Body, Spirit, and Soul

    The Bible is clear that there are three different ‘parts’ that somehow make up who we are as humans: the body, the spirit, and the soul (Gen. 2:7; 1 Thess. 5:23; Heb. 4:12). But most Christians are less clear on the issue of how these three parts relate to each other, and especially on the difference between the soul and the spirit. In this post, we’ll take a look at the body, spirit, and soul and examine the biblical definitions of each, as well as how they interact before and after death.

    The Body

The definition of a “body” should be fairly obvious: it is our physical, material structure which corporeally interacts with the world around us. However, the biblical definition is a bit more nuanced. Many Christians are wont to think of the body as a temporary vehicle in which our “immortal soul” lives for a brief period of time, before moving on to live eternally in either heaven or hell. One common quote (misattributed to C.S. Lewis) reflects the sentiment of most Christians well: “You do not have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.”

    Unfortunately, this belief is entirely unbiblical and goes directly against what scripture has to say about our bodies. One need look no further than Genesis 2 to discover that, yes, in fact, you are a body:

And Yahweh God formed the human from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the human became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)

According to this passage, God did not merely form the body of the human from the dust of the ground, but He actually created the human. The human (ha-adam) existed before he became a soul, even before he came to life. Adam, and by extension all humanity, is a body. This is confirmed in the very next chapter, when God declares to Adam,

“By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken, for you are dust, and you shall return to dust.” (Gen. 3:19)

God does not say that Adam’s body was taken out of the ground, but that Adam himself was taken out of the ground and made from dust. Now we know, of course, that it was Adam’s body that was made from the dust of the ground, not his spirit (which was given from God) and not his soul (which was a composite of his body and spirit, according to Gen. 2:7). Thus, the fact that Adam himself was made from the dust of the ground allows us to make the equation “Adam = Adam’s body,” and by extension, all humans are our bodies.

    But if we are our bodies, a more pressing question is, what happens to us when our bodies die? After all, our bodies and spirits separate at death (Ecc. 12:7), and according to James (2:26), the body apart from the spirit is dead. Do we remain bodies at death, or do we become incorporeal “souls” in some spiritual realm, as most Christians believe? Unfortunately, the fact is that we remain bodies after death just as we are before death. If in life you are a living body, in death you are a corpse.

    This can be seen in the passage quoted above, Genesis 3:19, where Adam is told that he would one day return to the ground, not merely his body. Of course, it is the body which is made from the ground and returns to the ground in death, but because Adam - the human - is a body, it can also be said that he himself returns to the ground in death (cf. Job 10:9; Ps. 90:3). This is confirmed again and again throughout the Bible, as every time that a person’s body is buried, the person themself is said to have been buried; that is, the person’s remains are fully constituted by their body. Consider the following passages:

Then Abraham breathed his last and died in a good old age, an old man and full of years, and was gathered to his people [1]. And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, which is before Mamre, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, the field which Abraham purchased from the sons of Heth. There Abraham was buried, and Sarah his wife. (Gen. 25:8-10)

Then he [Israel] charged them and said to them: “I am to be gathered to my people; bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite... There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife, there they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife, and there I buried Leah.” (Gen. 49:29, 31)

So Moses the servant of Yahweh died there in the land of Moab, in accordance with the word of Yahweh. And he was buried in the valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor; but no one knows his burial place to this day. (Deut. 34:5-6)

So when Jesus came, he found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb four days. (Jn. 11:17)

When they had carried out everything that was written concerning him [Jesus], they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb. (Acts 13:29 cf. Matt. 12:40, 28:6, 1 Cor. 15:4)

I could continue with many more examples, like David and Solomon (1 Kings 2:10; 2 Chron. 9:31 cf. Acts 2:29) and many people who are said by Daniel (12:2) to “sleep in the dust of the earth.” Burial is said to be the way that “all the earth” goes at death (Josh. 23:14 cf. 24:29-30). Even when the soul and/or spirit are mentioned alongside the body, a person’s remains are said to be constituted by their body and not their soul or spirit:

And it came about, as her soul was departing (for she died), that she named him Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin. So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephrath. (Gen. 35:18-19)

You hide Your face, they are troubled; You take away their spirit, they die, and to dust they return. You send forth Your spirit, they are created, and You renew the face of the earth. (Ps. 104:29-30)

Do not put your trust in princes, nor in a son of man, in whom there is no help. His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. (Ps. 146:3-4)

And [as] they had stoned Stephen, he was calling and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!” Now having fallen on [his] knees, he cried out in a great voice, “Lord, may you not place to them this sin.” And having said this, he fell asleep... Now devout men buried Stephen, and made great mourning over him. (Acts 7:59-60; 8:2)

So then, we can clearly see that after death, a person’s remains are fully constituted by their dead body, which returns to the dust of the earth, rather than an incorporeal “soul” or “spirit.” Even our Lord Jesus was considered to be equivalent to His corpse, buried in the heart of the earth, during the three days for which He was dead (Matt. 12:40; 28:6; Acts 13:29). Indeed, in order to be saved according to Paul’s gospel, one must believe that Jesus Himself both died and was buried (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

    Therefore, the biblical definition of the “body” is our physical, material structure which interacts with the world around us, and which constitutes our entire personhood both before and after death. Rather than being merely a transient structure which houses our “immortal soul,” our bodies are completely necessary for our existence, and when our bodies die apart from the spirit (Jas. 2:26), so do we. But if our entire personhood comprises our bodies, what are the spirit and soul? We now turn to the biblical definition of the spirit to determine exactly what this enigmatic entity is.

    The Spirit

The word “spirit” (ruach in Hebrew and pneuma in Greek) literally means “wind” or “breath.” The spirit is the animating force which gives life to a body (Ps. 104:30; Ecc. 11:5; Lk. 8:55; Jas. 2:26), and which departs at death and returns to God (Job 34:14-15; Ps. 78:39; 104:29; 146:4; Ecc. 8:8; 12:7). The “spirit” or “spirit of life” is interchangeable with “breath” or “breath of life” (Gen. 6:17 cf. 7:22; Job 4:9; 32:8; 33:4; Isa. 42:5; 57:16). By extension, one’s spirit is actually considered to be the same as the breath within one’s nostrils (Gen. 2:7; 7:22; Job 27:3-4).

    Using this particular definition of “spirit,” the spirit is not in itself a living being, but (along with a body) is a necessary component of a conscious being. This animating force comes from God (Gen. 2:7, Ps. 104:29-30, Ecc. 12:7, Zech. 12:1) and is even called the “spirit of God” (Job 27:4, 33:4, 34:14); every organism’s spirit, whether human or animal, is merely a small part of this single spirit (Ecc. 3:19-21 cf. Acts 17:25, 28). Thus, contrary to some Christians’ beliefs, it is not true that our spirit which returns to God is conscious in “heaven.”

    However, there is another biblical definition of “spirit” which is related to our consciousness. When scripture speaks of the “spirit” in this way, it is referring to one’s mental disposition. Here are a list of verses which use the word “spirit” (ruach or pneuma) in this way: Gen. 41:8; Ex. 28:3; 35:21; Num 5:14, 30; Deut. 2:30; 34:9; Josh. 2:11; 1 Sam 1:15; 1 Kings 21:5; Ezra 1:1, 5; Job 7:11; Psalm 51:17; Prov. 15:13; 16:2; 18-19; 29:11; Eccl. 7:8-9; Isa 11:2; 19:14; 26:9; 54:6; 57:15; 61:3; 66:2; Ezek. 11:19; 18:31; 36:26; Dan. 2:3; 7:15; Hos. 5:4; Hag. 1:14; Mal. 2:16; Matt. 5:3; 26:41; Mark 2:8; Luke 1:47; John 11:33; 13:21; Acts 17:16; Rom 11:8; 1 Cor. 4:21; 5:5; 2 Cor. 7:1; Gal. 6:1; Eph. 4:23; Phil. 1:27; 4:23; Col. 2:5; 2 Tim 1:7; 1 Pet 3:4. [2]

    Now that we have seen what the biblical definitions of “spirit” are - both the animating force common to all living beings which comes from God, and one’s mental disposition - let’s examine what the “soul” is according to the Bible.

    The Soul

The word “soul” (nephesh in Hebrew and ψυχη/psuche in Greek) has a wide and nuanced range of meaning in the Bible. I already dealt with the many different meanings of this word in another post, so I’ll reproduce much of what I wrote here. “Soul” can simply mean any living being, whether animal or human (Gen. 1:20-24; 46:26; Lev. 11:46; Josh. 10:37; 1 Kings 19:4; Prov. 12:40; Acts 2:41; Rom. 13:1; 1 Pet. 3:20; Rev. 8:9; 16:3; 18:13; etc.). It can mean someone’s life; for example, when someone is killed, it is often said that their soul has been taken (Gen. 19:20; Exod. 4:19; Deut. 19:21; Judg. 18:25; 2 Sam. 4:8; 1 Kings 19:10; Prov. 7:23; Matt. 2:20; 20:28; Mk. 10:45; Jn. 10:11; 15:13; Acts 15:26; Jas. 5:20; 1 Jn. 3:16; etc.) However, “life” is not the inherent meaning of either nephesh or psuche, otherwise the phrase nephesh chayyah would mean “a living life” (clearly redundant), and Job 10:1 would say “my life loathes my life” (another meaningless statement).

    Another clue to the true meaning of “soul” is the fact that it is often used to describe one’s desires and wishes. For example, Abraham says, “If it is your soul that I bury my dead from before me, hear me and meet for me with Ephron son of Zoar” (Gen. 23:8). Further examples of this meaning of “soul” as the seat of emotions and desires can be found in Exod. 15:9; 23:9; Lev. 26:16; Deut. 12:15; 20; Judg. 10:16; 1 Sam. 23:20; Job 23:13; Prov. 31:6; Lk. 2:35; Jn. 10:24; 12:24; Php. 1:27; Acts 15:24; 2 Pet. 2:8; etc.

    Finally, the last meaning of the word “soul” (and more rarely used, although it still appears throughout scripture) is referring to desirable or pleasurable experiences, for example, in Matt. 6:25 where “soul” is glossed by “what you may eat and what you may drink”. Further examples from the New Testament are Matt. 10:28 (where it is used to describe the blissful experience of the Messianic kingdom); 11:29; 16:25; Lk. 12:19; Acts 20:24; Php. 2:30; Heb. 12:3; 3 Jn. 2; and Rev. 12:11. Interestingly, the adjective form of “soul” in Greek (psuchikos) describes those who are swayed by physical sensation (Jas. 3:19; Jude 19).

    Although this list of definitions is hardly comprehensive (indeed, there are nearly a thousand instances of “soul” in the combined Old and New Testaments), these four definitions cover virtually every instance of nephesh or psuche in scripture. From these examples, it can be seen that the word “soul” (nephesh and psuche) is simply used in scripture as a figure of speech for the idea of “consciousness” (both sensation and sentience), especially when connected to life itself. In one sense, you are a body, but in another sense, you are a soul — everything that makes you you is contained in your consciousness, your “soul.”

    Your soul, or consciousness, is essentially an emergent property which results from the combination of a body and a spirit (Gen. 2:7). But this raises the important question, what happens to the soul when the body and spirit separate at death (Ecc. 12:7; Jas. 2:26)? We know that the soul somehow “departs” at death (Gen. 35:18), but does this entail one’s consciousness becoming disembodied and going to a spiritual realm of “heaven,” as most Christians believe?

    Unfortunately, the idea of an “immortal soul” is based in Platonic philosophy and cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. On the contrary, according to scripture, it is possible to kill one’s soul (Num. 31:19; 35:11, 15, 30; Josh. 20:3, 9; Matt. 10:28; Mk. 3:4), a soul can be dead (Lev. 21:11; Num. 6:6; 19:11, 13; Josh. 2:13; Jas. 5:20; Rev. 16:3), and “the soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:4, 20). The only one who is inherently immortal is God (1 Tim. 6:16), and immortality is only bestowed upon humans at the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:51-54; 2 Cor. 5:4). The fact is, at death, the soul simply ceases to exist, only to be restored at the resurrection when the animating force of the spirit is recombined with our newly immortal bodies (Ezek 37:8-10; Rom. 8:11).

    But if the soul, or consciousness, simply ceases to exist at death, how can it be said that our souls are said to exist in Sheol or Hades after we die (Ps. 16:10; 30:3; 49:15; 86:13; 88:3; 89:48; Prov. 23:14; Acts 2:27, 31)? As a matter of fact, the word sheol in Hebrew simply means “unseen” (derived from sha’al, “to ask”), as does the word hades in Greek. So when one’s soul ceases to exist at death, it becomes “unseen,” thus figuratively going to “the Unseen.” This can be seen most clearly in Psalm 9:17, where it is said that

The wicked will return [rashaim] to Sheol, all the nations that forget God.

Just as the body returns to the ground and the spirit returns to God at death (Ecc. 12:7), death is also a return for the soul. But the soul, unlike the body and spirit, did not come from anywhere; rather, it was created from the combination of the body and spirit (Gen. 2:7). So when the souls of the wicked (and the righteous as well; Ecc. 3:20) “return” to the Unseen, they are simply returning to the state of nonexistence from which they originally came.

    The fact that “going to the Unseen” is simply a figurative way of describing something that ceases to exist is confirmed by Matt. 11:21-23 and Lk. 10:13-15. Here, Jesus declares that the cities of Capernaum, Chorazin, and Bethsaida will be brought down to the Unseen because the people within did not believe the miracles that He had done. These cities did not descend to the underworld, whatever that would mean, but they were completely abandoned and largely ruined; that is, they ceased to exist as cities. Thus, the fact that souls are said to go down to the Unseen in the Old and New Testaments simply means that they cease to exist at death.

    Conclusion

In this post, we took a look at the biblical definitions of the body, the spirit, and the soul. According to scripture, the body is our physical, material structure, and our entire personhood is contained within our bodies both before and after death. The spirit is that which animates the body and gives it life, which is itself given by God and returns again to Him at death. The soul is an emergent property, consciousness, which appears when the body and spirit are combined, and ceases to exist at death.

    According to the Bible, death is a separation (of body and spirit) and a return, in which the body returns to the dust of the ground, the spirit returns to God who gave it, and the soul returns to nonexistence. This is extremely different from what most Christians believe, which is that death is merely a transition in which the “immortal soul” either goes to heaven or hell. The lie that death does not really exist has existed since the beginning, when the serpent told Eve, “you shall not surely die” (Gen. 3:4). But in reality, death is the greatest enemy (1 Cor. 15:26), not merely a transition to a better place. Fortunately, we have the hope of the resurrection, in which this mortal will finally be swallowed up in life and immortality! (1 Cor. 15:51-54; 2 Cor. 5:4)

______________________________

[1] To be “gathered to one’s people” or “go to one’s fathers” simply means to be buried with one’s ancestors (see Gen. 15:15 and 49:29).

[2] This list of verses is from Aaron Welch’s article, “The spirit that returns to God.”

Universalism: the only possible theodicy

    The greatest problem for theism (belief in God), as traditionally conceived, is thought to be the problem of evil or suffering. According to this argument, it is impossible for God, who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent [1], to create a world which contains evil, and because our world contains evil, it cannot have been created by God. This argument is traditionally formulated as follows:

Premise 1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

Premise 2. A being who is omnibenevolent would desire to create a world with no evil.

Premise 3. A being who is omniscient would know how to create a world with no evil.

Premise 4. A being who is omnipotent would be able to create a world with no evil.

Premise 5. God will always create a world with no evil [P1-P4].

Premise 6. Our world contains evil.

Conclusion. Our world was not created by God [P5-P6].

Solutions to the problem of evil - called “theodicies” - fall into two main categories. The first is called “Irenaean theodicy,” argues that the development of conscience requires the existence of evil, and that the good which results from this development is greater than the evil which causes it. This has since been developed further into what is now called “soul-making theodicy,” which argues that the formation and development of souls requires the existence of evil.

    The second category is called “Augustinian theodicy,” which argues that the existence of free will requires the potential of evil, and that the existence of free will is a greater good than the evil which can potentially be caused by it. The modern form of this theodicy is Platinga’s free-will defense, which is probably the theodicy most commonly appealed to by theologians.

    All of these theodicies essentially boil down to one basic premise: the idea that a world with evil ultimately results in a greater net good than a world without evil, because the resulting good is greater than the temporary evil, and therefore it is not inconsistent with an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God (if “omnibenevolence” is defined as “desiring the greatest possible good”). In this post, I will demonstrate that the only way for this to work is if all people will be saved and experience bliss in the afterlife. If our world was indeed created by an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, universalism cannot but be true.

    Abbreviations used

This post is going to get somewhat philosophical, so please try to bear with me. I’ll be using several abbreviations here as shorthand, so that the premises of my argument don’t become too long or confusing:

W_ECT: the set of all possible worlds in which eternal conscious torment is true; that is, in which (1) all of those who die in unbelief experience conscious suffering without end in the afterlife, and (2) at least one person dies in unbelief.

W_Ani: the set of all possible worlds in which annihilationism is true; that is, in which (1) all of those who die in unbelief are annihilated with no further conscious experience, and (2) at least one person dies in unbelief.

W_NA: the set of all possible worlds in which there is no afterlife; that is, in which all people are annihilated with no further conscious experience at death.

W_Uni: the set of all possible worlds in which universalism is true; that is, in which either (1) all people experience bliss without end in the afterlife regardless of whether they died in unbelief, or (2) no person dies in unbelief.

Furthermore (although this probably goes without saying), I will also be using “God” as shorthand for a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Although there are many conceptions of God around the world which lack one or more of these factors, all three Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) believe in this view of God, and this is how the problem of evil is traditionally formulated. Now, let’s get into the actual argument.

    What kind of world would God create?

The argument for atheism from the problem of evil usually begins like this (as also described above):

P1 [2]. A being who is omnibenevolent would desire to create a world with no evil.

P2. A being who is omniscient would know how to create a world with no evil.

P3. A being who is omnipotent would be able to create a world with no evil.

C1. God will always create a world with no evil [P1-P3].

It is then argued that, because our world does indeed contain evil, it cannot have been created by God. Theodicies (solutions to the problem of evil) usually attack Premise 1, arguing that an omnibenevolent being would not necessarily desire to create a world with no evil, because a world which contains evil may ultimately result in a greater net good for every individual (either due to the “soul-making” process, or due to the existence of free will). Based on this, we can reformulate this argument like so:

P1. A being who is omnibenevolent would desire to create a world with the greatest possible net good for every individual.

P2. A being who is omniscient would know how to create a world with the greatest possible net good for every individual.

P3. A being who is omnipotent would be able to create a world with the greatest possible net good for every individual.

C1. God will always create a world with the greatest possible net good for every individual [P1-P3].

But what, exactly, would be “the greatest possible net good for every individual”? Because it is possible for God to create no world, in which case there would be net zero good for every individual (since they would not exist), the worst-case scenario is that the good and evil experienced by an individual perfectly balances out such that the net good experienced is zero. If, in a world, any single individual experiences more evil than good (net negative good), then God would simply not create that world, since a better world is possible for that individual (namely, no world) and God, being omnibenevolent, must always desire the greatest possible net good for every individual.

    This can be summed up in the following logical argument:

P1. It is possible for God to create no world.

P2. If no world is created, the net good experienced by every individual is zero (because they would not exist).

P3. God will always create a world with the greatest possible net good for every individual [C1].

C2. In any world created by God, every individual will experience a net good of zero or greater.

Thus, from these arguments, we can see that - because of His omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence - it is not possible for God to create any world in which even one individual experiences more evil/suffering than good. If any individual in this world ultimately experiences more evil than good over the period of their existence, then this world cannot have been created by God, simply because it would not be among the set of worlds possible to be created by God.

    Comparing infernalism, annihilationism, and universalism

Now that we have determined what a world created by an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God would look like, we can compare the set of worlds possible to be created by God with the three different theological positions (infernalism, annihilation, and universalism).

    First of all, in the set of all possible worlds in which eternal conscious torment holds true (W_ECT), at least one person experiences suffering without end in the afterlife. The evil/suffering experienced by this individual (and any others who die in unbelief) would be infinite, and any good that this individual experienced during their lifetime would be negligible in comparison. Essentially, this person would experience a net good of negative infinity over the period of their existence.

P1. In W_ECT, at least one person’s experience of evil/suffering is infinite.

P2. In W_ECT, at least one person experiences net negative good (in fact, infinitely negative).

However, this conflicts with [C2]:

P3. In any world created by God, every individual will experience a net good of zero or greater [C2].

Because in all worlds within the set W_ECT, at least one individual experiences net negative good, it is impossible for God to create such a world. Creating no world at all would be more favorable to an omnibenevolent God, because in that case such an individual would experience net zero good. Thus, it is impossible for God to create a world in which eternal conscious torment occurs to one or more individuals. Or in other words:

C3. W_ECT is not within the set of worlds possible to be created by God.

The second position to be considered is annihilationism, the view that all of those who die in unbelief are annihilated with no further conscious existence. In the set of all possible worlds in which annihilationism holds true (W_Ani), at least one person is annihilated after dying, with no afterlife. Thus, in any world in which annihilationism holds true, the net good which at least one individual experiences is the same as the net good experienced during their lifetime, because they have no conscious experience afterward. This is the first premise of our next argument.

P1. In W_Ani, the net good which at least one individual experiences within this life is the extent of the net good which they experience fully (because they are annihilated afterward).

In such a world, it is only possible for every individual to experience net positive good over the period of their existence if all of those who are annihilated experience more good than evil during their lifetime.

P2. In W_Ani, every individual only experiences net positive good if all of those who are annihilated experience net positive good during their life.

Let us call the subset of worlds within W_Ani in which this occurs WAni-NPG, meaning “Annihilationism-Net Positive Good”). But because of [C2],

P3. In any world created by God, every individual will experience a net good of zero or greater [C2].

no worlds within the set W_Ani are possible to be created by God unless they are also within the subset WAni-NPG.

C4. Only the subset of worlds within W_Ani in which all of those who are annihilated experience net positive good within this life (WAni-NPG) is within the set of worlds possible to be created by God.

Although a world within WAni-NPG is theoretically possible, our world is clearly not within this set. In this subset of worlds, every person who dies in unbelief must also experience net positive good over their lifetime. However, this is clearly incompatible with our own observations of this world. For example, consider the six million Jewish victims of the Holocaust; few would doubt that the suffering which at least some of them experienced outweighed the good which they experienced throughout their life, and yet they died as non-Christians, and so would be annihilated if Christian annihilationism is true. This is a fairly extreme example, but there are certainly many other people who experienced more suffering than good throughout their lives and still died in unbelief. Thus, our world is not within the subset WAni-NPG. 

    Now, just for the sake of argument, let’s consider the set of all possible worlds in which there is no afterlife (W_NA), i.e., in which the conscious experience of all individuals ends at death. This set of worlds can be described much the same as WAni, except for the fact that in W_NA, all individuals are annihilated, rather than just some.

P1. In W_NA, the net good which every individual experiences within this life is the extent of the net good which they experience fully (because they are annihilated afterward).

P2. In W_NA, every individual only experiences net positive good if they also experience net positive good during their life.

Let us call the subset of worlds within W_NA in which this occurs WNA-NPG, meaning “No Afterlife-Net Positive Good”).

P3. In any world created by God, every individual will experience a net good of zero or greater [C2].

C5. Only the subset of worlds within W_NA in which every individual experiences net positive good within this life (WNA-NPG) is within the set of worlds possible to be created by God.

This suffers from the same problem as WAni-NPG; although such a world in which every individual experiences net positive good in this lifetime is technically possible, this does not occur in our world. No one would doubt that, sadly, there are at least some people in this world who experience greater evil/suffering than good throughout their life. Thus, although WNA-NPG is within the set of worlds possible to be created by God, our world is not within this set.

    Finally, we can consider the set of all possible worlds in which universalism holds true (W_Uni). In W_Uni, every person experiences bliss in the afterlife without end. The infinite good which they ultimately experience outweighs any possible evil/suffering that they experienced during their lifetime, and so in any world in which universalism holds true, every individual will experience net positive good over the course of their existence. Thus, based on [C2], we can conclude that W_Uni is within the set of worlds possible to be created by God. This is summed up in the following logical argument:

P1. In W_Uni, every individual experiences net positive good.

P2. In any world created by God, every individual will experience a net good of zero or greater [C2].

C6. W_Uni is within the set of worlds possible to be created by God.

In summary, out of all of the theological options which we have considered (infernalism, annihilationism, universalism, and no afterlife), only three scenarios could have been created by a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. These are WAni-NPG, WNA-NPG, and W_Uni. And since observation indicates that our world is not WAni-NPG or WNA-NPG - sadly, many of those who die (whether in unbelief or not) experience more suffering than good throughout their life - the only possible option is that our world is within the set W_Uni (that is, universalism holds true in our world).

P1. The only sets of worlds possible to be created by God, among the options considered, are WAni-NPG, WNA-NPG, and W_Uni [C3, C4, C5, C6].

P2. Our world is not within the subset WAni-NPG, nor WNA-NPG, based on simple observation.

C7. Our world is either within the set of worlds W_Uni, or is not created by God.

Or, in other words, the only way to solve the problem of evil in our world is if universalism is true. Our world can only have been created by a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent if every individual will be saved and experience bliss in the afterlife. Otherwise, at least one individual would be ultimately experience more suffering than good over the course of their existence, and creating no world at all would be more desirable to an omnibenevolent God than such a world.

    Possible objections

As far as I can tell, there are only two possible philosophical objections to this argument:

First Objection. Perhaps the nature of God’s omnibenevolence is such that He does not desire the greatest good for every single individual, but the greatest net good overall.

This is possible, but would entail reframing the debate around the problem of evil, which has traditionally been about individual suffering. Furthermore, although such a definition of God’s omnibenevolence is possible in theory, it does not match up with God’s nature according to the Bible. Scripture tells us that God wills the best outcome (salvation) for every individual (1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pet. 3:9), and that He loves every individual, even His own enemies (Matt. 5:43-48). Love works toward the greatest possible good of the individual, even if it includes temporary suffering (Lam. 3:31-33, Rom. 13:10, Heb. 12:5-11). Therefore, if we accept the Bible as a valid source of theological truth, we must conclude that God’s omnibenevolence extends to every individual person, rather than being some sort of cosmic karmic force, and so the above argument still holds true.

    Moreover, even if it is true that God’s omnibenevolence only desires the greatest good overall, rather than the greatest good for every individual, this is still incompatible with the traditional Christian doctrine of eternal conscious torment. Based on statements like that of Matt. 7:13-14, Christians have traditionally believed that the majority of people will undergo “eternal conscious torment.” But if more than fifty percent of individuals undergo suffering without end, then the net good experienced throughout the universe as a whole must be negative - the good can never overtake the evil. An omnibenevolent God, even according to the modified definition of omnibenevolence, would never create such a world, because creating no world at all (in which the net good is zero) would be more desirable than such a world.

Second Objection. Perhaps the suffering experienced under eternal conscious torment is neutral or even desirable to an omnibenevolent God, because such suffering is primarily justice-oriented. In this case, it would still be possible for God to create a world in which eternal conscious torment holds true.

Again, this would require a fundamental re-framing of the problem of evil and of the definition of omnibenevolence. The “all-goodness” of a deity who desires the eternal, conscious suffering of any individual must be called into question. And furthermore, just as with the other objection, this ignores what the Bible itself says about God’s omnibenevolence; according to scripture, God “takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked” (Ezek. 33:11 cf. 18:23). The suffering of “the wicked”, then, is not of the sort which would be neutral or desirable to an omnibenevolent God.

    But that’s a heresy/the Bible doesn’t teach it/universalism would make people want to sin!

While I don’t believe that any of these typical reactions to universalism are actually valid arguments anyway [3], the beauty of this argument is that it renders these other debates pointless. As far as I can see, it is only possible to solve the problem of evil if universalism is true. In order to deny universalism, one must also deny at least one of the three characteristic traits of God - omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence - or deny that God created this world altogether. Thus, if the Bible teaches against the salvation of all, as most Christians believe it does, then it does not present a self-consistent set of claims and should be rejected as a source of truth. There is no possible middle ground on this issue that I can see.

______________________________

[1] These terms are usually defined like so:

Omnipotence: being able to do everything which is logically possible

Omniscience: knowing every possible truth and falsehood

Omnibenevolence: desiring the greatest possible good in every circumstance

[2] For those who are unfamiliar with this philosophical shorthand, “P1” simply means “Premise 1,” and “C1” means “Conclusion 1.”

[3] See my other articles on this blog, many of which argue that the Bible actually does teach universalism.

Just how long is ‘eternal’? A study on the meanings of Αιων and Αιωνιος (part 5 of 5)

Part 4: https://thechristianuniversalist.blogspot.com/2022/07/just-how-long-is-eternal-study-on_24.html

     Now that we have extensively looked at the usage of the terms olam, αιων, and αιωνιος throughout the Old and New Testaments, and examined (and refuted) the arguments that have been put forth in favor of the traditional translation of these terms as “everlasting,” “eternal,” and “for ever,” we are in a far better position to take a look at the passages thought to prove that punishment is everlasting. The ten passages considered here are taken from this article by Justin Taylor.

    1. Undying Worm and Unquenchable Fire (OT)

“For as the new heavens and new earth that I will make shall remain before Me,” says Yahweh, “so also your descendants and your name shall remain. And it shall come to pass, from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, all flesh shall come to worship before me,” says Yahweh. “And they shall go forth and look upon the corpses of the men who have transgressed against Me, for their worm does not die, and their fire is not quenched. And they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.” (Isa. 66:22-24)

    It is interesting that this passage was brought up, because it does not actually explicitly describe the punishment as everlasting by any translation. However, some believe that because it is said that the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched, the punishment must never end. I already wrote quite a lot about this passage in another post on the nature of Gehenna:

First of all, in this passage we are told that all nations and people will come to Jerusalem to worship YHWH during the Messianic age [see v. 20]. While they are in Jerusalem, they will be able to see those who are in Gehenna, which confirms that “Gehenna” cannot refer to ‘hell’ or the Lake of Fire, and must be the physical Valley of Hinnom that is adjacent to Jerusalem.

Second, we are told that there will be corpses - not living humans, but corpses - of those who have transgressed against YHWH, and that it is their worm that does not die, and their fire that is not being quenched. This proves that Gehenna will not be a place of conscious torment, but simply a place where the dead bodies of the wicked and unbelievers will be cast and burned. The “worm” spoken of here (tola in Hebrew and σκοληξ in Greek) cannot be some sort of ‘spiritual worm’ that punishes those in ‘hell’, as these words simply refer to maggots which eat the flesh off of dead bodies [3]. This Hebrew word, tola, is used as a symbol of death and decay throughout the Old Testament (Exod. 16:20, Deut. 28:39, Isa. 14:11)...

[3] This “worm” does not die, not because it is immortal, but to emphasize the completeness of the decay of these bodies; the maggots will not die until every bit of flesh is picked clean. See this article written from an annihilationist viewpoint.

    It is also said that the fire is not quenched, but this does not mean that the fire will never go out, merely that it will not be put out by human means. Elsewhere in scripture, fires are called unquenchable which have since gone out (see Lev. 6:12-13; Isa. 34:10; Jer. 17:27; Ezek. 20:46-48). And since the punishment being discussed here is something that will be confined to the Valley of Hinnom on the current earth, near Jerusalem (see above), the fire must eventually go out when the current earth is destroyed and all things are made new (1 Pet. 3:10; Rev. 20:11; 21:1, 5). Therefore, this passage does not prove that punishment is everlasting; the punishment being spoken of in this passage is confined to the Messianic age.

    2. Everlasting Life/Everlasting Contempt

“And at that time Michael shall stand up, the great prince who stands over the sons of your people, and there shall be a time of trouble such as never was - since there was a nation even to that time - and at that time your people shall be delivered, every one who is found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to life olam, and some to reproach [and] abhorrence olam.” (Dan. 12:1-2)

    The most common objection to universalism from this passage is that, because the reproach and abhorrence of the ungodly is described as olam, it must never have an end. However, this is false, because as we saw in the first two parts of this study, olam simply means a period of indefinite length, and rarely — if ever — describes an everlasting period. It was used to describe periods as short as three days (Jon. 2:6), or as long as the duration of the earth (Ecc. 1:4), but most commonly to describe periods of time around the length of a single human lifespan or several generations.

    We should see this passage as stating that the abhorrence and reproach of the ungodly will continue indefinitely into the future, but not forever. Unfortunately, most Bible versions obscure this by translating olam as “eternal,” and so readers of English translations of scripture are left without a proper understanding of this crucial fact.

    The second argument is slightly more sophisticated, and states that because the olam life spoken of in this passage is everlasting, by parallelism the olam reproach and abhorrence must also be everlasting. First of all, this argument is based on the false premise that two instances of the same word (either olam or αιωνιος) in the vicinity of one another must mean the exact same thing — for a refutation of this premise, see my comments on Matthew 25:46 below.

    However, even if we grant that some sort of parallelism may be present in this passage, this doesn’t mean that the reproach and abhorrence must be everlasting. The LXX translates chayye olam as “life of the Age” (ζωη αιωνιος), which is used in the New Testament to describe living and reigning with Christ, and will have an end at the time prophesied in 1 Cor. 15:24-28 (see the third section of this study). Although we will be immortal, this is not encapsulated in either expression — chayye olam or ζωη αιωνιος — but is prophesied in other passages (e.g., Lk. 20:36; 1 Cor. 15:51-54; Heb. 7:16). Thus, the olam life (“age-during life”) of Daniel 12:2 will eventually end. If this is a parallelism, it does not prove everlasting punishment, but instead provides evidence that the punishment will end. Therefore, this passage definitely does not prove that punishment will be everlasting.

    3. Eternal Fire/The Fire of Hell

“Now whoever may offend one of these little [ones] believing in me, it is better for him that a heavy millstone may be hung around his neck, and he may be sunk in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of the offenses! For the offenses [are] necessary to come, but woe to the man through whom the offense comes! Now if your hand or your foot offends you, cut it off and cast it from you. It is good for you to enter into the life crippled or lame, rather [than] to be cast to the age-during fire having two hands or two feet. And if your eye offends you, take it out and cast it from you. It is good for you to enter into the life one-eyed, rather [than] to be cast to the Gehenna of the fire having two eyes.” (Matt. 18:6-9)

    This passage describes the Gehenna of the fire (which is a reference to the physical Valley of Hinnom adjacent Jerusalem) as “the age-during fire” (το πυρ το αιωνιον). Because it is thought that αιωνιος means “everlasting,” non-universalists believe that this passage teaches that Gehenna will be a place where punishment is everlasting (whether the fire itself is everlasting, or merely the destructive effects of the fire, is debated between infernalists and annihilationists).

    However, as seen previously in this study, the adjective αιωνιος rarely if ever describes an everlasting period. Instead, throughout the New Testament, it is used to describe things which pertain to the ages. Every noun which is modified by this adjective throughout the NT can be shown to have an end (including ζωη αιωνιος, “life of the [Messianic] Age” which will end when Christ returns the kingdom to the Father), excluding God Himself. There is no reason to believe that this age-during fire is any exception. And the fact that it is Gehenna being referred to shows that αιωνιος cannot mean “everlasting” in this context, for Gehenna (the Valley of Hinnom) will one day become holy to God (Jer. 31:40) and will then be destroyed along with the rest of the earth (1 Pet. 3:10; Rev. 20:11; 21:1, 5).

    4. Eternal Punishment/Eternal Life

“Now when the Son of Man may come in his glory, and all the messengers with him, then he will sit on [the] throne of his glory. And all the nations will be assembled before him, and he will separate them from one another, just as the shepherd separates the sheep from the kids. And he will indeed set the sheep on his right hand, and the kids on [the] left. Then the King will say to the [ones] on his right hand, ‘Come, those blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from [the] foundation of [the] world’... Then he will say to the [ones] on [the] left, ‘Go from me, those cursed, to the age-during fire prepared for the Adversary and his messengers’... And these will go away into age-during punishment, but the righteous into age-during life.” (Matt. 25:31-34, 41, 46)

    This passage is interpreted by non-universalists in the same way as Daniel 12:2. Because the punishment in this passage is described as αιωνιος, which is taken to mean “everlasting,” supposedly there can be no end to this punishment. However, as we have seen, this argument is inane and superficial, and does not stand up to the use of αιωνιος throughout the rest of the Bible as referring to either an indefinite (but not infinite) period of time, or to something which pertains to the ages.

    In fact, the context clearly refutes the traditional interpretation of the judgment in Matthew 25:31-46. The judgment will occur just after the end of the tribulation, at the second coming of Christ (v. 31), will be a judgment of the nations, meaning the Gentile unbelievers who survive the battle of Armageddon (v. 32), and they will be judged on how they treated Jesus’ brethren (the Israelites), not on whether they had a saving faith (v. 40).

    The parallel description of the same judgment in Joel 3:1-8 shows that the punishment of the “goats” is not literal fire, but being cast far outside the Messianic kingdom and treated as slaves (cf. Zech. 14:17-19; Rev. 2:27; 19:15), the same punishment elsewhere referred to as “outer darkness” and “a furnace of fire” (Matt. 8:11-12; 13:40-42, 49-50; Lk. 13:28-29). Fire is commonly used in scripture to figuratively describe times of adversity (Deut. 4:20; Isa. 48:10; Ezek. 22:20; 1 Pet. 1:7; 4:12). Likewise, the reward of the “sheep” is also limited to the Messianic age, and refers to their having an inheritance in the Messianic kingdom in Israel (cf. Ezek. 47:22-23).

    Thus, neither the “punishment of the Age” nor the “life of the Age” referred to in Matt. 25:46 are everlasting; they are both confined to the Messianic age. However, even if the “life of the Age” were truly eternal, this would not prove that the “punishment of the Age” is also eternal by parallelism, as many non-universalists often assert. See the following passages:

And He stood and shook the earth, and He looked and startled the nations. The mountains [went] to violence, the age-during hills melted [at] His age-during ways. (Hab. 3:6-7 LXX)

Now to Him [who] is able to establish you, according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to a revelation of a mystery, [which] has been kept silent in times of ages, but now manifested, and through the prophetic scriptures, according to a command of the age-during God, for obedience of faith [which] was made known to all the Gentiles (Rom. 16:25-26)

    In both of these cases, something which is undeniably not everlasting is described as age-during in the immediate vicinity of something which is undeniably everlasting being described as age-during. The hills which are age-during are said to melt in the presence of the God whose ways are age-during. The gospel kept silent in times of ages (χρονοις αιωνιοις) has now been manifested by a command of the age-during God (του αιωνιου θεου). Therefore, even if the “life of the Age” of Matt. 25:46 is everlasting, the “punishment of the Age” does not need to also be everlasting. This passage does not prove that the punishment of unbelievers will never end.

    5. Undying Worm and Unquenchable Fire (NT)

“And whoever may offend one of these little [ones] believing in me, it is more good for him if a heavy millstone is put around his neck and he has been cast to the sea. And if your hand may offend you, cut it off. It is good for you to enter into the life crippled, rather [than] to go away to the Gehenna, to the unquenchable fire, having two hands. And if your foot may offend you, cut it off. It is good for you to enter into the life lame, rather [than] to be cast to the Gehenna having two feet. And if your eye may offend you, cast it out. It is good for you to enter into the kingdom of God one-eyed, rather [than] having two eyes, to be cast to the Gehenna, where ‘their worm is not dying, and the fire is not quenched’.” (Mk. 9:42-48)

    I already dealt with this argument for everlasting punishment in my discussion on Isaiah 66:22-24, so I won’t reiterate the points I made there. However, this point cannot be stressed enough, that by Gehenna the literal Valley of Hinnom near Jerusalem is meant (see Isa. 64:20-24) — the same valley of which it is said that it will eventually become holy to God (Jer. 31:40), and which must eventually be destroyed along with the rest of the earth (1 Pet. 3:10; Rev. 20:11; 21:1, 5). Thus, the fire within Gehenna cannot truly last forever. The undying worm and unquenchable fire are meant to emphasize the totality of decay and desecration of the bodies cast within, not the length of time for which the punishment is applied. After all, other so-called “unquenchable” fires have long since gone out (e.g., Lev. 6:12-13, Isa. 34:10, Jer. 17:27, Ezek. 20:46-48).

    6. Everlasting Destruction

[This is] a proof of the righteous judgment of God, for you to be deemed worthy of the kingdom of God, and on behalf of which you suffer. Indeed [it is] righteous with God to recompense those afflicting you with affliction, and to you, the [ones] oppressed, relief with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful messengers, in a flame of fire giving vengeance to those [who] have not known God and to those not obeying the gospel of our Lord Jesus, who will pay a penalty of age-during destruction from [the] face of the Lord and the glory of his power, when he may come to be glorified in his saints and to be marveled at in all those [who] believed, because our testimony to you was believed in that day. (2 Thess. 1:5-10)

    It is argued that this passage proves that the punishment of unbelievers (whether torment or annihilation) will never have an end, because it describes their destruction as αιωνιος (“age-during”). However, as we have seen, this argument fails because αιωνιος does not mean “everlasting,” but refers to those things which pertain to the ages, and in all instances describes things which do have an end (with the sole exception of God Himself). This passage is no exception, especially because the destruction of these unbelievers will end (or at least cease for a time) when they are resurrected one thousand years later to the Great White Throne judgment (Rev. 20:11-15).

    7. The Punishment of Eternal Fire

...just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, [in] like manner with them having committed prostitution and having gone away after other flesh, are set [as] an example, undergoing a penalty of age-during fire. (Jude 7)

    This passage is thought to prove that the punishment of unbelievers, specifically of Sodom and Gomorrah, will never have an end because the fire in which they are penalized is described as αιωνιος. Again, this argument fails because αιωνιος does not describe everlastingness, but instead describes things which pertain to the ages. However, that argument fails even more spectacularly when applied to this passage specifically, because we know that the fire which burned Sodom and Gomorrah no longer burns. In fact, the prophet Ezekiel tells us that one day Sodom will be restored to its former glory (Ezek. 16:53-55)! Thus, Jude 7 is actually further proof that the punishment of unbelievers will, eventually, have an end.

    8. Blackest Darkness Reserved Forever

[These false teachers are] fierce waves of [the] sea, foaming out their shame; wandering stars, to whom the gloom of the darkness has been kept for an age. (Jude 13)

    Most Bible versions translate “for an age” (εις αιωνα) as “for ever,” which leads uninformed readers to think that these false teachers will be kept in the gloom of darkness for eternity. However, the expression “for an age” or “for the age” does not refer to an everlasting period, as numerous examples from the LXX and the New Testament demonstrate; rather, when used in the eschatological sense, it refers to something which lasts for a single eschatological age (most often referring to the coming Messianic age). And in fact, just a few verses later, Jude acknowledges more than one age to come (v. 25), so the fact that the gloom of darkness is reserved for only “an age [singular]” is proof that this does not describe an everlasting punishment.

    9. The Smoke of Their Torment Rises for Ever and Ever

And another messenger, a third, followed them, in a great voice saying, “If someone worships the beast and its image, and takes a mark upon his forehead or upon his hand, he will also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, having been mixed undiluted in the cup of His anger. And he will be tormented in fire and sulfur, before holy messengers and the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises up for ages of ages; and [they] do not have rest day and night, those worshipping the beast and its image, and if someone takes the mark of its name.” (Rev. 14:9-11)

    Because most Bible versions translate “for ages of ages” (εις αιωνας αιωνων) as “for ever and ever,” this passage is thought to show that the torment of those who take the mark of the beast will last for eternity. However, this is a very imprecise and inaccurate translation, because in the eschatology of the New Testament the “ages of the ages” describe the oncoming ages during which Christ and the saints will be reigning (2 Tim. 4:18; Heb. 1:8; 13:21; 1 Pet. 4:11; Rev. 1:6; 5:13; 11:15; 22:5). These oncoming ages will have an end (1 Cor. 15:24-28; Heb. 9:26), so to say that because something is described as “for (the) ages of (the) ages,” it must not have an end, is simply incorrect.

    Furthermore, it is said that this punishment is “the wine of the wrath of God.” But what is this wine? Just a few verses later, it is said to be nothing other than the seven bowls of wrath which will be poured out upon those who take the mark of the beast’s name:

And the messenger cast his sickle into the earth, and harvested the grapevine of the earth, and cast [the grapes] into the great winepress of the wrath of God. And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood came out of the winepress, up to the bridles of the horses, from one thousand six hundred stadia. And I saw another sign in the heaven, great and marvelous, seven messengers having seven plagues - the last, because in them the wrath of God was completed. (Rev. 14:19-15:1)

These bowls consist of boils and ulcers, water poisoning, burning, pain in darkness, the battle of Armageddon, and the destruction of Babylon (Rev. 16), and they will be poured out upon those who take the mark of the beast’s name. However, these great and terrible plagues only last until the end of the tribulation, no more than three and a half years — certainly not “for ever and ever.”

    This interpretation may be contested on the grounds that the torment is said to last for ages of ages. However, this is inaccurate. The torment itself is not said to last for ages of ages, but the smoke of the torment. The exact same thing is said of Babylon in Rev. 19:3, and yet the punishment of Babylon lasted no longer than “a day” (Rev. 18:8) or even “an hour” (Rev. 18:10, 17, 19). Therefore, the context shows that Rev. 14:9-11 is not speaking of any ‘eternal punishment’ for those who take the mark of the beast’s name, but the seven bowls of the wine of God’s wrath which will be poured out upon those who take this mark, the smoke of which shall go up for ages of ages.

    10. The Lake of Fire

And the Adversary, the [one] deceiving them, was cast to the Lake of the Fire and of sulfur, where also the beast and the false prophet [are], and they will be tormented day and night for the ages of the ages... Then the death and the Hades were cast to the Lake of the Fire. This, the Lake of the Fire, is the second death. And if someone was not found having been written in the Scroll of the Life, he was cast to the Lake of the Fire. (Rev. 20:10, 14-15)

    This passage characterizes the torment of the Adversary, beast, and false prophet in the Lake of the Fire as “for the ages of the ages” (εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων), which is translated in most Bible versions as “for ever and ever.” Like with Rev. 14:9-11, this argument fails because the “ages of the ages” does not describe an eternal time period, but instead the ages during which Christ and the saints reign together (2 Tim. 4:18; Heb. 13:21; Rev. 1:6; 5:13; 11:15; 22:5), which will have an end (1 Cor. 15:24-28). Certainly this does not prove that the torment of these three will have an end, any more than it proves that God’s glory will have an end (cf. Gal. 1:5, Php. 4:20), but neither does it prove that their torment will not have an end.

    Conclusion

In this word study, we saw that olam, αιων, and αιωνιος refer to indefinite time periods throughout the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint, but are rarely - if ever - used to describe everlastingness (even when applied to God Himself). In line with this, the New Testament also uses αιων and αιωνιος to describe indefinite time periods, but with the more developed eschatology of the NT also came a specialized usage of these words to refer to defined eschatological periods known as “ages” or “eons.”

    Although αιων and αιωνιος are often taken to mean “everlasting,” “eternal,” or “for ever,” the scriptural evidence does not support such a translation. Instead, the expressions εις τον αιωνα (lit. “for the age”), εις τους αιωνας (lit. “for the ages”), and εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων (lit. “for the ages of the ages”) each refer to the future ages during which Christ and the saints will be reigning, which will eventually end once Christ returns the kingdom of God to the Father. Likewise, the adjective αιωνιος describes things which are “age-during” (pertaining to/of the ages).

    There are Greek words which describe things that are truly without end, such as αιδιος (“eternal”), παντοτε (“at all times”), απεραντος (“interminable”), and ατελευτος (“endless”). However, none of these words are ever used to describe the punishment of the wicked; only derivatives and cognates of the word αιων (“age,” referring to a defined eschatological period) are used. Furthermore, the context of most of the passages used to support everlasting punishment shows that the meaning cannot be “everlasting.” Unfortunately, virtually all translations of scripture obscure this fact by using inaccurate translations of αιων and αιωνιος.

Just how long is ‘eternal’? A study on the meanings of Αιων and Αιωνιος (part 4 of 5)

Part 3: https://thechristianuniversalist.blogspot.com/2022/07/just-how-long-is-eternal-study-on_17.html

     As we saw earlier in this study, the Greek words αιων and αιωνιος are used in the Old Testament (LXX) to describe periods of indeterminate — but never infinite — length. This usage is retained in the New Testament, although with a more specialized usage of these words, to describe eschatological periods with a determined beginning and end, becomes dominant in the NT. It is extremely inconsistent to assume, as non-universalists do, that αιωνιος must refer to a period without end when applied to the punishment of unbelievers, but elsewhere refers to periods as short as seventy years (Jer. 25:9) or even three days (Jon. 2:6) and is rarely, if ever, used to describe periods of infinite duration!

    In this final part of our study on αιων and αιωνιος, we will substantiate the claim that these words indicate a non-infinite duration when applied to the punishment of unbelievers, by taking a look at specific phrases and passages in the New Testament which are thought to prove the everlasting nature of punishment.

    The translational inaccuracies of “for ever” and “for ever and ever”

One of the terms thought to indicate eternity, or everlasting duration, in scripture is “εις τον αιωνα” — literally, “for the age.” Most Bible versions translate this term as “for ever,” this making it appear to describe an infinite duration of time. However, this is very inaccurate in light of what we have already seen; in the LXX, εις τον αιωνα is used to translate olam in dozens of places where neither of these terms can refer to an everlasting period (such as the reign of a king, or the servitude of bondmen). Furthermore, Exodus 15:18 (LXX) states that God shall reign “τον αιωνα και επ’ αιωνα και ετι,” translated literally as “for age upon age and further”! If there is a “further” beyond εις τον αιωνα, it should be evident that this term cannot, in itself, be describing an everlasting period.

    This term is used the same way, to describe an indefinitely long duration, in extrabiblical and deuterocanonical literature as well. For example, 1 Maccabees 14:41 states that the Jewish people resolved that Simon should be their leader and high priest “εις τον αιωνα”; that is, “until another trustworthy prophet should arise.” Clearly, this cannot refer to an everlasting timespan, because the period being described as εις τον αιωνα is immediately said to have an end (cf. Isa. 32:14-15).

    Even in the New Testament, there are many other instances where the term εις τον αιωνα is used to describe a period that has an end. The epistle to the Hebrews repeatedly states that Jesus has become a heavenly high priest εις τον αιωνα (5:6; 6:20; 7:17, 21, 24, 28), which is translated in most Bible versions as “for ever.” However, the work of a high priest is to deal with sin (Heb. 2:14; 5:1), and so Jesus will only remain a high priest as long as there is still sin. Does this mean that sin will remain forever, and God will never truly defeat sin and death? No, because Jesus will only remain a high priest “for the age” — that is, until the end of the Messianic Age, after which sin and death are defeated (1 Cor. 15:24-28).

    Furthermore, to translate εις τον αιωνα as “for ever” is entirely inconsistent with how similar terms are used elsewhere in the New Testament. The plural version of this term, εις τους αιωνας (lit. “for the ages”) appears nine times in the NT: Matt. 6:13; Lk. 1:33; Rom. 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 16:27; 2 Cor. 11:31; Heb. 13:8; and Jude 25. If εις τον αιωνα means “for ever,” then εις τους αιωνας must mean “for evers,” a clearly meaningless expression (there cannot be more than one consecutive everlasting period). But if, instead, the NT usage of εις τον αιωνα refers to a period spanning a single eschatological age, then εις τους αιωνας refers to a period spanning multiple ages. Yet even these ages shall have an end eventually, for Jesus will reign “for the ages [εις τους αιωνας]” (Lk. 1:33), and both His reign and the ages which it spans are said to eventually end (1 Cor. 15:24-28; Heb. 9:26).

    Another term thought to describe an everlasting duration is εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων (lit. “for the ages of the ages”), which is typically translated as “for ever and ever.” If this translation is taken literally, we again run into the same problem that we saw with εις τους αιωνας, which is that there cannot be more than one consecutive everlasting period. The word “and” is not even present in the original Greek, which shows the imprecision of the translation “for ever and ever”; if translated consistently, it should be “for evers of evers,” which is another meaningless expression.

    Instead, we should look to other instances in the Bible where the construct “thing(s) of thing(s)” is used. For example, we read about the “holy of holies” (Exod. 26:33; Heb. 9:3), the “holies of holies” (Heb. 9:25 some mss.), the “song of songs” (Song 1:1), the “King of kings” and the “Lord of lords” (1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16). In each of these cases, “thing(s) of thing(s)” acts as an intensifier, not referring to an infinite number of ‘things’ (as “the ages of the ages” is usually interpreted) but instead to the most preeminent of all ‘things’. Thus, the phrase “the ages of the ages” refers to the most preeminent of all ages, the two future ages during which Jesus will be reigning over the kingdom of God, and believers together with Him.

    This interpretation of “the ages of the ages” is supported by its usage throughout the NT. This term is used interchangeably to describe things which are elsewhere said to exist for “the [coming] ages,” like the reign of Christ over the kingdom of God (2 Tim. 4:18; Heb. 1:8; 13:21; 1 Pet. 4:11; Rev. 1:6; 5:13; 11:15 cf. Lk. 1:33) and the reign of the saints and believers with Him (Rev. 22:5 cf. Eph. 2:6-7). And according to Paul’s prophecy in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, the reign of Christ and believers over the kingdom of God will eventually end, when all rule, power, and authority is abolished and Christ voluntarily subjects Himself to the Father. Therefore, the phrase “for the ages of the ages” seems to be another designation for the oncoming ages, which will eventually have an end; the translation “for ever and ever” is very imprecise and inaccurate.

    The Αιωνιος God

One argument for the position that the terms αιωνιος (“pertaining to/of the ages”), εις τους αιωνας (“for the ages”), and εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων (“for the ages of the ages”) do refer to everlasting periods is the fact that these expressions are applied to God Himself throughout the New Testament. God Himself is described as αιωνιος (Rom. 16:26; 1 Tim. 1:17), as is His spirit (Heb. 9:14) and His honor and might (1 Tim. 6:16). Likewise, the doxologies throughout the NT often describe God’s glory and blessing as “for the ages” (Matt. 6:13; Rom. 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 16:27; 2 Cor. 11:31) or “for the ages of the ages” (Gal. 1:5; Php. 4:20; 1 Tim. 1:17; 1 Pet. 5:11).

    Do these passages prove that these terms must always describe an everlasting or eternal period? No. At the most, they prove that these terms describe an everlasting or eternal period when applied to God, but this does not contradict the many instances in which these terms do not describe an everlasting period, as discussed earlier in this study. However, I believe that it can be shown — as with olam — that these terms, even when applied to God, are not referencing His eternal nature but instead His nature as it pertains to the ages. See the following texts:

The Lord reigns for age upon age and further [τον αιωνα και επ’ αιωνα και ετι]. (Exod. 15:18 LXX)

I adjure you by the great God, the αιωνιον and more than αιωνιον, and Almighty, and the [One] exalted above the exalted gods. [1]

Very similar to what we saw with the characterization of God as olam in the Hebrew Bible, these two texts show that ancient Jewish and Christian writers did not consider the terms εις τον αιωνα and αιωνιος to fully encompass the period of God’s existence (and so did not consider these terms as referring to periods without beginning and/or end). Thus, although God is αιωνιος — He created the ages and works through them — He is by no means confined to the ages; He is both αιωνιος and more than αιωνιος.

    Interestingly, in the one instance in the NT where God is described as αιωνιος, the focus is on His works in the past and future ages:

Now to Him who is able to establish you, according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to a revelation of a mystery, which has been kept silent in times of ages, but now manifested, and through the prophetic scriptures, according to a command of the Αιωνιου God, for obedience of faith which was made known to all the Gentiles — to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, is the glory for the ages. Amen. (Rom. 16:25-27)

Paul writes that God has kept hidden the mystery of the gospel in the times of ages (χρονοις αιωνιοις, referring to the past age[s] and current age), and that He will receive the glory throughout the future ages. It is in the middle of this doxology that Paul establishes God as “the Αιωνιος God,” a title which refers to God’s work throughout all past and future ages. And yet, just because God is αιωνιος does not mean that He is confined to the ages, any more than His being “the Lord of all the earth” (Josh 3:11, 13) contradicts the fact that He is not contained by even the highest heavens (2 Chron. 2:6). This is because He is not only αιωνιος, but even more than αιωνιος (as the inscription quoted above establishes).

Part 5: https://thechristianuniversalist.blogspot.com/2022/07/just-how-long-is-eternal-study-on_31.html

______________________________

[1] Taken from a third-century inscription found at Adrematum in ancient Byzacium. See Deissmann, Adolf. Bible Studies: Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the History of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity, p. 275. T & T Clark, 1903.

Just how long is ‘eternal’? A study on the meaning of Αιων and Αιωνιος (part 3 of 5)

Part 2: https://thechristianuniversalist.blogspot.com/2022/07/just-how-long-is-eternal-study-on_10.html

     In the last two posts of this series, it was shown that the word olam in the Hebrew Bible (and its equivalents αιων and αιωνιος in the LXX) never refers to a period of time that is without end, but instead to a period of indefinite length. Theoretically, then, we would expect the words αιων and αιωνιος in the New Testament to reflect this usage. As we will see, although the words olam, αιων, and αιωνιος were used in the OT to refer to indefinite periods of time, with the more developed eschatology of the NT came a specialized usage of αιων and αιωνιος to refer to specific, eschatological periods.

    By these definitions, the word αιων refers to an “age,” a specific period with a set beginning and end, whereas the word αιωνιος, being the adjective form of αιων, means “pertaining to/of the ages” (the YLT translates this word as “age-during”). Although there are some instances in the NT where αιων or αιωνιος appear to describe a time period of indefinite length, as olam was used in the NT, it is more commonly used in its eschatological sense. Now, let’s examine the usage of αιων and αιωνιος throughout the NT.

    Αιων and Αιωνιος in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts

In the synoptic gospel accounts of the New Testament — Matthew, Mark, and Luke — a dichotomy is presented between the current age and the Messianic age to come, separated by the second coming of Christ, although there is also the acknowledgement of further ages beyond that. We first see this dichotomy in Matthew 12:32, describing the blasphemy of the holy spirit:

And if anyone says a word against the Son of Man, it will be pardoned to him; but whoever says a word against the holy spirit, it will not be pardoned to him, neither in this age nor in the coming [one].

    This age is said to be one full of worry, deceit, coveting (Matt. 13:22; Mk. 4:19), and shrewdness (Lk. 16:8), in which people marry one another (Lk. 20:34). In contrast, the coming age is one of peace, characterized by the possession of αιωνιος life (Mk. 10:30; Lk. 18:30), and those who achieve entrance into that age will no longer marry nor be able to die (Lk. 20:35-36). The end of this age and transition to the next will be accomplished at the second coming of Christ (Matt. 24:3), when all of the evildoers are gathered out of the kingdom (Matt. 13:39-42, 49-50) and the kingdom itself is returned to Israel (Acts 1:6-7).

    The existence of at least one further age following the coming Messianic age is tacitly acknowledged by Luke 1:33, which states that Jesus will reign over the house of Jacob “for the ages” (εις τους αιωνας). Based on 1 Cor. 15:24-28 which states that Jesus’ reign will eventually end, the period referred to as “the ages” cannot be everlasting in nature. (As we shall see, this conclusion is supported elsewhere in the NT, esp. Eph. 2:6-7.)

    In the Luke-Acts corpus, there are also several instances of αιων being used in a similar way to Hebrew olam, as referring to an indefinitely long period of time. We are told in Lk. 1:70 and Acts 3:21, 15:18 that certain events concerning the fathers and prophets occurred “from an age” (απ’ αιωνος), similar to the use of me’olam in the OT (e.g., Josh. 24:2). It is also said in Lk. 1:55 that Jesus had been promised to Abraham and his descendants “for the age” (εις τον αιωνα), referring to the period of Messianic prophecy from Abraham up until Jesus’ own time, which was neither without beginning nor without end.

    The usage of αιωνιος within the synoptic gospel accounts largely agrees with the translation proposed above, “pertaining to/of the ages.” Αιωνιος life, usually translated as “eternal life” or “everlasting life,” is defined by Jesus as the privilege of living and reigning with Him in the Messianic Age (Matt. 19:28-29 cf. Mk. 10:30; Lk. 19:30). According to John, we already “have” the life of the Age in the present tense if we believe (John 3:36; 5:24; 6:47, 54; 1 John 5:11, 13). It is defined as “knowing God and Christ” (John 17:3). Therefore, in the gospel accounts (i.e., Matt. 19:16; 25:46; Mk. 10:17, 30; Lk. 10:25; 18:18, 30; Acts 13:46, 48), αιωνιος life refers to “life pertaining to/of the Messianic Age.”

    Luke 16:9 seems to reflect the usage of αιωνιος in the LXX as referring to an indefinite period of time. Jesus tells His followers to make friends using “the wealth of unrighteousness,” so that when their wealth fails, their newfound friends will receive them into “αιωνιους dwellings.” Are these dwellings everlasting? Clearly not! These are not dwellings in the age to come, but dwellings in the current age; Jesus would not have told his followers to buy dwellings in the age to come with “wealth of unrighteousness.” And even if this were referring to dwellings in the age to come, they would eventually be destroyed along with the earth (2 Pet. 3:10; Rev. 21:1). So then, in this passage, αιωνιος reflects the OT usage of olam as referring to an indefinite period; the “αιωνιους dwellings” are dwellings that last as long as the disciples will need them.

    Αιων and Αιωνιος in the gospel of John

The multi-age eschatological scheme which is present in the synoptic gospels is not as blatant throughout John’s gospel account, however, it seems to be implicitly assumed. The noun αιων is only ever used throughout this gospel in the phrase εις τον αιωνα (“for the age”), and αιωνιος is only ever used to describe “αιωνιος life” (4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2; 17:3).

    The gospel of John provides the clearest evidence for the meaning of “αιωνιος life.” First, αιωνιος life is considered equivalent to entering the kingdom of God (3:3, 5 cf. 3:15-16, 36), or the Messianic kingdom. It is later paralleled with “not thirsting for the Age [εις τον αιωνα]” (Jn. 4:14), almost certainly referring to the Messianic Age. According to John, we already “have” the life of the Age in the present tense if we believe (John 3:36; 5:24; 6:47, 54; 1 John 5:11, 13). It is defined as “knowing God and Christ” (John 17:3). This is more than a mere intellectual knowledge, and involves God and his Son actually coming to dwell in communion with us (John 14:23; 1 John 1:3; 2:24; 3:23-24; 4:12-13).

    Elsewhere, αιωνιος life is also contrasted with dying “for the Age [εις τον αιωνα].” For example, see Jn. 8:34-35, 51; 10:28; and 11:26. Those who have αιωνιος life shall not perish for the Messianic Age, for αιωνιος life is the “life pertaining to/of the Age.” This is most likely not referring to literal death, as the “death” of the Johannine corpus is a state that believers will not experience (John 3:16; 8:51; 10:28; 11:26). It is a state we already existed in, from which we passed into life when we first believed (John 5:24; 1 John 3:14). Thus, both the “αιωνιος life” and death εις τον αιωνα in John’s gospel are current states experienced by believers and unbelievers, respectively.

    In Jn. 14:16, Jesus tells His disciples that the “other paraclete” will abide with them “for the age [εις τον αιωνα].” Because the paraclete, the spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9-11), is what connects us to both Jesus and the Father, this is equivalent to Jesus’ statement that He will be with us “until the completion of the age” (Matt. 28:20). Thus, in this case, the phrase “εις τον αιωνα” refers to the period up to the end of the age and second coming of Christ.

    Finally, there is also one instance where the noun αιων is used in the same way as in the LXX. This is in Jn. 9:32, where it is said that “from the age [εκ του αιωνος] it has not been heard that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind.” However, references to the healing of the blind can be found in the Old Testament (Ps. 146:8; Isa. 29:18; 35:5; 42:7), so εκ του αιωνος must in this instance simply mean “long ago,” in line with the usage of me’olam in the Hebrew Bible (and απο του αιωνος in the LXX).

    Αιων and Αιωνιος in the epistles of Paul

Unlike the eschatology of the synoptic gospels, which distinguishes between the current age and the Messianic age to come, and implicitly acknowledges at least one further age beyond that, Paul explicitly acknowledges more than one age to come and, in most cases, lumps the Messianic Age in with the age(s) following it. That Paul believed in the same distinction between the current age and the one to come is shown by Eph. 1:20-21:

Christ... above every rule and authority and power and lordship, and every name [which] is named, not only in this age, but also in the coming [one].

This age is called “the wicked age” (Gal. 1:4), and is under the power of the Adversary and his demonic forces (2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 2:2; 6:12 cf. 1 Cor. 2:8). The wisdom of this age is said to be nothing but folly, and God’s wisdom to be far greater (1 Cor. 1:20; 2:6-7; 3:18). We are exhorted not to conform to this age, but instead to live humbly and piously within it (Rom. 12:2; 1 Tim. 6:17; Titus 2:12), and those who “love the present age” are said to have forsaken Paul (2 Tim. 4:10).

    In contrast, the coming ages are when we are be shown the riches of God’s glory and reign with Christ (Eph. 2:6-7). These ages are also referred to by Paul as “the ages of the ages,” during which Christ will be glorified in His kingdom, and we in Him (2 Tim. 4:18; cf. Eph. 3:21). One purpose of these ages is for the body of Christ to bring the message of salvation to the rulers and authorities in the heavenlies (Eph. 3:10-11 cf. 6:12). Paul also acknowledged that these ages will have an end, for eventually Christ shall return the kingdom to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24-28). [1]

    Interestingly, Paul also seems to imply the existence of at least one age prior to the current one, as he says that the mystery of the gospel was hidden “from the ages [απο των αιωνων]” (Eph. 3:9, Col. 1:26 cf. 1 Cor. 2:7). This means Paul believed that this age was preceded by at least one age, unless αιων is being used in this instance like me’olam in the OT (which seems unlikely because olam was never translated with plural αιων in the LXX).

    The usage of αιωνιος in Paul’s epistles supports our proposed translation of this word, “pertaining to/of the ages.” In three instances, he states that the mystery of the gospel was hidden or promised “before times of the ages [προ χρονων αιωνιων]” (2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2 cf. Rom. 16:25). This cannot refer to a period without beginning, nor without end, for there was a time before this period, and the period ended when the mystery of the gospel was revealed — instead, the meaning must be the same as when Paul states that the gospel was hidden “from the ages” (see above).

    Virtually all of the other instances of αιωνιος in Paul’s epistles refer to αιωνιος life (Rom. 2:7; 5:21; 6:22-23; Gal. 6:8; 2 Thess. 2:16; 1 Tim. 1:16; 6:12, 19; 2 Tim. 2:10; Titus 1:2; 3:7), which as noted above refers solely to the privilege of living and reigning with Christ during the oncoming ages (cf. Eph. 2:6-7). This αιωνιος life is not without beginning, nor without end, as it begins at the “first resurrection” (Jn. 6:40, 54; Rev. 20:4) and will end when Christ gives up the kingdom to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24-28). [2] Therefore, this usage of αιωνιος also means “pertaining to/of the ages” and not “everlasting” or “eternal.”

    However, there are certain instances in which non-universalists argue that αιωνιος must mean “everlasting.” The first of these is Romans 2:7, in which it is said that those who seek for glory, honor, and immortality will receive αιωνιος life — it is argued that, because αιωνιος life is paralleled with “immortality,” this must refer to the everlasting aspect of that life. However, although immortality is certainly an aspect of αιωνιος life, since those who achieve the age to come and the first resurrection will be made immortal (Lk. 20:35-36; 1 Cor. 15:51-55), this does not mean that αιωνιος life is immortality, any more than αιωνιος life is glory or honor (which are also paralleled in Rom. 2:7).

    The other instance in which it is argued that αιωνιος must mean “everlasting” is 2 Cor. 4:18, in which the adjective αιωνιος is contrasted with the adjective προσκαιρος. It is supposed that προσκαιρος should be translated as “temporal,” and therefore its antonym αιωνιος must mean “eternal.” However, the adjective προσκαιρος does not mean “temporal,” but literally “for a season,” and is elsewhere used to describe those things which are fleeting and temporary (Matt. 13:21; Mk. 4:17; Heb. 11:25). Thus, the antonym, αιωνιος, would more accurately mean “long-lasting” (in contrast to “fleeting”), and not necessarily “eternal.”

    Finally, one instance of αιωνιος in Paul’s epistle to Philemon is in line with the use of olam in the Hebrew Bible as referring to an indefinitely long duration. Here, Paul writes:

For perhaps because of this, [Onesimus] was separated [from you] for an hour, so that you may have him αιωνιον. (Phil. 15)

Philemon could not have kept Onesimus as a servant for eternity, but only for as long as Onesimus would live. Thus, in this instance, αιωνιος refers to a time period even shorter than a single human lifespan. (See also Exod. 21:6; Lev. 25:46; and Deut. 15:17 in which it is said that certain people may become servants olam, also clearly referring to less than a human lifespan.)

    Αιων and Αιωνιος in the rest of the New Testament

The eschatology of the rest of the New Testament is entirely in line with what we have already seen in the epistles of Paul. The distinction between the current age and the Messianic Age is maintained (Heb. 6:5), and it is said that believers will be living εις τον αιωνα, “for the [Messianic] Age” (1 Jn. 2:17; 2 Jn. 1:2). There are said to be multiple ages to come (Heb. 13:8; Jude 25), called “the ages of the ages” during which both Christ Jesus and the saints will be reigning (Heb. 1:8; 1 Pet. 4:11; 5:11; Rev. 1:6; 5:13; 11:15; 22:5). These ages are also said to have an end (Heb. 9:26), in line with 1 Cor. 15:24-28.

    The most developed eschatology can be found in the book of Revelation, which was written by John on the isle of Patmos (although which John wrote this book is debated). This book describes the Messianic Age in detail, during which believers reign together with Christ (Rev. 20:4-6; 22:3-5). These are the “oncoming ages” and “ages of the ages” spoken of throughout the New Testament, during which Christ and the saints will reign, and which will eventually come to an end at the time prophesied in 1 Cor. 15:24-28 (and Heb. 9:26).

    The use of αιωνιος in the rest of the New Testament is also in accord with what we have already seen. Most instances of αιωνιος are found in the term “αιωνιος life” (1 Jn. 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20; Jude 21), which, as described already, simply refers to the privilege of living and reigning with Christ in the ages to come, and will eventually have an end (per 1 Cor. 15:24-28). By reason of the characterization of “life” as αιωνιος, so also salvation, redemption, the gospel, and our future glory are described as αιωνιος (Heb. 5:9; 9:12; 1 Pet. 5:10; Rev. 14:6). The kingdom of Christ is also called αιωνιος (2 Pet. 1:11), even though this kingdom will have a beginning (Dan. 7:14; Rev. 11:15; 12:10) and Christ’s reign over it will eventually end (1 Cor. 15:24-28).

    Summary: the use of Αιων and Αιωνιος in the New Testament

Having examined the usage of the Greek words αιων and αιωνιος in the New Testament, we can make the conclusion that the authors of the NT did not use these words to describe infinite time periods without end, but instead used them in an eschatological sense to describe the current “age” and future “ages” (during which Christ will be reigning over the kingdom and believers with Him), as well as things pertaining to these ages. This is in line with the usage of αιων and αιωνιος in the LXX to describe durations of indeterminate - but not infinite - length, as we saw in the previous parts of this study.

    The adjective αιωνιος is frequently applied to things and time periods which are neither without beginning, nor without end, as seen in (for example) Rom. 16:25; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2; and 2 Pet. 1:11. Even the term “αιωνιος life,” which is frequently translated as “eternal life” or “everlasting life,” does not mean life without end, but refers to the privilege of living and reigning with Jesus in the ages to come. In the next post, we will look at phrases and passages that are usually thought to teach that the punishment of unbelievers will be without end, and make a determination as to whether the scriptural evidence supports this view, or if it is more in line with universalism.

Part 4: https://thechristianuniversalist.blogspot.com/2022/07/just-how-long-is-eternal-study-on_24.html

______________________________

[1] Many object to the view that Christ will actually stop reigning and be subjected to God at the consummation. However, Paul could not be clearer on this point. He states that Christ will, at this time, “hand over the kingdom to the God and Father,” that “He will reign until” such a time, and that “the Son Himself will be subjected to” God.

This idea, that the Messiah must stop reigning once all enemies have been subjected to God, comes from Psalm 110:1-2, one of the most quoted Messianic prophecies in the New Testament: “Yahweh says to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet. Yahweh shall send the staff of your strength from Zion. Rule in the midst of your enemies!’” The very reason that Jesus now sits at the right hand of God is to subject all to Him; to say that Jesus will never stop reigning is to say that He will ultimately fail in the purpose for which He was sent. And of course, Jesus can only “rule in the midst of [His] enemies” as long as there are enemies.

[2] Which is not to say that we will die at the end of the ages. Rather, it will simply cease to be “αιωνιος life,” which refers to the privilege of living and reigning with Christ during the ages (and thus will end when Christ’s reign ends).