by George Sidney Hurd
A Universalist’s Response to “Exposing Universalism” by James B. De Young What we have been considering in the previous sessions concerning the universal restoration, reconciliation, reversal of the fall and final salvation of all, is only a few of the many passages of Scripture which, to me, clearly speak of a glorious finale for God’s eternal plan for the ages which culminates in Him becoming all in all, and not just all in some while the vast majority of mankind, created His image and likeness, suffer in perpetual torments. I included in the appendix of my book, “The Triumph of Mercy,” nearly one-hundred passages which either clearly declare or imply the final restoration of all and another fifty passages which imply that punishment will not be eternal. In spite of this glorious theme of the final restoration of all which is repeatedly set forth in clear terms throughout the entirety of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation, many still find it hard to believe that the outworking of God’s eternal plan actually culminates in the final restoration of all where all live happily ever after. The greatest obstacle to embracing a divine story that ends so well for all is one English word: “eternal.” The common English rendering of time-words such as olam in Hebrew and aion with its adjective aionios in Greek as, “eternal,” “forever,” “forever and ever,” “everlasting” or “perpetual,” when referring to postmortem punishment, has greatly distorted our perception of God’s very nature and kept many at a distance, in bondage to fear and often despair. What many are unaware of or fail to consider is that our modern concept of “eternity” wasn’t even thought of by man until the Greek philosopher Plato set it forth in the third century before Christ. The Jews weren’t introduced to Plato’s concept of eternity until Philo, a Jewish philosopher and contemporary of Jesus, began to popularize it. Plato’s concept of eternity wasn’t articulated by Christian theologians until Augustine, entering into the fifth century. Therefore, in the Scriptures there was no word equivalent to our English word “eternal.” Both olam in Hebrew and aion/aionios in Greek were time-words. [1] Olam in the Old Testament was used to express an indefinite time period beyond the horizon. At times it was used to refer to indefinite time beyond the past horizon, while other times it referred to indefinite duration of time in the future, but it always spoke of time and not eternity since human language did not yet have a word for eternity. The Encyclopedia of the Bible, Ediciones Garriga S.A. defines olam as follows: “Olam in the line of duration, indicates times undetermined, remote, obscure, whether it be past or future, the duration of the life of a man or a long extension which comes to designate indefinite duration…. It does not express the platonic and modern concept of eternity.” [2] Moving forward into the New Testament, the Greek word aion and its adjective aionios continue expressing time and not eternity. Our English equivalents are “eon” and “eonian,” The Merriam – Webster’s Dictionary defines eon as: “an immeasurably or indefinitely long period of time.” Eon has retained to this very day the same basic meaning as it’s Greek derivative aion in the New Testament and in the LXX Greek version of the Old Testament used by Jesus and the Apostles. It refers to the longest measurement of time, but time nonetheless and not eternity. In contrast, our word “eternal” is from the later Latin aeternus and is defined as “everlasting, perpetual, timeless.” But it can be demonstrated that not even the Latin aeternus exclusively meant eternal until after Augustine’s time. One of the most distinguished Greek scholars of recent times, Marvin Vincent, D.D. in His Greek commentary, Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, explains the following about aión and aionios: “Aión transliterated ‘aeon,’ is a period of time of longer or shorter duration, having a beginning and an end, and complete in itself. Aristotle (peri ouranou, i. 9, 15) says: ‘The period which includes the whole time of each one's life is called the aeon of each one.’ Hence, it often means the life of a man, as in Homer, where one's life aión is said to leave him or to consume away (Iliad, v. 685; Oddysey, v. 160). It is not, however, limited to human life; it signifies any period in the course of events, as the period or age before Christ; the period of the millennium; the mythological period before the beginnings of history. The word has not ‘a stationary and mechanical value’ (DeQuincey). It does not mean a period of a fixed length for all cases. There are as many aeons as entities, the respective durations of which are fixed by the normal conditions of the several entities. There is one aeon of a human life, another of the life of a nation, another of a crow's life, another of an oak's life. The length of the aeon depends on the subject to which it is attached… The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity. It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come. It does not mean something endless or everlasting... The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of ‘endless or everlasting.’ They may acquire that sense by their connotation, as, on the other hand, aidíos, which means ‘everlasting,’ has its meaning limited to a given point of time in Jude 6. Aionios means ‘enduring through or pertaining to a period of time.’ Both the noun and the adjective are applied to limited periods. Thus, the phrase eis ton aiona, habitually rendered ‘forever,’ is often used of duration which is limited in the very nature of the case. See, for a few out of many instances, the Septuagint, Ex 21:6; 29:9; 32:13; Josh 14:9; 1 Sam 8:13; Lev 25:46; Deut 15:17; 1 Chron 28:4. See also Matt 21:19; John 13:8; 1Cor 8:13. The same is true of aionios. Out of 150 instances in the Septuagint, four-fifths imply limited duration. For a few instances see Gen 48:4; Num 10:8; 15:15; Prov 22:28; Jonah 2:6; Hab 3:6; Isa 61:17.’ ‘Words which are ‘habitually’ applied to things temporal or material cannot carry in themselves the sense of endlessness. Even when applied to God, we are not forced to render aionios ‘everlasting.’ Of course the life of God is endless; but the question is whether, in describing God as aionios it was intended to describe the duration of his being, or whether some different and larger idea was not contemplated.” [3] G. Campbell Morgan, also a renowned scholar said: “Let me say to Bible students that we must be very careful how we use the word “eternity.” We have fallen into great error in our constant use of that word. There is no word in the whole Book of God corresponding with our ‘eternal,’ which, as commonly used among us, means absolutely without end. The strongest Scripture word used with reference to the existence of God is— ‘unto the ages of the ages,’ (KJV “forever and ever”) which does not literally mean eternally.” [4] (parenthesis mine) Hasting’s Dictionary of the New Testament says: “There is no word either in the O.T. Hebrew or in the N.T. Greek to express the abstract idea of eternity. Nonetheless ‘eternal’ is misleading, inasmuch as it has come in the English to connote the idea of ‘endlessly existing,’ and thus to be practically a synonym for ‘everlasting. But this is not an adequate rendering of aionios which varies in meaning with the variations of the noun aion from which it comes. The chronos aioniois (times of the ages) moreover, are not to be thought of as stretching backward everlastingly, as it is proved by the pro chronon aionion (before the times of the ages) of 2Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2 (parenthesis added) [5] While space doesn’t allow me here, in my book, “The Triumph of Mercy,” I demonstrate from numerous Old Testament and New Testament passages that these lexicographers have based their conclusions upon a careful objective consideration of the actual meanings of these time-words olam, aion and aionios in their own scriptural contexts, rather than being influenced by our more modern concept of eternity which was engrafted into the Scriptures by Traditional translators. Many newer translations have corrected this mistranslation in numerous passages, while all the literal translations, such as Youngs Literal Translation and Concordant Literal Version, have eliminated the words “eternal” “everlasting” and “perpetual” altogether, replacing them with “eon,” “eonian,” “age during” and “into the ages of the ages,” instead of the oxymoronic phrase, “forever and ever.” While the Early Greek Church Fathers were familiar with Plato’s concept of eternity, they did not understand aion and its adjective aionios to be referring to the Greek philosophical concept of eternity when they appear in the Scriptures but rather to a long indefinite period of time. That they didn’t understand aion and aionios as referring to eternity is everywhere evident – especially when speaking of postmortem judgment. Origin (184 A.D to 254 A.D.) said: “But how long this purification which is wrought out by penal fire shall endure, or for how many periods or ages it shall torment sinners, He only knows to whom all judgment is committed by the Father.” [6] Ambrose, (340 A.D. to 397 A.D.) said: “As for those who do not come to the first (resurrection), but are reserved until the second resurrection, these shall be burnt, until they fulfill their appointed times, between the first and the second resurrection; or, if they should not have fulfilled them then, they shall remain still longer in punishment.” [7] He here says that those who do not have part in the first resurrection will be subjected to purifying fire in the age to come (aion), and if necessary, even after the White Throne Judgment in the Lake of Fire, if their names are still not found written in the book of life. Theodore of Mopsuestia (AD 359 to AD 429) said: “The wicked who have committed evil the whole period of their lives shall be punished till they learn that, by continuing in sin, they only continue in misery. And when, by this means, they shall have been brought to fear God, and to regard him with good will, they shall obtain the enjoyment of his grace. For he never would have said, ‘until thou hast paid the uttermost farthing,’ unless we can be released from suffering after having suffered adequately for sin; nor would he have said, 'he shall be beaten with many stripes,' and again, ‘he shall be beaten with few stripes,’ unless the punishment to be endured for sin will have an end.” [8] Obviously, if these Greek speaking Early Church Fathers understood aión and aiónios as meaning “eternal” as most do today, they would have never referred to punishment as temporal and corrective. Even those of the early Greek Church Fathers who were Annihilationists and therefore did not believe in the final restoration of all, understood aiónios as referring to an indefinite time period rather than everlasting. Justin Martyr (100 A.D to 165 A.D) taught that there was an “eonian punishment” of the wicked in “eonian fire” which ended with their final annihilation. He speaks of the wicked being destroyed and ceasing to exist: “Wherefore God delays causing the confusion and destruction of the whole world, by which the wicked angels and demons and men shall cease to exist.” [9] Traditionalists often misunderstand Justin Martyr to be affirming the doctrine of eternal torments, thinking that he is emphasizing that punishment is eternal and not temporary in duration when he says: “and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting (aiónios) punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years.” [10] However, he is contrasting his belief in an eonian period of punishment which ends in annihilation with Plato’s claim that some of the dead return to life after a period of eonian “intoxication” lasting a thousand years. [11] Both Justin Martyr and Plato saw the duration as eonian rather than eternal. The difference was that Justin Martyr believed that it ended in one’s final annihilation in contrast with Plato who speculated that they came back to life after a thousand years. De Young repeatedly complains that Universalists do not quote from some of the more modern lexicons, since they normally include “eternal” “forever” and “everlasting” in their definitions of aión and aiónios. (pp. 42,43,44) However, the sources cited above are among the most respected scholars of all time and are considered by all to be the most reliable. Also, it must be recognized that even lexicographers have their own doctrinal biases which can influence their interpretations of certain passages and one can often detect their own particular theological bias in their definitions of certain words. Some lexical definitions are more influenced by theology than etymology. That is why it is often necessary for one to do an independent word study, examining each occurrence of a given word in its context throughout Scripture in order to determine its actual meaning. This is especially true in the case of the time-words olam, aión and aiónios, since the debate between universal reconciliation and eternal torment has become so polarized as to make objective unbiased investigation less and less common. Actually, the lexicons we should give the greatest credence to are the oldest and not the newest, as De Young insists. The oldest surviving Greek lexicon is that of Hesychius of Alexandria, which was compiled sometime between the 4th and 6th century. It includes more than 50,000 entries and defines aión thus: “The life of a man, the time of life.” Theodoret of Antioch (393 A.D. to 457 A.D.) said concerning aión: “aión is not any existing thing, but an interval denoting time, sometimes infinite when spoken of God, sometimes proportioned to the duration of the creation, and sometimes the life of a man.” [12] John of Damascus (646 A.D. to 749 A.D.) said: “The life of every man is called aión… The whole duration or life of this world is called aión. The life after the resurrection is called ‘the aión to come’” [13] None of these definitions at this early date include the concept of eternity since it had not yet been attached to this time-word. The word most commonly used to express “eternity” at that time was aidíos and not aiónios. However, aidíos is never used in the Scriptures to refer to the punishment of the wicked. It wasn’t until the 16th century that Phavorinus first included “eternal” in the definition of aión. However, even then he clarified that it was a theological definition rather than a strictly lexical definition. He said: “Aión, time, also life, also habit or way of life. Aión is also the eternal endless AS IT SEEMS TO THE THEOLOGIAN.” [14] So, the first time any lexicon included “eternity” in the definition of aión it was admittedly not the actual lexical meaning, but a meaning imposed upon the word by theologians. The expression “forever and ever” is another mistranslation found in our English versions. It was contrived by Traditionalists as an emphatic expression for eternity. But the expression in Greek is eis tous aiónas ton aiónon which simply means “into the ages of the ages.” Adding ages to ages speaks of a very long time but it is nevertheless time and not eternity. It is a common misconception to think of eternity as an infinite succession of ages. But if that were so the Scriptures would not speak of the “end of the ages” (Heb 9:26 lit. sunteleia ton aionon). Every age has its end, and when the last age, or “the Age of ages” ends, (Eph 3:21) time will then be no more, and eternity is all that remains. De Young says that “forever and ever” is an emphatic way of speaking of endless duration. He says: “the words may be rendered “forever and ever” as an emphatic way of speaking of endless duration….” p. 37 However, apart from the fact that the Scriptures speak of the end of the ages which rules out the possibility that the ages of the ages refer to infinite time, there are other problems with rendering “into the ages of the ages” as “forever and ever.” In the first place, adding “and ever” to “forever” is redundancy and actually diminishes “forever” rather than accentuating it. It implies that “forever” is not an adequate expression of infinite duration, requiring “and ever” in order to extend “forever” further into the future. It is a tautology similar to translating the plural of aión as “eternities” rather than “ages.” De Young actually contradicts himself when he says: “There is no age after the present one except the era of fulfillment, of reckoning and judgment, in which the wicked are still seen as wicked (Isa 66:24).” p. 36 If there is no age after the present one apart from the “era of fulfillment” then how can there be an infinite number of ages in the future, as he claims eis tous aiónas ton aiónon speaks of? That there is more than one future age is also evident in Ephesians 2:7 where Paul speaks of “the ages to come.” This requires two or more future ages. Another problem with rendering “into the ages of the ages” (eis tous aiónas ton aiónon) as “forever and ever” is that the preposition eis which they translate as “for” in “forever” does not express duration but merely “entrance into.” The prepositional phrase “eis tous aiónas ton aiónon” literally has reference to a non-specific amount of time within the ages of the ages and not necessarily the entirety of all future ages. The phrase, when introduced by eis, only indicates open-ended entrance into the ages of the ages without specifying duration. The preposition eis is defined in Strong’s as: “to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.)” I meticulously examined all 1,767 occurrences of the preposition eis in the New Testament and in each case, although variously translated, it is always used to express the idea of “to” or “into” just as Strong’s defines it. When used of time, it always has reference to time of indefinite duration. Although it is often translated as “for,” the only idea expressed is entrance “into” an indefinite time-span without specifying one’s duration within that time span. Not everyone who enters into the eonian punishment will remain in the lake of fire for the full amount of time indicated by “the ages of the ages.” Therefore, the expression “into the ages of the ages” (“forever and ever”) only indicates that the punishment of the wicked will take place within the timespan referred to as the “ages of the ages” and therefore is not in conflict with the scriptural doctrine of the final restoration of all. It is said of Jesus that He will reign “forever and ever” but only until all have become subject to Him and restored. At that time, He will also become subject to the Father, resulting in God being all in all entering into eternity (Rev 11:15; Heb 1:13;1Cor 15:25-28). Finally, it is not without significance that Paul once used another phrase which is distinct from the double plural “ages of the ages.” In Ephesians 3:21 it is not “the ages of the ages” but rather “the Age of the ages.” (aiónos ton aiónon) The King James Version renders it “world without end” but the verse should be translated as we find it in the literal translations: “to Him be the glory in the ecclesia and in Christ Jesus for all the generations of the eon of the eons! Amen!” (Concordant Literal Version) Although traditional translations make no distinction between “the ages of the ages” and “the Age of the ages,” we know that it was intentional and not just an orthographic error made by Paul, and there is a great difference between “the ages of the ages” and “the Age of the ages.” When we use the singular followed by the same word in plural in this manner, we are expressing the idea that that which is in singular form has preeminence over that which appears in plural. In every instance where we find this construction in the Bible, we understand that the first, which appears in singular form, is singular in importance, significance or eminence, compared to the rest which follow in the plural form. When we say, “King of kings,” or “Lord of lords,” we understand that it is saying that that particular King is preeminent over all other kings. The expression “Song of songs” means the most outstanding Song of all songs. The same is true with the “Holy of holies” which is usually translated “the Most Holy”: When we understand that the Age of the ages is the age which is preeminent among all others - the culmination of all ages, then the full import of the passage in which it is employed, is revealed: “to Him be the glory in the ecclesia and in Christ Jesus for all the generations of the eon of the eons! Amen!” (Concordant Literal Version) Or expressing the full sense of the word “generations” (genos) one could say: “to Him be the glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus to all descendants of all generations, into the Age of the ages, Amen!” The mistranslation of “the ages of the ages” and “the Age of ages” as “forever and ever” or “world without end” veils the glorious truth that Christ and His Church will continue reigning in “the ages of the ages” or “the ages to come” until the final “Age of ages” when all descendants of all generations will have subjected themselves to Christ, being reunited in Him in the dispensation of the fullness of the times, resulting in God being all in all (Eph 1:10; 1Cor 15:25-28). The “ages of the ages” are preeminent over all previous ages since Christ will be reigning, and the “Age of ages” is the greatest of all ages because it culminates with God being all in all. While it is not possible to consider all the texts of Scripture which have been misunderstood to be teaching eternal torments due to the mistranslation of the time-words olam, aión and aiónios in this session, I would like to consider Matthew 25:46 which is the most popular proof-text used by Traditionalists for eternal punishment: “And these will go away into everlasting punishment (kolasin aiónion), but the righteous into eternal life (zoen aiónion).” (Matt 25:46) It is argued from this verse that if the punishment of the goats is not eternal, then neither is the life of the sheep eternal, since the same word aiónios is used of both life and punishment. However, there are several reasons why this reasoning is erroneous. In the first place, it is a basic law of grammar that an adjective cannot have a greater force than the noun it modifies. A big leaf is not the same size as a big tree. A long day is not the same length as a long year. Aiónios is the adjective of aión which means a long but indefinite length of time. Therefore, aiónios as the adjective of aión would mean “long lasting” or “age enduring.” The duration of aiónios would depend upon the nature of the noun it modifies. If we were to say, “the eonian hills belong to the eonian God,” we would not mean to say that the hills are as enduring as God. Likewise, the duration of eonian life depends upon the nature of the life entered into, while the duration of eonian punishment depends upon the nature of the punishment entered into. Marvin Vincent, in Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, says the following concerning the eonian life and eonian punishment in this verse: “Zooee aionios ‘eternal life,’ which occurs 42 times in the New Testament, but not in the Septuagint, is not endless life, but life pertaining to a certain age or aeon, or continuing during that aeon. I repeat, life may be endless. The life in union with Christ is endless, but the fact is not expressed by aionios. Kolasis aioonios, rendered ‘everlasting punishment’ (Matt 25:46), is the punishment peculiar to an aeon other than that in which Christ is speaking.” [15] The very meaning of the word “punishment” (kolasis) rules out the possibility of it being eternal. The Greek word kolasis speaks of “corrective punishment” in contrast with timoreo which often expresses “vindictive punishment or torture.” William Barclay, a Greek scholar, in his commentary, The Daily Study Bible and New Testament Words says the following of kolasis: “The Greek word for punishment here [Mt. 25:46] is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment.” [16] The great Greek scholar Archbishop trench in Trench's New Testament Synonyms, also explains the difference between the vindictive punishment timoria and the corrective punishment kolasis: “Punishment: timoria, kolasis Timoria…. The classical use of timoria emphasizes the vindictive character of punishment. It was punishment that satisfied the inflictor’s sense of outraged justice and that defended his own honor or that of the violated law. The meaning of timoria, then, agrees with its etymology. Kolasis refers to punishment that is designed to correct and better the offender. Thus, Plato uses kolaseis and noutheteseis together. Several times in one passage in the Protagoras, Plato's use illustrates the distinction we have drawn.” [17] If God’s punishment were purely vindictive and for His own benefit and pleasure, then one might argue that His punishment could last forever, although eternal vengeance would still be unjust, excessive and contrary to God’s loving nature. However, seeing that the word Jesus used is “correction” (kolasis), it is evident that it could not last forever. A punishment for the purpose of correction only lasts until the desired result has been achieved – the correction of the offender. Once corrected, the eonian correction ceases. It may last a very long time or a rather short time, depending upon the time necessary to accomplish its purpose. In Jonah’s case it lasted for an eon of just three days. Justice always suspends punishment when the correction has been achieved. According to the meaning of the word kolasis, we see that the punishment in Scriptures is always a measured punishment according to the works of each one. Even in the apocalyptic lake of fire each one receives only that which is his part: “But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part (meros) in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” (Rev 21:8) The expression “their part” (meros) does not correspond with an infinite punishment. That which is “a part” is a measured punishment. Therefore, the common rendering “everlasting punishment” is erroneous. Most misunderstand the passage concerning the separation of the sheep nations from the goat nations in Matthew 25. It does not refer to some general judgment at the close of the Millennium but rather to a separation of the sheep nations at Christ’s Second Coming who treated “Christ’s brethren” well, from the goat nations who did not help them in their tribulation. (vv. 31,32) The sheep are nowhere said to be born-again believers or Christ’s brethren. His brethren are distinct from them. (v. 40) His brethren were caught up to meet the Lord in the air prior to this separation. The sheep and the goats are mortals among the nations who are either granted entrance into the eonian life of the Millennial age or sent to an eonian corrective punishment. They are nowhere said to be immortalized or glorified, but simply granted or denied entrance into the eonian kingdom. The sheep will be allowed to continue living and will repopulate the Millennial earth with mortals, many of whom will side with Satan in rebellion against Christ at the end of the 1,000 years. (Rev 21:7-10) I realize that many reading this may be Amillennialists or Preterists who do not interpret these passages in the same manner as I do. I present my reasons for being a Futurist as opposed to Preterism in my book entitled “Last Days – Past or Present?” available through Amazon. Therefore, as I see it, in Matthew 25:46, neither the eonian life (i.e. the life of the age to come), nor the eonian punishment are eternal. The life granted is the continuance of their mortal lives in the millennial kingdom age, whereas the punishment is said to be in “eonian fire (pur aiónion) prepared for de devil and his angels.” Consistent with the word aiónios and kolasis, this purifying fire is enduring but not eternal. De Young attempts to argue that the eonian fire is eternal, based upon the use of the perfect tense which should read “having been cursed” and “having been prepared.” He says: “Matt 25:41 cursed into eternal fire prepared. ‘cursed’ and ‘prepared’ are in perfect tense indicating permanent state. This grammatical point goes unrecognized by universalists.” p. 35 However, he is here reading too much into the idea expressed by the perfect tense. Perfect tense simply refers to an action completed in the past whose results continue up to and including the time of writing. He is making a great and unjustifiable leap from presently continuing results to a perpetual “permanent state.” [18] In conclusion, it can be said that a careful consideration of the meaning of time-words such as olam, aión and aiónios, in combination with such words as kolasis which speak of corrective punishment and not merely vindictive punishment, as well as other expressions such as “his part” “until,” “many stripes” or “few stripes,” all indicate that punishment is corrective in nature and not eternal as commonly understood. It should be kept in mind that in order to be in harmony with the numerous restoration passages it is only necessary to demonstrate that the time-words olam, aión and aiónios in Scripture do not always mean eternal. Nevertheless, we see that they are strictly time-words which in and of themselves do not express the modern concept of eternity nor everlastingness. [1] The Word aidíos was used by the Pharisees and the Greek philosophers to refer to everlasting punishment but the only occurrences of aidíos in the New Testament are Romans 1:20 and Jude 6 where they are best understood as “invisible” or “imperceptible” as rendered in the Concordant Literal Version. [2] La Enciclopedia de la Biblia de Ediciones Garriga S.A. [3] Marvin Vincent D.D. Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament [4] G. Campbell Morgan, God’s Methods with Man [5] Hasting’s Dictionary of the New Testament (vol. I, p. 542 art. Christ and the Godpels): Eternity [6] Origin, Commentary In Epist. Ad Rom. lib viii. cap. xi. [7] Psalm . i. para. 54, p. 763, Ed. Paris. 1686 [8] Gregorio el Nazianceno, Assemani Bib. Orient. Tom. iii. [9] Justin Martyr, Second apology; Chapter 7 [10] Justin Martyr, First apology; Chapter 8 [11] John Wesley Hanson, Aión – Aiónios https://tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html [12] Ibid. [13] Ibid. [14] Ibid. [15] Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament - Additional note on aion and aionios in 2Thessalonians 1:9 [16] William Barclay, The Daily Study Bible and New Testament Words [17] Trench's New Testament Synonyms: Punishment [18] “The perfect presents a completed state or condition. When the action was completed the perfect tense does not say. It is still complete at the time of the use of the tense by speaker or writer.” (Robertson, A. T.. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research). 
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |