Facts and
Theories as to a Future State
CHAPTER XXVII
THE NEW TESTAMENT SOLUTION OT THE QUESTION
IN the New Testament we find aion over and over
again translated "world," and not badly, if we only think of worlds in time
instead of worlds in space, but more intelligible to us if rendered "age." The
"end of the world" in Matt. xiii., xxiv, xxviii. 20 is thus in all these places
"the completion of the age." In Heb. ix. 26, it is "the completion of the
ages." So we have "this world" and "the world to come," "the children of this
world," "the princes of this world," and similar expressions frequently. So
again we have "ages to come," as we have ages completed, and can look back to a
time before these ages began.*
*Matt.. xii. 82, Luke xviii. 30, xx. 34, 1
Cor. ii. 6, Eph. ii. 7, Col i 26, 1 Cor. ii. 7 (before the ages).
Thus
Scripture everywhere recognizes the fact of these successive ages, surely not
purposeless divisions of time, but each a step in the accomplishment of divine
counsels. We have in fact the very expression, and to it we shall have again to
return, "the purpose of the ages" (Eph. iii. 11). The ages, then, are
dispensational periods, whose existence and character are not unimportant
things for the student of the ways of Him whose "going forth have been from of
old, from everlasting." It is to the "King of (these) ages" that the apostle
therefore ascribes "glory unto the ages of ages" (1 Tim. i. 17). Him they all
serve in various harmony of the one everlasting anthem wherewith all His works
praise Him their Maker.
Eternity in Scripture we need not wonder to
find expressed in terms of these divinely constituted "ages." This is done in a
number of different ways, hidden very much in our version by vague and
dissimilar phraseology, which has little of the beauty and appropriateness of
the inspired original. The word aion is used nearly eighty times in this
way in the New Testament, and above seventy times the word aionios. We
have thus nearly a hundred and fifty occurrences to test the Scripture use of
these expressions. Surely we should be able to arrive at some satisfactory
result.
Let us first look at the past ages. Of course from our point of
view in time we can look at eternity as behind or before us. It is but one and
the same eternity, of course; for there cannot in the nature of things be two:
but to our conception there is a past and a future one. Let us gather up the
expressions of the former first.
We find then that there are "ages" in
the "ends" of which we are: for we read that "all these things happened unto
them for types, and are written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the
world (literally, the ages) are come" (1 Cor. x. 11). We may surely connect
that with the passage before cited from Hebrews (ix. 26), that "once at the
completion of the ages hath (Christ) appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice
of Himself." These ages were the preparatory times of which we have been
already thinking, when God by the ministry of condemnation and in other ways
was shutting man up to the grace which Christ should show. Thus "when we were
yet without strength in due time Christ died for the ungodly." This grace lay
under the veil throughout these ages - there, but lacking full expression. The
"ends of the ages" having come, that expression has been found; and thus the
"types" of Israel’s history, as well as the shadows of the law in a
stricter sense, give to us their full weight of "admonition."
In Col 1.
26 again, we hear of a mystery hidden "from ages and from generations," and in
Eph. iii. 9 find a similar expression. There need be no doubt that here we have
the self-same ages as before. Nor again, when Paul speaks of hidden wisdom
"ordained before the ages, to our glory" (1 Cor. ii. 7).
These ages
then are plainly finite, and so is the whole course of them; but we have two
other expressions which are different from these. In them aion is used
in the singular, and in one passage at least eternity must be meant. "Known
unto God are all His works from aion" (Acts xv - 18), where we cannot
say "from the age." In the other passages the expression may seem less
decisive: God has "spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets, which have been
from aion"; and similarly, "by the mouth of His holy prophets from
aion" (Luke i. 70; Acts iii. 21); but in neither case would "the age" do
at all. What age? "From the beginning of the world" might suit the context, but
would be no translation: and outside that beginning of the world is what?
Surely, eternity. In this sense then "from eternity" would suit, and all the
occurrences would be in harmony.
Once more a similar phrase occurs in
the words of the man to whom the Lord gave sight (John ix- 32): "From the aion
was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of the blind," and here again the
meaning is simply "it never was heard." Thus wherever aion is used in these
expressions it cannot be spoken of a particular age or dispensation, but seems
invariably to imply eternity.
This is all we have relating to the past.
As regards the future we have more and various phrases, which we may here again
classify accordingly as aion is used in the singular or in the plural. The
plural form we shall look at first as being the most simple. We have here three
expressions
1. Simplest of all, in Jude 25, glory is ascribed to God
"both now and to all the ages." There is plainly no reason to limit this.
2. More often we have, and less fully, "unto the ages." This occurs
eight times. Six times in ascriptions of praise to God or to Christ (Matt. vi.
13; Rom. i. 25; ix. 5; xi. 36; xvi. 27; 2 Cor. xi. 31); once there is the
statement Mr. Jukes relies on, and as to the force of which we shall presently
inquire, - "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and to the ages" (Heb.
xiii. 8); and once it is said of Christ, that "He shall reign over the house of
Jacob unto the ages" (Luke i. 33). In none of these passages is there reason to
question that a proper eternity is intended.
3. The third expression
is a reduplicative form which plainly conveys a much greater impression of
immensity: "to the ages of ages." And this is five times applied to the life of
God Himself: He "liveth unto the ages of ages" (Rev. iv. 9, 10; v. 14; x. 6:
xv. 7); once to the resurrection-life of Christ (Rev. i. 18); once to the
kingdom of" our Lord and His Christ" (Rev. xi. 15); once to the reign of the
saints (ch. xxii. 5); ten times in ascriptions of glory to God (Gal. i. 5;
Phil. iv. 20; 1 Tim. i. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 18; Heb. xiii. 21; 1 Pet. iv. 11; v. 11;
Rev i. 6; v 13 vii 12); twice to the torment of the wicked (Rev. xiv. 11; xx.
10); and once to the smoke of Babylon rising up forever (ch. xix. 3). These
last passages we shall have again before us, but if the duration of these ages
is the measure of the risen life of Christ, of God Himself, surely its force
cannot be questioned.
In all these cases the plural form impresses us
with the sense of vastness and immensity. In the cases we have now to consider
the use of the singular conveys the idea, of course, of unity. Here again we
have various expressions.
1. A very singular one is "the aion of
the aion," where it is the duration of the reign of the Son of God: "Thy
throne, O God, is for the aion of the aion" (Heb. i. 8), where we have the
Septuagint rendering of the expression before noted as the Hebrew one for
proper eternity (olam vaed). Here then it does seem that aion must, even in the
Septuagint, have this later but acknowledged sense. Plato has it, it is owned;
and Philo also an Alexandrian Jew, from the very birth-place of the Septuagint,
although of a somewhat later date. Here the expression is used for eternity,
and we can only translate "for the age (or perhaps, course*) of eternity." We
have seen a similar use of aion for the past (Acts xv. 18).
*Aion is thus
used in Eph. ii. 2, "according to the course of this world."
2.
Again, we have an ascription of glory to Christ, "for the day of eternity"
(aion) (2 Pet. iii. 18). Here once more a limited meaning can scarce be
contended for.
3. Again, in Eph. iii. 21, we find, "Unto Him be
glory in the church by Christ Jesus unto all the generations of the age of the
ages." Here no one, I suppose, would doubt eternity to be meant. It may define
what "age" is meant when aion is used alone: it is the "age" of the ages, the
age in which all ages are summed up.
4. But the most common
expression of all is that for which no more suited rendering can be found than
"forever" - for the aion. It is used twenty-eight times; and not in a single
instance can it be proved to have a limited sense. It too is used for the
duration of the life of Christ (John xii. 34); of the abiding of the Spirit of
God with His people (xiv. 16); of Christ’s priesthood (Heb. vii.); the
enduring of the word of God (1 Pet. i. 23), and of the doer of His will (1 John
ii. 17); and of the believer’s righteousness (2 Cor. ix. 9). It is used
too for the duration of the portion of the ungodly, "blackness of darkness
forever" (Jude 13, 2 Pet. ii. 17).
Amid all this varied phraseology not
one passage can be shown where our common translation gives some equivalent of
"forever," in which less than eternity can be proved to be meant. Mr. Clemance
has indeed said: "An æon may have an end. Æons of æons may
have an end. Only that which lasts through all the æons is without an
end, and Scripture affirms this only of the kingdom of God, and of the glory of
God in the church."* Canon Farrar quotes this with approbation; but he has not
attempted to produce a single New Testament passage that I can find, to prove
the opposite of my assertion here. Instead of this, he goes to the Old
Testament for his proof, and of course quotes olam instead of aion. This
amounts to a confession that the New Testament will not serve his purpose.
Would he not have produced its testimony, if he could?
*Future Punishment,
p. 86, quoted in the preface to Eternal Hope.
Dr. Beecher, too, as we
have seen, avoids the New Testament. Mr. Oxenham in his letter has nothing to
say concerning these expressions. Mr. Jukes, however,* comes boldly forward, as
we have seen, with a distinct statement as to the nature and duration of these
ages to come. To his views, therefore, we must direct our attention.
*And
Mr. Cox, "Salvator Mundi," ch. v., vi.
The substance of them we have
given before in his own words. The ages, he believes, are periods in which God
is working in grace to meet and correct the effect of the fall. His rest is
beyond them, not in them, when the mediatorial kingdom of Christ, which is for
the ages of ages, is given up, and Christ, the Worker of the divine purpose in
them, goes back to the glory which He had before the age-times, that God may be
all, in all. Throughout these ages Christ is a Saviour needed and found, as
much as "yesterday" and "to-day."
Now we have seen that over and over
again it is asserted of God, that He "liveth for the ages of the ages," and so,
too, of Christ as risen from the dead. Will Mr. Jukes say that His "behold, I
am alive for the ages of ages" is not meant to convey the thought of the
English version, "I am alive for evermore"? or that " God, who liveth for the
ages of ages" means "God who liveth for the time during which He is showing
grace"?
Again, glory is over and over again ascribed to God for the
ages of ages or the age of ages, and not once (according to this view of the
matter) for a proper eternity at all! How beyond measure strange that there
should be no glimpse beyond these ages, during which the smoke of torment never
ceases! How strange that just when that long, lingering purgation shall have
come to an end, - when praise should be most rapturous, and joy complete, -
that just then we should come to the end of all that Scripture contemplates of
joy or praise, or the very life of God Himself, and not a note be heard, not a
ray of glory shine out of the impenetrable eternity beyond! Who can believe
this? Who can seriously claim it as a thing to be believed?
But we are
told that Scripture itself thus speaks of the "purpose of the ages."* The
phrase occurs, Eph. iii. 11, as the Greek of what in our version is "eternal
purpose." But what is this purpose, as Scripture, not the Restitutionist,
declares it? Is it not, so far as given in the passage produced, "the intent
that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known
by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the purpose of the
ages"? There is no mention here of other beings than the angels and the church;
the time for the wisdom of God to be thus made known is "now." Can Mr. Jukes
show how this speaks of the recovery to God of those in an after-time cast into
hell? If he can, at least he has not done it.
*So also Cox (Salv. Mun., p.
107): "In his epistle to the Ephesians he both expressly names God’s
determination to save men by Christ [all men?] ‘the purpose of the
ages,’ the end that was to be wrought out through all the successions of
time; and distinctly asserts that this redeeming work will take ages for its
accomplishment." Ages to come? Where?
But then "Christ’s
mediatorial kingdom is for the ages of ages, and after these are finished, He
delivers it up." Let us see what is the truth of this.
Now sitting upon the
Father’s throne as Son of God, and having "all authority in heaven and
earth," He comes as Son of man in glory to take His own throne as such."†
It is plainly this kingdom which He delivers up to the Father (according to 1
Cor. xv. 24-28), having accomplished the purpose for which He took it. He
reigns, says the apostle - until when? "Till He hath put all enemies under His
feet." Is that conversion? If it is, words have no meaning. No; it is the
subjecting by power those who could not be subdued by grace. Death is among
these enemies, and "death, the last enemy, shall be destroyed." When? When
death and hell (hades), having delivered up their dead, will be cast into the
lake of fire. When Gehenna shall swallow up hades, and the second death put an
end to the first (see Rev. xx. 13, 14). Then will the last enemy be destroyed,
and all be under the feet of Christ. Then, therefore, will be the time when
Christ will deliver up the kingdom to the Father.
†Comp. Rev. iii.
21; Dan. vii. 18; Matt. xxv. 81, etc.
But the ages of ages stretch on
beyond this: for the torment for the ages of ages in the lake of fire begins
even for the devil himself but at the close of the millennial reign (Rev. xx.
10). The kingdom which Christ takes to put down all enemies will be over.
Death, the last enemy, will be destroyed. But the ages of ages roll on their
unbroken course, and Christ’s "reign for the ages of ages" will of course
go on also.
It is a very common mistake Mr. Jukes has made, but it
becomes a very serious one when made the foundation of a doctrine such as his.
He has confounded the brief millennial reign in which Christ by power puts down
His enemies with the everlasting reign of Christ as Son upon the Father’s
throne, which never can be given up. For faith He reigns now before that
kingdom is come. All authority is His in heaven and earth. It will not cease to
be His when that coming kingdom shall be delivered up to the Father, that God
may be all in all.
And that coming rule, will it manifest as Mr. Jukes
would intimate, a grace beyond the present - at least more prevailing grace
than now? On the contrary, it is the rule of "THE ROD OF IRON,"* and the effect
as to His enemies, not their being won by the grace of the gospel, but "dashed
in pieces like a potter’s vessel"
*Psa. ii. 8, 9; Rev. ii. 26, 27.
Now in Rev. xi. 15, to which Mr. Jukes refers, it is indeed said, "The
world-kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ has come," and this does of course
refer to the setting up of what is called the millennial kingdom; but it is
looked at (in a very intelligible way) as the setting up of an authority which
will never cease, a divine kingdom, "the kingdom of our Lord, and of His
Christ," and so, when it is added, "and He shall reign for the ages of ages,"
this does not affect the truth that the mere human form of the kingdom will be
given up. "He shall reign forever and ever." Though He leave the human throne
to sit upon the divine, still "He shall reign." It is the everlasting
pæan rightly then begun.
Certain it is that if as man He reign
till all enemies be under His feet, and then deliver up the kingdom to the
Father, and if death be the last enemy destroyed, - then the ages of ages of
torment begin for most from this point, in stead of ending here. And
Christ’s reign for the ages of ages cannot end here either.
Thus
Mr. Jukes’ foundation is swept away. Another text upon which he relies,
there is not even so plausible an excuse for misinterpreting. For when the
apostle speaks of " Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and for the ages"
(Heb. xiii. 8), he is certainly connecting this either with the faith of the
Christian leaders, of which he has spoken in the verse before, or with the
"divers and strange doctrines" of the verse after, or with both. He is either
showing the unchangeableness of Christ, as answering the confidence of His
disciples’ faith, or else that He is ever the same, to rebuke the divers
and strange doctrines. In either case, there is no question of His being the
Saviour of those who have rejected His salvation; and to translate the name by
which His people know Him, in order to insist upon His being an Anointed
Saviour to those who on the contrary refuse and reject His salvation, - is
nothing less than bold perversion of a blessed truth.
Mr. Jukes’
views on this point need not then detain us longer. But we have yet to consider
the word aionios, "æonial," or eternal.
And it is here that we
find the full phalanx of opposition to the commonly accepted meaning of the
terms. Canon Farrar and Mr. Oxenham here make their stand, not perceiving that
the battle is already gone against them irrecoverably. Messrs. Minton, Roberts,
and others, their opponents in doctrine, coincide with them. But an answer to
one will be at the same time an answer to all the rest. Aionios, as derived
from aion, of course gets its meaning from this also. We have seen that aion
has two meanings in the New Testament: one, that of "age" or dispensation, the
other, of eternity in the commonly understood sense. We may expect then that
aionios will reflect this double sense. And we shall find our anticipations
verified by the fact. Let us first listen, however, to Dr. Farrar.
"I
now come," he says, in the preface to his book, "Eternal Hope," "to aionios,
translated rightly and frequently by ‘eternal,’ and wrongly and
unnecessarily by ‘everlasting.’ I say wrongly on grounds which cannot
be impeached. If in numbers of passages this word does not and cannot mean
‘endless,’ - a fact which none but the grossest and most helpless
ignorance can dispute, - it cannot be right to read that meaning into the word,
because of any a priori bias, in other passages. All scholars alike admit that
in many places aion can only mean ‘age,’ and aionios only
‘age-long,’ or (in the classic sense of the word) secular, which is
often equivalent to ‘indefinite.’ Many scholars who have a good right
to be heard, deny that it ever necessarily means ‘endless’ though it
is predicted of endless things."*
*Doctors differ. Mr. Oxenham in his
"Letter " says "that ‘endless’ was one of (its) senses NO ONE THINKS
OF DENYING." Sect. v., on Dr. Pusey’s Sermon.
In a note he gives
as his authority, so far as the New Testament is concerned, as to aion,†
no reference, and as to aionios three (Rom. xvi. 25; 2 Tim. i. 9; Tit. i. 2).
He adds, "He who said eternal fire used the word a few hours after in a sense
that had nothing to do with time (J. xvii. 3)."
†By a clerical error
aion and aionios - have changed places in the note.
This sense he
mentions in his sermon on hell as implying "something ‘spiritual,’ -
something above and beyond time,* - as when the knowledge of God is said to be
eternal life." He proceeds: - " So that when with your futile billions you
foist into this word the fiction of endless time, you do but give the lie to
the mighty oath of that great angel, who set one foot upon the sea and one upon
the land, and, with hand uplifted to heaven, swore by him that liveth forever
and ever, that time should be no more."‡
*Doctors differ here also.
Mr. Cox, whose disciple Dr. Farrar mainly is, yet speaks on the other hand of
aion and aionios as "words which, as I believe I can show you, so far from
denoting that which is above time, or that which will outlast time, are
saturated through and through with the thought and element of time " (Salvator
Mundi, p. 100).
‡Dr. Farrar shows how he can trifle with Scripture by
admitting in a note that possibly this may mean, - as it most certainly does
mean - "that no further delay should intervene." If there be even a possibility
of this, why argue (as above), from what is ‘possibly’ not what he
quotes?
In his excursus upon the word, at the end of the book, he tells
us that -
"it is not worth while once more to discuss its meaning, when it
has been so ably proved by so many writers that there is no authority whatever
for rendering it ‘everlasting,’ and when even those who like Dr.
Pusey are such earnest defenders of the doctrine of an endless hell, yet admit
that the word only means ‘endless within the sphere of its own
existence,’ so that on their own showing the word does not prove their
point."
And he adds
"It may be worth while, however, once more to
point out to less educated readers, that aion , aionios and their Hebrew
equivalents in all combinations, are repeatedly used of things which have come
and shall come to an end. Even Augustine admits (what indeed no one can deny)
that in Scripture aion, aionios must in many instances mean ‘having an
end,’ and St. Gregory of Nyssa, who at least knew Greek, uses aionios as
the epithet of an interval"
"That the adjective aionios is applied to some
things which are ‘endless’ does not, of course, prove that the word
itself meant endless; and to introduce this meaning into many passages would be
utterly impossible and absurd. . . . Our translators have naturally shrunk from
such a phrase as ‘the endless God.’
The utter dearth of
metaphysical knowledge renders most people incapable of realizing a condition
which is independent of time - a condition which crushes eternity into an hour,
and extends an hour into eternity. But the philosophic Jews and the greatest
Christian Fathers were quite familiar with it. ‘Æon,’ says
Philo, ‘is the life of God, and is not time, but the archetype of time,
and in it there is neither past, present, nor future.’"
This is
Dr. Farrar’s whole argument. It is not all he says, of course; but it
presents fully his thoughts. We may now compare his thoughts with Scripture.
And it is remarkable how little his appeal is to the New Testament. He
refers largely to the Old, that is, to the Septuagint version, but as to the
New, three passages of an exceptional character, in each of which occurs the
phrase æonial times" constitute really his whole appeal! We have seen,
too, that as to the phrases in the New Testament for "forever," etc., he does
not venture one single appeal! This is the final result after so much erudite
research, out of near one hundred and fifty passages to be consulted, one
phrase recurring in three of them is produced!
Dr. Farrar’s will
to produce more, if he could, need not be doubted. His learning is not for me
to question. His mind is enlarged enough to apprehend that metaphysical
eternity of which we shall have more to say by and by, but which the
unmetaphysical part of mankind can so little realize, and which Dr. Beecher
calls, somewhat otherwise interpreting the facts, "to common sense minds,
nonsense." Yet after all, this is the result, after weighing (as we must give
him credit for doing) one hundred and fifty passages, one phrase in three
passages where aionios cannot mean "endless."
And let me put the force
of that a little plainer; for it is a kind of argument we have before
encountered in the mouth of some with whom Dr. Farrar would not perhaps like to
be associated, but which needs to be made plain to be duly appreciated: -
Pneuma cannot be "spirit" in the first clause of John iii. 8; it ought not
therefore to be "spirit" in the last part of the same verse.
Psuche is over
and over again used for "life," where to translate it "soul" would be an
impossibility. Therefore you cannot insist upon its being "soul" where the Lord
speaks of man as being unable to kill it.
Let us put the parallel: -
Aionios cannot mean "endless" in a passage where it would read "endless
times." Therefore it cannot mean this when God is spoken of as the "eternal
God."
I can quite understand that Dr. Farrar will not own his argument
in that shape, but its only shame with him is the shame of its nakedness. He
has clothed it with fair words, which after all cannot prevent its halting
badly.
Why does he not show us that aionios cannot mean "endless" in
some of the passages in which we affirm it does, instead of taking up those in
which we are as clear as he is that it does not? Why does he avoid the real
issue, to create a false one? Dr. Farrar’s animus evidently obscures his
judgment, fatally to the argument he maintains. "Even Augustine," he tells us,
"admits (what, indeed, no one can deny) that in Scripture, aion , aionios must
in many instances MEAN ‘having an end.’ " I do not believe myself the
only one, by some thousands at least, who would deny it. Nay, I must believe
that it is merely careless writing when Dr. F. affirms this. Aionios never
meant "having an end" yet, and none should know it better than himself. It IS
affirmed of things which have an end, and in those cases of course cannot mean
"endless." No one will deny that: and that is all (I suppose) that he means to
affirm.
A moment yet as to the Septuagint.
Dr. Farrar ignores the
necessary change of meaning in words in lapse of time, and which Dr.
Beecher’s history of it (certainly from no point of view hostile to Dr.
F.’s theory) so plainly shows as to the word in question. Even the
Septuagint does not refuse the later meaning of aion by any means altogether,
while the New Testament shows this later meaning almost superseding the
earlier, as the time-sense in the Septuagint itself has superseded the earlier
Homeric. It is well-nigh as vain to bring up the Septuagint to settle the case
for the New Testament, as to bring up Homer to settle it for the Septuagint.
And, comparing the Old Testament with the New, where have you the
leolain vaed* of the Hebrew reproduced in the Greek? That expression
which does indeed imply a "beyond" to the olam is never used for the New
Testament aion. Save only a word twice used (and where in one passage out of
the two, people deny for it also that it means "everlasting "†) there is
no other expression for this but aionios; no other for eternity but some phrase
compounded of aion. The question is one of blotting or not every phrase for
eternity out of Scripture.
*Dr. Farrar takes even this term as not
implying true eternity; but. the one exception is merely a limitation from the
nature of the thing spoken of, which in no wise shows a limitation elsewhere.
If we speak even of the "everlasting" hills so often urged, does that make Dr.
Farrar doubt what we mean by "everlasting"?
†Aïdios , Rom. i.
20; Jude 6.
I beg Dr. Farrar’s forgiveness, I must modify that
statement. He will allow us to say "eternal" if only by that we do not mean
"everlasting." But does not he know that we of the less learned see no
difference between the two? Of course I do not dispute his right to go back to
derivations and to speak of ævum or of ætas, as he will. The
derivation of a word is one thing; its actual use is another. Do we use eternal
in any other sense than everlasting really? As I have said, it really comes to
this, that the expression (in the sense we have received) must disappear out of
the English language - for aught I know, out of every other too - as well as
out of Scripture. Dr. Beecher will not let us have "everlasting" any more than
Dr. Farrar will "eternal," and with just as good reason. So serious is the
question. And we can only conclude that if learning and sense are so opposed as
they seem to be, we may as well retain the latter and dismiss the former.
We might then perhaps as well return to simplicity and English, but we
must not copy the example of those whom we have taxed with neglect of
ascertaining the New Testament use of the word. We must seek ourselves to
ascertain it; and out of 68 passages remaining to us, omitting the three
produced by Dr. Farrar, we may surely discover the ordinary sense attaching to
it.
But first, what of these three passages? what does the expression
mean - "æonial times"? Does "æonial" there speak of limited
duration? I think we may very fairly argue that it does not there speak of
duration at all. "Times" is the word which there implies duration, and limited
duration too, of course. Why then should another word be added to express the
same thing?
That textual criticism deprecated so much by Dr. Farrar
will help us here. We have before heard of a mystery "hidden from ages and
generations," and now made manifest to the saints (Col. i. 26), and we have
seen that the ages here are those of preparation for Christ’s coming, and
closed by His death; so that now upon us the ends of the ages are come, and we
have the full admonition of what happened unto them as types. A reference to
Rom. xvi. 26 will show that to these "æonial" or "age-times" the apostle
refers: times which had the character of "ages" or of dispensations. This is
what "æonial" here signifies: not the limited duration of the times,
which as "times" are necessarily limited, but their being special, divinely
constituted, times.
Æonial here then strictly means " belonging
to the ages": it gets its meaning from the first sense of aion. But inasmuch as
aion has the sense of eternity as well, we may expect to find it also
signifying "eternal," "belonging to the age of ages." Let us see how far we can
prove this meaning to be in aionios, and how far general in the New Testament
this meaning is.
Now, one very plain passage, one would think, to show
that it means "eternal," is that in which it is contrasted with what is
temporal: "the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not
seen are eternal" (2 Cor. iv. 18). Here limitless duration must be the contrast
with the limited.
With this the "eternal weight of glory" of the verse
preceding must be connected; and also "the house eternal in the heavens" of the
following one.
So again in Philemon 15 the apostle writes: "For perhaps he
therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldst receive him forever . . . a
brother beloved;" and here the limited duration expressed in aionios is again
contrasted with the limited "for a season."
Thus simply is it proved to
have the sense "eternal." And why then should its force be doubted when we have
it applied to God, to His "power" and "glory," to the "Spirit," to the kingdom
of Christ, to the saints’ "life," "inheritance," "habitations,"
"salvation," "redemption"? And this covers all the occurrences in the New
Testament save those relating to the future judgment, and two others perhaps
somewhat less decisive. Of these the "everlasting covenant" we need not doubt
to be strictly such, only referring to the past, in our human way of speaking,
the "covenant from everlasting"; while "the everlasting gospel" gives us a case
of necessary limitation by the subject to which the term is applied, and which
our English words, while incontestable as to their meaning, equally admit.
I do not see how the New Testament could give us much more assurance of
"æonial" being (save where necessarily limited by the subject) "eternal"
in the fullest sense.
But Dr. Farrar believes this is only because of
"the utter dearth of metaphysical knowledge" which renders us "incapable of
realizing a condition which crushes eternity into an hour, and extends an hour
into eternity." We doubt sincerely if Dr. Farrar can realize it. "Eternity
crushed into an hour," and that when time is eliminated from the thought, we
believe to be simply a very gross absurdity. How can what is not time at all be
"crushed into an hour"? And how can an hour which is "time," be extended into
an eternity which is not? Perhaps we should get on no better with Philo and the
Christian "fathers." We do think there is more of Plato than of Scripture in
their thoughts as to this, and perhaps it is this at bottom which makes Dr.
Farrar reject the New Testament "ages of ages" as being the true expression of
eternity; for here, in pity to our human faculties it may be, but still the
element of time is not, eliminated from the idea of eternity; eternity is just
illimitable time. And we may thank God He does not write merely for
metaphysicians, but for "babes."
But then again we read that aionios
"is in its second sense something ‘spiritual’ - something above and
beyond time, - as when the knowledge of God is said to be eternal life." Does
Dr. Farrar really mean that "eternal" here signifies "spiritual"? Or does he
mean to refer it to that metaphysical eternity which may be crushed into an
hour and be eternity all the same? If it be the latter I have said all that is
needful; if the former, I scarcely need reply. Why should not aionios be
"something" holy, because "eternal life" is that; or anything else almost by
the substitution of which the obnoxious sense of eternity may be most
thoroughly blotted out?
Go To Chapter
Twenty-Eight
Home | Links | Literature