SECTION IV.

GENERAL REMARKS ON AION AND AIONIOS, AS USED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

MOST lexicon writers assert that aion, and the adjective aionios, are used to express an endless duration of time, though all of them admit that they are also used to express a limited period. From this very fact have arisen long and violent contentions, whether these words, when used to express the duration of punishment, are to be understood in a limited or unlimited sense. Lexicons are not infallible, nor were they intended to determine, but only to assist us in ascertaining, the true meaning of scripture words. The words were used and understood long before lexicons had any existence. Whilst we ought to avail ourselves of their assistance, yet every man ought to examine for himself, from their general usage, the context of the places, and other circumstances, if the senses of words given by them be correct. To receive implicitly what they say, is only to perpetuate their errors, if the writers have inadvertently or intentionally committed any.

It is universally allowed, by all competent judges, of whatever sect, that aion and aionios are frequently used to express a limited duration of time. Parkhurst says, aion"denotes duration or continuance of time, but with great variety." Ewing says it signifies "duration, finite or infinite; a period of duration, past or future; an age, duration of the world, Deut. 32: 7, Luke 1: 70; plural, ages of the world, 1 Cor. 2: 7; hence, human life in this world, Luke 16: 8; or the next, Mark 10: 30; our manner of life in the world, Psalm 90: 8, Eph. 2: 2: an age of divine dispensation, the ages, generally reckoned three that before the law, that under the law, and that under the Messiah, Matt. 24: 3, and 28: 20, 1 Cor. 10: 11, Heb. 11: 3; by faith, we understand that the ages

were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are (now) seen did not arise out of things which did (previously) appear; compare verses 1, 7, 26, 27; an indefinitely long period of time; hence eternity, Exod. 14: 13, Luke 1: 55, John 4: 14, Psalm 19: 9, Gal. 1: 5, Rev. 20: 10; from eternity to eternity, 1 Chron. 29: 10, Psalm 90: 2." On the word aionios, Ewing says it signifies "eternal, Exod. 3: 14, 15, Matt. 25: 46, Rom. 16: 26; chronoi aionoi, ages of the world, periods of the dispensations since the world began, Rom. 16: 25." See Parkhurst for a similar explanation, but let the reader examine their proofs.

The word aion is compounded of aei, always, and on, being; which is interpreted, by Parkhurst and others, "always being." Yet, he says, " it denotes duration, or continuance of time, but with great variety "! He allows that aei, always, signifies "ever, in a restrained sense, that is, at some stated times, very frequently, continually." Acts 7: 51, and 2 Cor. 6: 10, to which he refers as proof of its meaning ever in an unrestrained sense, do not prove this point; for surely the Jews did not eternally resist the Spirit of God, nor did the apostle mean that he rejoiced eternally. Its sense seems evidently to be perseveringly, but not endless in duration. Had Parkhurst found any texts more to his purpose, no doubt but he would have quoted them. All the texts where he thinks aion means a proper eternity will be considered in their place.

It is a remark which has often been made that the adjective aionios cannot signify more than the noun from whence it is derived; for, if the latter only expresses limited duration, the former cannot express endless. A stream cannot rise higher than its fountain without mechanical force; nor can aionios express a longer duration than aion without a forced construction of meaning. Though Parkhurst asserts that it means "eternal, having neither beginning nor end," yet he allows that it signifies "the ages of the world, the times

since the beginning of its existence; " and adds, "the Seventy frequently use this adjective for the Hebrew oulem." But, from an examination of the texts in the Old Testament where this word occurs, the reader can judge if anything conclusive can be drawn from it as expressing endless duration. From an examination of all the texts where it is used to express the duration of punishment, we think it proved that it does not express endless duration, nor does it even refer to punishment in a future state of existence. Whether aionios, its corresponding word in the New, does this, we shall see when we come to consider the passages in which it occurs. If it did, the one word certainly does not correspond to the other ; for there is an inconceivable difference between limited and endless duration. All this difference is added, by the New Testament writers, to the word aionios, if it expresses the eternity of punishment. It has been said that aionios, when it stands alone, signifies duration without end. But how can it stand alone? For, if an adjective, it must have some noun, either expressed or understood, with which it is connected, and which it qualifies. man should say "Eternal," the question would immediately be asked him, "Eternal what?" If he meant to be understood, he would inform us what thing he considered to be eternal; such as, eternal God, eternal life, eternal punishment. It is the noun, then, or the thing to which this word is applied, which must determine the extent of duration expressed by it; and if aion, from which it is derived, does not express endless duration, but an age, how can the adjective express a longer duration, unless we say the word derived contains more than that from which it is derived; or the stream contains more, or rises higher, than the fountain? Allowing it to be applied to God, who is without beginning or end, what does this prove? Can this make God so, or does it fix the meaning of this word as expressing endless duration? Not unless we say words expressing a limited time cannot possibly be applied to him; or, if applied, must de

If a

rive an unlimited, yea, infinite, sense from such an application. Our orthodox friends would not reason so in other cases. The terms good and great are adjectives, and are applied to God; but do they contend that they are to be always understood in an infinite sense, or expressing an infinite degree when so applied? Surely not; for how could they, in this case, maintain their doctrine of infinite, endless misery, seeing it is said, "The Lord is good unto all," and that "great is his mercy"?

But, again, the words are used in the plural number. But how can words capable of being used plurally signify a proper eternity? For eternity is one; eternities are never spoken of. People speak of eternity to come, and eternity past, but still it is only one uninterrupted, endless continuance. The past eternity had no beginning; nor had it an end when the future eternity began; for, in this view, it could not be a proper eternity, as it had an end. In fact, we cannot form a distinct, definite idea of eternity; for, if this could be done, we must either be finite ourselves or necessarily limit it.

In our English version I find aion rendered seven times never, once course, twice ages, thirty-seven times world, once without end, once eternal, twice ever, sixtysix times forever, and four times for evermore. In several places it occurs twice in the same text. The adjective aionios I find is rendered three times world, once forever, forty-one times eternal, and twenty-four times everlasting. As forever, eternal and everlasting, are English words which convey the same idea, it is unnecessary to make any distinction in introducing the passages where they occur, whether the translation of aion or aionios. In rendering aion and aionios in the New Testament, our translators have given us considerable variety as they did in rendering olim in the Old Testament. In only two instances, however, have they rendered them by the word age or ages. But many translations of the New Testament have been made since, where age is given as a better rendering of these words.

It is, I believe, now generally agreed by critics and commentators, both orthodox and otherwise, that age ought to be the rendering of this word in a variety of places, some of which shall be noticed in their place.

It is universally allowed that aion and aionios are the words used in the Seventy's version in rendering the Hebrew word olim. A very slight inspection of this version will satisfy any one of its truth. It is well known that our Lord and his apostles quoted the Seventy's version. And Mr. Stuart observes, that although "the New Testament was written in Greek, yet its idiom is Hebrew." He calls it the Hebrew Greek of the New Testament. Indeed, the longer I study the two Testaments I am the more convinced, that in understanding the phraseology of the New, we must recur to the Old Testament for our explanations. The translators of our common version have rendered these Hebrew and Greek words, generally, by the same English words, such as, world, everlasting, eternal, forever, and forever and ever. This is the case, whether the words are applied to God, or to punishment, in the Old or New Testaments; nor is it intimated that the original words, or the words by which they are rendered, have a more vague and indefinite meaning in the former than they have in the latter. To an English reader, everlasting and forever are the same in both Testaments. If everlasting punishment is not taught in the Old Testament, it is not for want of as definite a word to express it as is found in the New.

It is admitted by some that the Old Testament is silent on the subject of endless punishment, yet they contend that it is taught in the New, and that aion and aionios are the words used to express its duration. But why admit the former, and contend for the latter? In both Testaments punishment is mentioned, and in both everlasting and forever are applied to it. If it is found in one it ought to be found in both. Is it rational to suppose that a doctrine of so much importance should be concealed for so many ages? How can this be reconciled with the