Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

CHAPTER XI.

EVERLASTING, ETERNAL, FOREVER, IN CONNECTION WITH PUN

ISHMENT.

SECTION I.

CLASSIC USAGE AND LEXICOGRAPHY.

It is worthy of note that the words Atv and Avios, everlasting, eternal, forever, occur not less than one hundred and seventy-nine times in the New Testament, and yet are applied to punishment only nine times. The expression "everlasting punishment" is found once only, "eternal damnation" once only, "everlasting destruction" once only, and "everlasting fire" twice.

If these phrases do really set forth a life of endless pain, and Jesus came to announce this as the doom of the wicked, it is beyond measure astonishing that he should mention it in this form only once or twice in the whole course of his ministry! Yet this is the fact, according to Matthew and Mark; and if we had only the gospels of Luke and John, we should have no proof that he ever mentioned it at all, for they did not attach sufficient importance to the fact to record it in their account of his teachings! Is it reasonable to suppose that, if these phrases had such a terrible meaning, they would have forgotten or neglected to say that Christ uttered them? If they had under

stood him to mean this, would not the special form of speech he used have graven itself into their memory?

And again: if the phrases in review were chosen of Jesus to express the dreadful doctrine of endless torment, is it probable that Paul, Peter and Jude would employ them only once in their epistles? and John and James not at all? Think for a moment of the faithful, earnest, out-spoken Paul, really believing in this doctrine, and believing that Christ taught it in the phrases "everlasting punishment" and "eternal damnation," and writing thirteen or fourteen epistles on religious doctrines, and preaching everywhere to Jews and Gentiles, and yet only once using this language! It is beyond belief."

It must be confessed by every just-minded person, that these facts furnish a strong presumptive argument that the words and phrases are not employed in the Scriptures to describe a condition of unending suffering. They are in themselves weighty evidence that the Greek diários, or the English "everlasting," is expressive of indefinite rather than endless time. And this brings us to the inquiry

What is the meaning of the Greek Air and Avios, rendered "everlasting," "eternal," "forever," &c., in the New Testament?

Usage determines the meaning of words. Lexicographers do not create meanings or definitions, but report them as gathered from the usage of the popu

And the reply cannot be made here, that is sometimes offered in regard to the word Gehenna (hell,) that it is a Hebrew word, and therefore would not be understood by the Gentiles. The words reviewed in the text are pure Greek, and if the apostles had believed the doctrine of endless woe, and believed these words expressed it, they would doubtless have been in constant use.

lar writers, and standard authors, of the language. The only method of understanding the current and real value of the words in review, is to examine the writings of Greek authors, and learn how they used them, or what meaning was put upon them in the ordinary speech of the people. This our space will permit us to do only to a very limited extent; but the examples shall be fairly reported, from various sources, so that the reader may have materials for forming a correct judgment in the case.

Aristotle has been appealed to by Theologians as final authority in regard to the origin and meaning of these words. The substance of the passage so much relied on is that aion is composed of aei and on, signifying always being; or, perhaps, continuous being, and closes with the following: "And the infinite time of all things, and the period comprehending that infinity, is aion, deriving its name from aei einai. Whence also it appears that it is applied to other things, to some accurately, but to others in the lax signification of being, or even life."'

Now let us suppose that Aristotle intends to define aion and aionios as meaning primarily and radically infinite time, yet this does not settle the usage of the words, nor their meaning in the New Testament. And it is precisely at this point that theological critics have made their great mistake. It is not the definition which the critic may force upon the words, or the philologist wring from their roots, but the popular sense and usage, that we have to deal with. Christ did not preach to philosophers, scholars and critics,

1 De Calo, Lib. i. caput 9. See, also, De Mundo, cap. 11, where the definition is repeated.

familiar with all the niceties of lexicography, and all the delicate shades of definition grounded on the origin and composition of words; but to the common people speaking the language of common life, and familiar only with the ordinary meaning and popular use of words.

And even Aristotle himself, whatever his scholarly exegesis, shows in the very passage in which he gives it, what is the popular usage of the words. "For the period," says he, "which comprehends the time of every one's life, beyond which nothing exists according to nature, is called his aion"-i. e., his period, existence, being, life-time. This concedes all we ever claimed or asked. No matter whether this is a critically accurate use of the term or not; the only question is, Was it a current use? did the people employ it in this sense of indefinite time, or time limited by the subject to which it was applied? Aristotle himself answers the question, and shows us that the words were applied to persons and things, to periods and eras, temporary by their very nature, lasting longer or shorter, according to circumstances.

The same rule holds good in all languages. Even admitting the absolute definition, all words have a popular definition. Take the word "endless," or "infinite," or any similar term, and the fact will be obvious. How often we hear of "endless talkers," "an endless controversy," &c.; of "infinite folly," of the "infinite tenderness" of a mother for her offspring, of something "infinitely grand," or "infinitely beautiful." Now, suppose one should go into an elaborate argument, or a learned and critical exegesis, to prove that the primary and radical meaning

of the word was absolute infinity of time or measure. It would determine nothing as to their meaning in any given case. Here is a popular use of the words, and the meaning in any special case, limited or unlimited, must be determined by the subject and the connection. Common sense has more to do with it than philology.

But aside from this, a little examination will show that the very language in which the great philosopher has attempted his definition, discovers that the substantive meaning of the word is, after all, completeness of time or being, and not endless time. Observe how he connects his statements: "The period which comprehends the time of every one's life is called his aion" and then immediately adds: "For this reason, therefore, the period of the whole heaven, even the infinite time of all things and the period comprehending that infinity, is aion, immortal and divine, deriving its name from aei einai.” For what reason is

infinite time or eternity called aion? Because, he says, "the period which comprehends the time of every one's life is called his aion"-therefore infinite time, or the period embracing the life of the universe, is called its AION.

The very structure of the sentence shows that the word designates the period or complete life of any person or thing, or the time of its being, whether longer or shorter; and therefore, as infinite time or eternity is the period of the heavens, or the time of their duration, it is called the immortal and divine aion. And the very use of the descriptive word "immortal," shows the necessity felt of adding strength to the meaning of aion; and establishes the fact that it

« ÎnapoiContinuă »