenever we read the expression “for the eons,” we should always keep in mind the actual literal idea of into. That is, God will be living on, into those eras of time, in order that He should be living within or during those time periods as well, even as He is living within or during these present hectic times, when we need Him so much.
The fact that I lived during the nineteen seventies is no proof that I now am dead in the nineteen eighties! And if I should say that I am living in the year 1988, and that, the Lord willing, I shall be living on into the year 1989, this would give no license to any of those who might translate my words into another language to make a claim, and so translate, to the effect that while in one case where I used the word “year” I actually meant a year, while in another place where I used this same word I did not mean a year at all (even if I did say so!).
Yet this is just the sort of thing that most translators of the Scriptures have done with the words in the Original for “eon.” Most simply lacked the insight to see the point of many of the passages that spoke of the eons. Since they were able, however, to make sense of these passages by translating by “everlasting” or “eternal,” they simply went ahead and did so, any resultant problems notwithstanding. Due to a lack of sensible thinking and an abundance of confidence in the flesh, it is impossible for most to face the fact that the usual translations of this word are quite mistaken and extremely harmful.
We believe that God’s life will never end, not because of any passages in reference to Him which include the word “eon,” but because it is written that His “years shall have no end” (Psa. 102:27). Furthermore, since God is the Source of all life, and since, at the consummation, all will be gloriously made alive so that He may become All in each one, it is evident that He must ever have life Himself in order to impart it to His creatures.
As the Lord declared, “Seeing that I am living, you also will be living” (John 14:19).[/size]
concordant.org/
I found this article:
religiousstudiesproject.com/ … io-baghos/
But I do not really understand what he is saying.
I don’t understand what Mario Baghos is saying either, but if the Greek speaking Church Father St. Basil discussed his understanding of the meaning of “εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων/eis toūs aiōnas tōn aiōnōn” in a text labeled “Hexaēmeron 2.8, at 35. PG 29, 49D-52A,” it would be interesting to read a literal translation of exactly what he said there.
Does anyone here who reads Greek have access to that text?
I can only provide an English translation, the relevant passage is quite at the bottom:
I made a strange finding:
It is a document about a Portugese king from the 12th century AD.
books.google.de/books?hl=de&lr=& … um&f=false
the English rendering would be:
The lord, King Alphonsus may live and possess the kindom. If he has male descendants, they shall live and possess the kingdom too, so that it is not necessary to make them kings again. They shall follow in this order. When the father had the kingdom, then the son shall have it, then the grandson, then son of the grandson and then the sons of the sons in ages of ages for always [in saecula saeculorum per semper].
This is the first usage of this idiom I found outside a biblical context, ages of ages is here applied to subsequent generations, it is amazing that they used this phrase - a phrase commonly used applied to God’s glory - when refering to a mortal man and his descendants, ages of ages seems to be even strengthened by “per semper”, “for ever” or more likely “for always”. Thus they could have hardly understood “ages of ages” as to express eternity.
Interestingly, it seems that no churchfather defended everlasting punishment with the phrase “ages of ages”, not even Augustine, who admitted that he does not know what it means.
Thank you.
Where (and in what words) did Augustine admit that he didn’t know what “ages od ages” meant?
I found this today (it was apparently written in 1885, in “The Purpose of The Ages, or The Final Salvation of All,” by someone named David Wardlaw Scott.)
books.google.com/books?id=mroHAAAAQAAJ
I’m always uncomfortable when the only good answer to a question seems traceable to only one man, and until I came across this today it seemed as though only A.E. Knock and those influenced by his ministry expressed this particular pov.
A.E Knock would have been only eleven years old when this was written, so it seems he wasn’t the first to look at it this way.
Along the same lines (from John Wesley Hanson, some five years earlier.)
The universalist understanding appears to be quite in line here with Orthododox / Catholic understanding as far as I can judge.
John of Damascus defined it thus:
“But we speak also of eons of eons, inasmuch as the seven eons of the present world include many eons in the sense of lives of men, and the one eon embraces all the eons, and the present and the future are spoken of as eon of eon.”
From a recent German book, with either Orthodox or Catholic background, the topic was not eschatology but liturgy.
“[For the eons of eons,] this literal translation from the Greek corresponds with the Latin ‘in saecula saeculorum’ [into ages of ages]. Thereby is not meant the ‘eternity’ (Greek aidiotêtos, Latin aeternitas) as infinite, unfading time that only applies to the triune God Himself; but the sum of all finite and fading periods of time. The translation from ‘eternity to eternity’ [the idiomatic German equivalent of the English ‘forever and ever’] or in ‘all eternity’ is at least misleading. Theologically more of relevance is, that by this use of ‘eternity’, it’s no longer possible to conceive that God’s ‘eternity’ is of different kind then the ‘fullness of times’, given as gift to the creatures.”
One could argue though, that the sum of all finite periods of time add up to infinity, I would disagree.
Thank you sven
I don’t understand what John of Damascus is saying (especially after reading part of the quote you left out.)
This is from Oregin (though I’m not sure I understand what he’s saying either.)
Paul himself, who says, " That in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness towards us." 2 He has not said, " in the age to come," nor " in the two ages to come," whence I infer that by his language many ages are indicated. Now if there is something greater than ages, so that among created beings certain ages may be un derstood, but among other beings which exceed and surpass visible creatures, (ages still greater) (which perhaps will be the case at the restitution of all things, when the whole universe will come to a perfect termination), perhaps that period in which the consummation of all things will take place is to be understood as something more than an age. But here the authority of holy Scripture moves me, which says, " For an age and more." 3 Now this word " more " undoubtedly means something greater than an age ; and see if that expression of the Saviour, " I will that where I am, these also may be with Me ; and as I and Thou are one, these also may be one in Us," * may not seem to convey something more than an age and ages, perhaps even more than ages of ages, — that period, viz., when all things are now no longer in an age, but when God is in all.
(De Principis, Ch. III.)
Does this make any sense?
He is an annihilationist as I understand him?
Honestly I think this writing is of little value, the author does not know what it means.
It would be more interesting how this phrase was used / understood in Semitic languages.
I found that link, it seems to be the best way to search for “saecula saeculorum”:
academia.edu/1889657/In_Saecula_ … an_Fathers
I do not understand what is meant by this though.