Is It Mental Gymnastics To Interpret the Greek as Long Lasting/Age-Long Correction?


#1

So called Greek experts here say that the Greek doesn’t support the interpretation of age-long or long lasting correction because of modern Greek experts and/or lexicons. Well, I just got out my up to date NASB Strongest Strongs Concordance written by experts in the Greek languages. Here’s the definitions:

aiōnios; from 165; agelong, eternal:—
NASB - eternal(66), eternity(1), forever(1)

kolasis; from 2849; correction:—
NASB - punishment(2).

The Greek is synonymous with the Hebrew olam. It means:

olam (761d); from an unused word; long duration, antiquity, futurity:—
NASB - ages(1), all successive(1), always(1), ancient(13), ancient times(3), continual(1), days of old(1), eternal(2), eternity(3), ever(10), Everlasting(2), everlasting(110), forever(136), forever and ever(1), forever*(70), forevermore*(1), lasting(1), long(2), long ago(3), long past(1), long time(3), never*(17), old(11), permanent(10), permanently(1), perpetual(29), perpetually(1).

To say EU is doing mental gymnastics by interpreting “everlasting punishment” as “long lasting” or “age long correction” is stupid. The modern lexicon is clear and good enough for me.


#2

Hollytree, is that the same as this one:


#3

Yes. I agree that Strong’s isn’t accurate. That’s why I use the updated Strongest Strong’s. In particular the NASB. It is accurate and disagrees with Strong’s original.


#4

The meaning “agelong” for aionios appears quite often in lexicons & dictionaries, e.g.:

http://biblehub.com/greek/166.htm


#5

Yes it does. Here’s the inaccurate original Strong’s dictionary. It’s not as accurate as the modern updated NASB Strongest Strongs

  1. aionios ahee-o’-nee-os from 165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well):–eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began).
  1. kolasis kol’-as-is from 2849; penal infliction:–punishment, torment.

Again here’s the more accurate and updated NASB Strongest Strongs

aiōnios; from 165; agelong, eternal:—
NASB - eternal(66), eternity(1), forever(1)

kolasis; from 2849; correction:—
NASB - punishment(2).

The Greek is synonymous with the Hebrew olam. It means:

olam (761d); from an unused word; long duration, antiquity, futurity:—
NASB - ages(1), all successive(1), always(1), ancient(13), ancient times(3), continual(1), days of old(1), eternal(2), eternity(3), ever(10), Everlasting(2), everlasting(110), forever(136), forever and ever(1), forever*(70), forevermore*(1), lasting(1), long(2), long ago(3), long past(1), long time(3), never*(17), old(11), permanent(10), permanently(1), perpetual(29), perpetually(1).


#6

“Lasting” is not an interpretation of “aiōnios.” It is its meaning. Even “long lasting” is going too far.

The Greek noun “kolasis” (found in Matthew 25:46) is derived from the verb “kolazō” which originally meant “to prune” as in pruning trees. Trees are often pruned in order to correct their growth, and so the verb as well as the noun began to be applied to any kind of correction.

Let’s look at how Matthew 25:46 reads when we translate “aiōnios” at “eternal”:

And these (the goats) will go away into eternal correction, but the righteous into eternal life."

How can correction be eternal? Would the correction ever be accomplished? If not, it would not be correction. If it were accomplished, it would not be eternal.

Mark 3:29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"—

How can a sin be eternal?

Luke 16:9 "And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by means of the wealth of unrighteousness, so that when it fails, they will receive you into the eternal dwellings.

If this means eternal dwellings in heaven, then this verse implies that you can buy your way there.

Titus 1:2 in hope of eternal life which God, who never lies, promised before eternal times.

How can there be a period of time before eternal times? “Before eternal times” is the literal translation if the Greek word “aiōnios” means “eternal”.

Philemon 1:15 Perhaps this is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back for eternally.

How could Philemon have his slave back eternally? Would the slave continue to serve him forever in the next life?

Jude 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Did Sodom and Gomorrah undergo punishment in eternal fire? Didn’t that fire go out ages ago?

In secular Greek literature, the word “aiōnios” meant “lasting” or “enduring”. In the first century before Christ, Diodorus Siculus, a Greek historian, wrote:

“The second wall is in all other respects like the first, but of twice the height. The third circuit is rectangular in plan, and is sixty cubits in height, build of a stone hard and naturally “aiōnios”.

Was the stone naturally eternal?

Flavius Josephus in Wars of the Jews, wrote:

“…Jonathan condemned to “aiōnios” imprisonment.” Was Jonathan condemned to eternal imprisonment? It is said that his imprisonment was for a period of three years.

The Greek adjective “aiōnios” is derived from the Greek noun “aiōn”, which means “age”.
Chystostum (A.D. 347-407) understood “aiōnios” as meaning lasting for an age. Here is what he wrote:

“Here again [Paul] means that Satan occupies the space under Heaven, and that the incorporeal powers are spirits of the air, under his operation. For that his kingdom is “aiōnios”. In other words, it will cease with the present “aiōn” (age), hear what he says at the end of the epistle;”
Homily of the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Ephesians, Homly IV)


#7

Good question. Can a sin be eternal, or even long lasting? The CLV translates the verse as:

29 yet whoever should be blaspheming against the holy spirit is having no pardon for the eon, but is liable to the eonian penalty for the sin-

Or more literally: has no pardon into the eon, but is liable to the eonian sin.

If (1) has “no pardon into the eon” & (2) is “liable to the eonian sin” are parallel, with “no pardon into the eon” implying a “penalty”, then arguably the CLV addition of the word “penalty” is justified. (And eonian is limited in duration to the eon which may be finite since Scripture often refers to multiple future eons, e.g. Eph.2:7).

Similarly the CLV translates 2 Cor.5:21 as:

21 For the One not knowing sin, He makes to be a sin offering for our sakes that we may be becoming God’s righteousness in Him.

MOUNCE He made him who knew no sin to be a sin-offering for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

OJB The one who in his person had no da’as of chattat (sin) [Ac 3:14; Yn 8:46; MJ 4:15; 7:26; 1K 2:22; 1Y 3:5], this one Hashem made a chattat sin offering [Ga 3:13; YESHAYAH 53:10; VAYIKRA 4:24 TARGUM HASHIVIM] on our behalf that we might become the Tzidkat Hashem [DANIEL 9:24] in Moshiach.

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2Corinthians%205:21

While most versions follow the KJV:

21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Did Jesus become “sin” (KJV)? Or a “sin offering” (CLV).

“Many have understood the word “sin” in the sense of sin offering (Leviticus 5:9, LXX.)… Moreover, he was made a sacrifice for sin, in order to make expiation and atonement for it; so the Hebrew word signifies both sin and a sin offering; see Psalm 40:6 and so Romans 8:3… Christ knew no sin. He was made Sin; not a sinner, but Sin, a Sin-offering, a Sacrifice for sin.”

http://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/5-21.htm

New International Version
For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, (Rom.8:3)

New American Standard Bible
For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

http://biblehub.com/romans/8-3.htm


Don Preston on 2 Thes 1:9
#8

Correction could be eternal if those who receive it refuse it because of hardened hearts.

Those who disregard discipline despise themselves, but the one who heeds correction gains understanding ~~ Proverbs 15:32

Poverty and shame come to him who ignores discipline, but whoever heeds correction will be honored. ~~ Proverbs 13:18

A fool rejects his father’s discipline, but whoever heeds correction is prudent. ~~ Proverbs 15:5

Woe to her who is rebellious and defiled,
the oppressing city!

She listens to no voice;
she accepts no correction.

She does not trust in the Lord;
she does not draw near to her God.~~ Zephaniah 3

If those who die in mortal sins have their hearts separated from all mercy their hearts would harden. It follows that because their hearts have all restraints removed from them that the longer they are in hell the harder their hearts will become. Thus the longer in hell the more evil they become. Those outside of the new heavens and earth (all things) would be kept out because God is protecting His children from evil’s harm. Those in hell don’t want God (having their hearts separated from all mercy). It’s like the creature “Gollum” in “The Lord Of The Rings”. The longer he has the ring the more corrupt he becomes and the harder it is to let go of the ring.

It is possible to refuse and reject correction because of hardened hearts. This could go on forever. Hence the eternal sin is a hardened heart. Not saying That’s what I hold to but there’s nothing illogical in holding to it. And the word “agelong” can mean “eternal” as the above lexicons state.


#9

If they continue to refuse it eternally, then they will never be corrected.


#10

They would be corrected by God’s loving discipline but because of harden hearts they reject and refuse it. If their hearts are separated from all mercy (Christ) they will hate God forever. They will not want Him. They ignore, refuse, and reject His love.

Those who disregard discipline despise themselves, but the one who heeds correction gains understanding ~~ Proverbs 15:32

Poverty and shame come to him who ignores discipline, but whoever heeds correction will be honored. ~~ Proverbs 13:18

A fool rejects his father’s discipline, but whoever heeds correction is prudent. ~~ Proverbs 15:5

Woe to her who is rebellious and defiled,
the oppressing city!

She listens to no voice;
she accepts no correction.

She does not trust in the Lord;
she does not draw near to her God.~~ Zephaniah 3

God corrects and disciplines them but they reject it with hardened hearts.


#11

If they were corrected by God’s loving discipline, then it wouldn’t be “eternal correction.” If correction were eternal, then there would never be a time when the process of correction would be completed.

I don’t think you and I are using the word “correction” in the same way. I think you are using the word in the sense of “penalty.” I am using it in the sense of remediation or amendment.

If you correct a spelling error, you CHANGE the spelling. You couldn’t go on correcting that spelling error forever, or even for a single day. God’s loving correction will at some point end, when the offender has been corrected, that is, changed from his previous rebellious, sinful character to a person who no longer sins against people, but who loves them, and who also loves and serves God.


#12

Well, the scriptures I gave contradict you and it goes against common sense. Those with evil hardened hearts are disciplined by God but they reject His discipline.

Those who disregard discipline despise themselves, but the one who heeds correction gains understanding ~~ Proverbs 15:32

Poverty and shame come to him who ignores discipline, but whoever heeds correction will be honored. ~~ Proverbs 13:18

A fool rejects his father’s discipline, but whoever heeds correction is prudent. ~~ Proverbs 15:5

Woe to her who is rebellious and defiled,
the oppressing city!

She listens to no voice;
she accepts no correction.

She does not trust in the Lord;
she does not draw near to her God.~~ Zephaniah 3

God is love and love protects from evil. Justice is to protect and serve. Not only does God’s love and justice protect His children from evil but the torment is calibrated just right to keep those with hardened hearts from harming each other in the lake of fire. All are submitted to God. He restrains even those with hardened hearts in the lake of fire from harming each other. Moreover, the harder their hearts become the more use to the conditions they will become in the lake of fire. They will weep at times and even gnash their teeth out in anger but to them the lake of fire is a condition in which they become accustomed to because of hardened hearts.


#13

If they reject His discipline, then they have not been disciplined (or corrected).

Also, can they reject his discipline FOREVER? If they can reject God’s attempts to correct them (turn them to righteousness) forever, then He, who is not willing that ANY should perish, has been defeated by their obstinancy, and they prove themselves stronger than God.


#14

That’s not what the scriptures I gave above state. God has mercy on whomever He pleases and He hardens whomever He pleases. God is love but His love extends to those in heaven in a way that it doesn’t extend to those in hell. “Jacob I loved Esau I hated” says God loved Esau less. God’s loving discipline falls on the reprobate but because of hardened hearts they refuse correction. They hate God and don’t want Him. God’s under no obligation to be merciful to a rebel God hater who doesn’t want to have anything to do with Him. Those in the lake of fire aren’t included in the new heaven and earth. Heaven and earth means all things. All humanity. God is not willing that any perish. Christ is the new humanity. It’s all those in Christ. God’s not willing than any perish is a reference to all the lost sheep not the goats.


#15

Paidion, I read that kolasis is used in the Septuagint as a general term for punishment. So just because in secular society it may have referred specifically to correction, doesn’t mean it did in scripture.


#16

Are you saying that the writers of Scripture didn’t use words in the same sense as secular society? If that were the case, how can we understand the writers of Scripture at all? If in Scripture “kolasis” means “penalty” instead of “correction” then maybe the word “αγαπη” which meant “love” in secular society, actually means “hate” in Scripture.


#17

The word has elements of both. From Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:

Correction, punishment, penalty

It means corrective punishment. The punishment at the cross was medicinal and not penal only. Nonetheless, Christ bore the punishment for our sins.

“If we speak of that satisfactory punishment, which one takes upon oneself voluntarily, one may bear another’s punishment…. If, however, we speak of punishment inflicted on account of sin, inasmuch as it is penal, then each one is punished for his own sin only, because the sinful act is something personal. But if we speak of a punishment that is medicinal, in this way it does happen that one is punished for another’s sin.”— Thomas Aquinas


#18

It wasn’t penal at all. A “penalty” is administered to those who “deserve” that penalty. Christ did not deserve it.

The idea that He “bore the punishment for our sins” suggests that God had to punish us (penally) for sinning, but He was “satisfied” to punish Christ instead. Can you imagine a human father being satisfied to punish his innocent son for a wrong committed by a guilty son?

As George MacDonald wrote:

They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice. Be sure that the thing that God gives, the righteousness that is of God, is a real thing, and not a contemptible legalism. Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am; for nothing will serve my need but to be made a righteous man, one that will no more sin.


#19

It wasn’t penal at all. A “penalty” is administered to those who “deserve” that penalty. Christ did not deserve it.
The idea that He “bore the punishment for our sins” suggests that God had to punish us (penally) for sinning, but He was “satisfied” to punish Christ instead. Can you imagine a human father being satisfied to punish his innocent son for a wrong committed by a guilty son?

I agree that His wrath wasn’t penal. Thomas Aquinas doesn’t believe it was penal either. He believed it was medicinal punishment. But even if it was even the staunchest retributivist believes that one can relax the demands of retributive justice in particular instances when the outcome of the punishment leads to greater benefits. In the particular instance of Christ the benefits of reconciling the whole world would justify the penal punishment. The demands of retribution could be relaxed for such a thing. Relaxing the demand or standard happens all the time in law. The objection that it’s unjust to inflict punishment on the innocent in certain circumstances is true if one holds to a retributive theory of justice. But I have shown elsewhere that the cup of God’s wrath wasn’t penal. It was corrective, medicinal, and disciplinary. God did not inflict Christ with penal punishment. So, the objection doesn’t hold. Rather, Christ voluntarily took upon Himself death which would have been the penal punishment for us had it been inflicted upon us. Christ willingly paid the penalty for our sins. Our justice system permits people to pay penalties like fines on behalf of other persons who are in agreement. Since Christ didn’t suffer God’s penal wrath God didn’t unjustly punish the innocent. This would fit with the OT sacrifices. Death is the penalty for sin and the animal would die in the place of the worshipper but it wasn’t being punished by God with penal wrath. Rather, the animal suffered the fate that would have been the worshippers penal punishment had it happened to him.


#20

I haven’t got a copy yet but William Lane Craig has just released “The Atonement” where he gives the logical and philosophical coherence of Penal Substitution as he studied the philosophy of law.