What’s in an Eternity? Eternity as we know it is a relatively new concept. Ironic, no? The word used for eternity in scripture is olam (in the Hebrew), which means, more accurately, “to the age” or “age-during.” In the Old Testament, we don’t really find the concept of “eternity” taught. In the New Testament, the word translated “eternity” (and also used to translate olam in the Septuagint) is aionios, and aion is sometimes translated “forever,” though usually it becomes “world” or similar. Then we have “forever and ever,” or to the aions of the aions.

All of these original language words are probably more accurately translated “age-during,” or “an age or eon” or, in the case of forever and ever, “to the ages of the ages.” Strongs doesn’t agree, incidentally, but the literal translations of the Bible such as Youngs do translate both “olam” and “aeon/aeonios” in this way. Most modern translations, including the KJV, translate them variously depending on the context.

Often olam was used in situations which manifestly do not (or did not) last forever. Jonah said that the bars of the deep had closed on him forever, but in fact he was only in the fish’s belly for three days. Still, it felt like an eternity, and perhaps he thought himself justified in his hyperbole. There are other things which are declared to be eternal in the Old Testament, however, which are not. For example the Aaronic priesthood was “forever,” as were the fire, the lamplight, and the sacrifices in the temple, and the temple itself. So is the deed of land given to Israel, the “everlasting” hills, the term of service for a slave who chooses to remain in bondage once his debt is paid. The land will one day be destroyed, with the everlasting hills, and does anyone think the bondman or woman remains a slave after death?

An Ammonite or a Moabite could not enter the congregation of the Lord “forever” unto the tenth generation. Huh? Which is it? There are many other examples, but these should be enough to demonstrate that “olam” doesn’t necessarily mean “eternal.” It needn’t be translated “eternal,” either, even when referring to God. There are plenty of indicators that God is eternal (in the modern sense of the word) even without translating “olam” that way. God is, since He is eternal, necessarily also “age-during.”

In the New Testament “aion and aionios” also get themselves translated in various ways depending on the context. They have the same basic meanings as “olam” in the Old Testament, that is to say, ”to the age, age-during, for an age, that which pertains to an age.” Nevertheless, to say they are never used in a sense of having to do with eternity (as we perceive it) in the New Testament might not be quite fair. Plato used “aionios” to describe his concept of eternity, and it’s not unlikely that the New Testament authors would have also used it in this way, particularly when speaking of God. It is also used freely to speak of things that aren’t eternal, and used in contexts where “eternal” as a translation simply doesn’t work.

For example, whoever speaks a word against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either in this age or the one to come. The word here is “aion,” and clearly “in this eternity or the eternity to come” makes no sense at all. Or the seed sown among thorns, which is choked by the worries of this . . . eternity? No, again, aion is here translated either “this world” or “this age.” I could go on, but you can find them yourself by doing a search for G165 and G166 in KJV+. I use the free e-sword software you can find at www.e-sword.com. Most of the examples you’ll find will be for G165 (aeon). There’s a good deal more to this, but I’ll save it for my next post, and also talk about 2 Thessalonians 1:9 again, which was what prompted all this discussion of Hebrew and Greek words in the first place.

Great title, huh? Very peppy, very upbeat . . . well, okay. Maybe not so much. The thing is, though scripture is chock full of verses that seem to say that God fully intends to save the whole world, there are also a goodly number that seem to say the exact opposite. Not as many, but they are there and they need to be considered honestly and in light of the whole witness of scripture. The one I want to look at today is, in my opinion, the hardest one to fit into the idea of universal reconciliation. That’s a manner of opinion (mine) of course, and there are others nearly as difficult, but I want to start with 2 Thessalonians 1:9. Here it is, in its context:

It is a clear evidence of God’s righteous judgment that you will be counted worthy of God’s kingdom, for which you also are suffering, since it is righteous for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you and to reward with rest you who are afflicted, along with us. This will take place at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with His powerful angels, taking vengeance with flaming fire on those who don’t know God and on those who don’t obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction from the Lord’s presence and from His glorious strength in that day when He comes to be glorified by His saints and to be admired by all those who have believed, because our testimony among you was believed. (2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 HCSB)

It seems only just that God would “repay with affliction those who afflict.” Even Paul, who started out as a persecutor, suffered great things for the message Jesus called him to bring to the Gentile world. Was this suffering some form of recompense? Scripture doesn’t say. It does, however, suit our sense of justice that the one inflicting pain and anguish should be made to understand precisely what his victims have experienced and in fact to experience it himself. It doesn’t logically follow, though, that the perpetrator should suffer forever and ever, nor even that he should be permanently extinguished from existence (again, forever and ever.) Even if he is repaid ten-fold, such a punishment wouldn’t begin to last for eternity as we perceive it.

Verse nine is the challenge here for any idea of eventual reconciliation. It’s important to note that the Greek can be read to indicate either that the persecutor will be shut away from the Lord’s presence in eternal punishment, or that the eternal punishment has the Lord’s presence as its source. Thomas Talbott believes the context favors the latter view, and in my own opinion, since Paul’s other writings are replete with references to all people being reconciled, such an interpretation makes more sense. Otherwise, this verse would contradict a lot of other very clear Pauline statements. This is what Talbott has to say:

“In the context . . . we find no relevant verb . . . no subject of action, and no other grammatical device that entitles us to translate apo (from*) as away from. To the contrary, the context seems to render such a translation logically absurd . . . (the picture Paul paints*) suggests, not destruction away from the flaming fire, but destruction that precisely results from the flaming fire.” (Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, p 93) (*my clarification)

I was speculating about this a couple of years ago. I think I may have mentioned it in one of my earlier posts, in fact. The idea that God’s very holiness is perhaps itself the fire that torments the wicked has a certain appeal (at least to me) in that, in a sense, it isn’t God’s fault if His holiness is naturally destructive of wickedness. After all, even Moses was told that he couldn’t see God’s face and live.

But the other concept in this passage that causes problems for any hope of universal reconciliation is that little word, eternal, and that word pops up regularly in proximity to both outer darkness and hellfire in the New Testament. I’ll talk about it in my next post.