Romans – God’s Timeline VI: The Etymology of ‘Aion’
Preface
For a long, long time, I have wished to write a comprehensive study of the word aion. In all the writings I have read concerning the term (from the perspective of a ‘limited duration,’ that is,) I have not read of a comprehensive consideration of the term. Such a project is claimed to be long and potentially very repetitive.
Well, I seek to attempt such a project here, and I hope it’s not as droll as people tell me it would be. Before beginning this, keep in mind that there are five prior articles in this series, setting up a consideration of this term, and the points considered in them will be utilized here to further demonstrate that this word must mean a limited duration. I hope, dear reader, that you find as much value in the honest words of God, apart from human tampering, and that we all come to a fuller realization of the truth. Grace and peace.
Introduction, Six Articles In
Our popular Bibles have, for the last 1,500 years, forced upon us the idea that aion and aionios mean “eternal,” or “eternity.” This idea has propped up the theory of eternal torment, and is, to this day, the only reason I have ever found someone cling to the idea that these Greek words imply an endless duration. Most who believe eternal torment do not believe it because they are sorry to – they wish to, and any demonstrable evidence to the contrary thus falls upon their deaf and ignorant ears.
Simply put, if we can prove that aion in its various forms does not mean “eternal,” “everlasting,” “forever,” or any other infinite or endless duration, then we cannot rationally claim that “eternal torment” is taught in the Bible.
My goals are twofold, then. I wish, first and foremost, to demonstrate the beautiful logistics found in this Book written over the course of 1,500 years, which, by the use of this one word (…okay, maybe not just this one word, but its harmonious use in its various contexts,) reveals a beautifully synchronized plan which speaks to the benefit and salvation of every living creature, and enjoy permanent bliss with their Maker.
My secondary goal is to expose the lack of intellectual integrity among many Christian scholars today, who smartly lie to their audience by either ignoring or evading the evidence that will be presented throughout the remainder of this study. In this, the pseudo-scholar will be exposed and shamed (either now, or on Judgment Day,) while the ordinary reader may be enlightened. I pray that all who cling to the erroneous idea of eternal torment will let go of such an emotionally immature and irrational doctrine, which has more in common with the Third Reich than any form of unconditional love, and inflicts much harm on the physical and psychological growth of the individual.
It must be noted that the Old Testament was not written in Greek, but in Chaldee and Hebrew. Whenever we consider the Old Testament, we will be considering the word olam and its derivatives, which is the Hebrew counterpart of aion. We will also be considering the Septuagint, which is the Greek version of the Old Testament, in tandem with the Hebrew Masoretic, as it almost always translates olam as aion.
We will, throughout the course of this series, consider the etymology of the term, the lexicography, and the usage of the term. In this article, we will first look into the etymology of the term.
Etymology
It must be known, going in, that “etymology” (the study of the origin of the word) is not, and should not always be, the primary methodology to figuring a word’s meaning (called the “etymological fallacy,” covered on this blog already by my biggest fan.) The use of a word should primarily denote its meaning. It is with this in mind that I cover etymology first, almost to get it out of the way. I’m really only covering this because, if I only consider the usage, then that one crackpot pastor out there will get mad and act like the etymology should be our foundation (don’t pretend like he wouldn’t exist.)
That little warning matters, because, even if, for some reason, the etymology did prove that “endlessness” were rooted in this word’s etymology, it would not change that God uses the word how He wills, and it is His use of the word that matters most. On that note, I know that these first two articles may be boring for the majority of humanity today, or feel pointless, in the grand scheme of things. So, from here on in, I will say that this article is primarily for the nerds, not required reading, unless you’ve been assuming that “because some scholars claimed this thing once,” you should believe it. This section is only provided to cross all my t’s and dot my i’s.
Nevertheless, let us first consider many people’s primary source of this information, which is not the word of God, but the philosopher Aristotle (minding that God warned us of philosophers, in Col. 2:9-17, but sure! We’ll pretend he didn’t, here.) It is claimed that, because he is the oldest resource, that he must be the best. Aristotle allegedly explained the term as one deriving from two different Greek terms, being aei and on, which should signify always existing. Many claim this, and then treat Aristotle’s word as though it defines God’s word!
The
problem with this is that there are three different major interpretations
of the passage which supposedly makes this claim (which most have not read.)
So, I will put them all here. The first two are two separate translations
of Aristotle’s writing, and the third is a far more plausible interpretation
which goes unnoticed by the “I-want-to-see-most-people-be-burned-alive-forever”
crowd.
1.
The first primary interpretation is by one Dr. Pond, a
theologian from the 19th century who wrote for a magazine called The
Christian Union. He writes, “In describing the highest heaven, the
residence of the gods, Aristotle says, ‘It is therefore evident that there is
neither space, nor time, nor vacuum beyond. Wherefore the things there are not
adapted by nature to exist in place; nor does time make them grow old; neither
under the highest [heaven] is there any change of any one of these things, they
being placed beyond it; but unchangeable, passionless – they having the best,
even the self-sufficient life – they continue through all aiona (eternity.) For
indeed, the word itself according to the ancients, divinely expressed
this. For the period which comprehends the time of every one’s life, beyond
which, according to nature, nothing exists, is called his aion,
(eternity.) And for the same reason, the period of the whole heaven, even the
infinite time of all things, and the period comprehending that infinity is
aion, eternity, deriving its name from aei, einai, always being, immortal
and divine.”
2.
The second primary interpretation is given by Dr. J.R. Boise,
Professor of Greek in the University of Chicago in the 19th century.
Boise translates, “Time is a notation of motion; and motion without a physical
body is impossible. But, beyond the heaven, it has been shown that there is
neither a body, nor can there be. It is plain, therefore, that there is neither
space, nor void, nor time beyond. Wherefore, the things there are not by nature
in space, nor does time make them grow old, nor is there any change in any one
of those things placed beyond the outermost sweep (or current); but,
unchangeable and without passion, having the best and most sufficient life,
they continue through all eternity (aion); for this name (i.e., aion)
has been divinely uttered by the ancients. For the definite period (to telos),
which embraces the time of the life of each individual, to whom, according to
nature, there can be nothing beyond, has been called each one’s eternity (aion).
And, by parity of reasoning, the definite period also of the entire heaven,
even the definite period embracing the infinite time of all things and
infinity, is an eternity (aion), immortal and divine, having received
the appellation (eternity, aion) from the fact that it exists always (apo
tou aei einai.)”
3.
The third primary interpretation I’ll present is Dr. Edward
Beecher, a part of the “Beecher” family, extremely influential religious folk
in the 19th century (such works as Uncle Tom’s Cabin came
through this family.) On Aristotle, Beecher wrote in the “History of Future
Retribution,” in The Christian Union, “The limit of the whole heaven,
and the limit enclosing the universal system, is the divine and immortal
existing (aei on) (God) deriving his name Aion from his ever
existing (aei on.)’ Dr. B. adds, “From the time of Homer to Plato and
Aristotle, about five centuries, the word aion is used by poets and
historians alongside of various compounds of aei; but it is never
spelled as if it were a compound of aei, for the compounds of aei retain
the dipthong ei, but aion drops the e. There is a verb aio–
to breathe, to live. The passage of Aristotle in which his etymology occurs, has
been mistranslated, for it does not give the etymology of the abstract idea
eternity, but of the concrete idea God, as an ever-existing person, from
whom all other personal beings derived existence and life. What Aristotle has
been supposed to assert of aion, in the sense of eternity, he asserts of
aion in the sense of God, a living and divine person. That the word aion
in classic Greek sometimes denotes God is distinctly stated in Henry
Stephens’ great lexicon, (Paris edition,) and the passage referred to in
Sophocles (Herac. 900,) fully authorizes his statement. In that passage,
Jupiter is called ‘Aion, (the living God) the Son of Kronos.’ Moreover,
the whole context of Aristotle proves that he is speaking of the great
immovable first mover of the universe, the Aion, immortal and divine.”
Are We Getting Droll Already??
Really, though, if you got anything out of that, I commend you. I had to read those papers a few times to be certain, and honestly, I’m still not certain. Not only do all three disagree in some way, but the last guy made the notable consideration that Aristotle may well be using aion as a figurative association to speak of “God,” which sheds a whole new and sensible light on the passage.
Now, that they disagree
does not mean that all three are inherently wrong, but it is apparent
that the passage by Aristotle, with no foundation for the claims made, become confusing
and unclear. If he were any sort of authority, as God’s word
is, we would be more lost than ever (as most who do claim him as
an authority figure are.) We would have to implant the notion of
“continuous existence” into every occurrence of the term in the text, when the
theory that aion stems from aei and on are not proven by
Aristotle, nor can the text in view be treated as a definite claim that
this were the case (and, even if it were, it still shouldn’t be enough
to sway any individual into believing that “because Aristotle thinks this, God
must think it too.”) Now, above all of
this, we must realize that Aristotle’s words are not perfect. Take his
famous sentence, “Life, an aion continuous and eternal.” We must
understand the sentence in its relation to other words in the
sentence! If Aristotle had meant to tell us that ‘aion’ was eternal, why
would he strengthen the meaning with the word “eternal”? It would be
like saying “earth” meant “earth.” We know well enough that putting the
word you’re defining in the definition of said word is circular. So
Aristotle is either discrediting himself here, or does not believe
that aion inherently means eternal.
Aei
We
may consider each scriptural use the first supposed root word for aion, being
aei. The word aei which may be a root of aion is found
eight times in the New Testament:
1.
Mark 15:8
2.
Acts 7:51
3.
2 Cor. 4:11
4.
2 Cor. 6:10
5.
Tit. 1:12
6.
Heb. 3:10
7.
1 Pet. 3:15
8.
2 Pet. 1:12
I
will point at three different uses of the term. Let us look at its first
appearance in Mark 15:8, in the midst of the Jews’ indictment of Jesus to Paul–
Now there was one termed Bar-Abbas, bound with the
insurrectionists, who had done some murder in the insurrection. And the throng,
exclaiming, begins to be requesting according as he ever did for
them. Now Pilate answered them, saying, “Are you wanting that I should be
releasing to you the king of the Jews?”
Note
that this word is used in a relative, continual relation between Pilate
and the Jews. Look next at 2 Cor. 4:11–
For we who are living are ever being
given up to death because of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be
manifested in our mortal flesh.
I
note here, also, that the term is used in a relative, continual relation between
Jesus’ life and our mortal flesh (note that our mortal flesh, by
definition, does not last.) And, we may look at Heb. 3:10–
Wherefore, “I am disgusted with this generation, and
said, ‘Ever are they straying in heart; Yet they know not My ways.’ As I swear
in My indignation, ‘If they shall be entering into My stopping-!’”
Of course, in the context
of the quote in view, there was a relative, continual relation between
Yahweh’s instruction and Israel’s deviation, one which, per the “world”
consideration in the previous articles, as well as Yahweh’s own proclamation
that the law will be written in Israel’s hearts for them to do it
(Jer. 33,) cannot be an endless situation.
A Major Problem
This
leads us to a very critical issue. We have briefly considered Aristotle’s
“authority,” and found it to be a shaky stance, at best. We have further
considered the use of aei in the actual word of God, and found that
God’s use of it does not inherently mean “eternality.” Why, then, do so
many Greek teachers and historians act as though this is its meaning??
Namely,
-
Henry Liddell and Robert Scott, two of the most renowned
Greek scholars, published A Greek-English Lexicon, is one of the most
called-upon works in history to define aion after Aristotle’s supposed
definition.
-
Herman Cremer, a German theologian who published the German Biblisch-theologisches
Wörterbuch der neutestamentlichen Gräcität (which, before you ask, no, I
haven’t read, because I’m not German,) defines the word in the same way.
-
James Donnegan, creator of the New Greek and English
Lexicon (which isn’t that “new,” only a compilation of earlier European
lexicons by authors as Johann Gottlob and Schneider, but at least he had some
consistency,) translates it thus.
-
Even Henry Stephens, who created the oldest Greek
dictionary since Ancient Rome, and published it in five giant
volumes, uses the Aristotleian origin of the word!
As such, your average reader would go, “Hmm, well, these knowledgeable grammarians who existed before the Fire Nation attacked are telling me that this word aion means “eternal,” or “without end,” or “everlasting,” so I feel justified in my belief.” However, to that, I reply thus:
First, this is called the fallacy of an “appeal to authority.” It occurs when, instead of looking into the evidence for yourself like a good little scholar, you instead point at the smart guys and say, “Well, that’s what they think, so I can think it too!” It’s a safe stance, and harmless in lesser fandoms or social groups, but can be severely detrimental to our intellectual growth if we blindly accept it in other regards. I have here a fun skit, from the creators of It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, which demonstrates how problematic such an attitude truly is.
Thus second, it supposes that these authors are uniform on many matters, and that agreement equals correct. If we, at least, have learned anything from the God of the universe, it’s that He takes great joy in stacking the odds against Himself, ensuring that He is one of a few (Ex. 4-14, 1 Kings 18-19, Acts 9:1-5, etc.) – in one case, even, the One standing before His own nation, other indifferent nations, and the celestial realm manned by Satan, and laying His Son’s life down for them.
In fact, however, no Greek translator or expositor is uniform with another, and above all others, God Himself is the only One Who has His own uniform meanings to the words He uses. Now, we have seen reasonable doubt as to both the translation of Aristotle’s claim, and of the very meaning of the word, pointing at a figure of God instead of eternity. We have further seen that the root word claimed to be a component of “eternity” is, in fact, not at all used in the sense of “endless duration.” And, you may consider Aristotle’s twelve surviving usages of the word (considered in this study of aion by Rev. John Hanson, p. 21-22,) you would find that he does not at all use the word in relation to “endlessness” or “eternal” quality.
This makes the definition, rooted in an appeal to authority, made by our Greek scholars to this very day one of questionable import. We will see, when we consider the use of the term, that at the time of the Bible’s writing, the idea of “eternity” with this word was nowhere to be found, making its inclusion in our modern Bibles Christian myth.
If, then, aei on were the origin of the word aion (which is still “alleged,”) then it simply could not mean more than something continual, which itself is a word which is contextualized by the related words in the sentence (similar to “all,” or “that.”) Nevertheless, etymology itself is uncertain, and we simply cannot claim that it is our grounds. Though it is helpful, and I have employed it specially in regards to the elements of the word, in relation to the all-knowing God Who designed them, it does not supersede word use, which is our primary consideration in any text. We may rest in this fact that etymology has not “proven” that the word means “eternal,” but it is not the final say on God’s use (for what if God’s use of the term is only eternal? That would shut me up real quick, right?)
In
the next article, we will take a closer look at the lexicography of the
word – that is, we will be compiling multiple definitions of the word from
multiple sources over history, and seeing how they stack against one another.
- GerudoKing
Comments
Post a Comment