The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1888-06-09

|
that it signifies indefinite, but limited
duration. He says (p. 26S) ''Unfortu-
nately aiOn has no exact equivalent in
English, and the word eternal is almost
unknown to the Old Testament, while
paraphrases everlasting, forever, ETC.,
which are adopted in our version, give
a palpably false color to Hebrew
thought. English readers of the Bible
may learn with surprise that eternal is
hardly ever used as an epithet of
Jehovah, apparently from sense of its
unworthiness and inadequacy, but is
freely used to describe such transitory
ordinances as the covenant of circumci-
sion, the trumpet blowing, the scape-
goat, the ritual of atonement, and the
Levitical Sabbath. He reminds his
readers of the Old Testament language,
"eternal throughout your generations"
showing that the word denotes limit
ed period. He entirely accepts the
declaration, a thousand times made by
our scholars, that in classic and sacred
literature an indefinite period is denot-
ed (p. 269),. "the length of the period is
very various, and can only be determin-
ed by the context"
He shows that when it is applied to
God, the word itself does not signify in
terminable duration, inasmuch as it is
thus employed ito the dion and beyond"
| (Ps. liv. 90 and "before the Hion," prov.
viii. 23). He also calls attention to
the plural form of the word (oiones
ai0n0n), and accurately observes that
greater cycles are made to include
lesser cycles" by such forms of the
word, ''but this multiplication in no
way implied infnity, but the reverse;
infnity is one, but times (aiOns) are
manifold" He tells US that in the
New Testament we have 1.-The aion to
come" "this dion," the lend of the
ajonS, ''"the ends of the aionS," etc.
The adjective, he says, retains in
the Greek Testament the same force as
in the Septuagint," " and as applied to
life, its meaning is not endless dura-
ton, but permanence, and that its
sense is quality rather than quantity.
1t is synonymous with "true life,"
zoe aIethine. ut signifies permanence,
(p. 276) not absolutely, but in relation
toalife, whether long or short. 3" "Some
modern theology" he says, Up. 27Sl
''seems to me to degrade this Christian
ideal by confounding eternal life with
an everlasting existence in the future.
Reason may teach us, as it taught Plato,
to believe in the indestructibility of
human soul; but assuredly, faith in the
present reality of the invisible world
lies nearer to the heart of religion, and
to this sphere belongs our eternal life,
for 1t is COTS gift to as nol0 from heaUen,"
etc.
In brief, this able and learned article
establishes clearly the positions long
since taken in our literature, and to-
ward which the scholarship of Chris
tendon is continually trending, that
the noun and the adjective have no in
herent meaning, but are defined in any
instance by the subject with which they
are connected; that everlasting is an
inaccurate rendering, and that eternal
may be used, not as carrying the sense
of eternal duration, but as pertaining
to eternal qualities, so that "eternal
! Cdi0ni0n) life is life not necessarily
of endless duration-that thought is
not in the word at all-but it is a life
partaking of the spiritual qualities of
! that aiOn which Jesus established.
In saying that "aion has no exact
equivalent in English, y the author in
dicates that it should not be translated,
but anglicised and transliterated. If in
every instance in the Bible we read as
we should 'eon,' "9ons of 2ons,"
"Gonian, ETC., world of misappre-
hension would be saved. Then, instead
of reading in Revelation 1.-The smoke of
their torment ascends forever and ever'
"a meaning utterly foreign to the sense
of the words-we should read "for icons
of @ons," which is exactly what John
wrote, and whatever form of the word
we should find, we should be able to
determine by its connections the exact
intention of the sacred writer.
The writer of this paper does not
suggest the retention of the word a;on
in its English form, aeon, but in say
ing that we have no English equivalent
he plainly intimates such a course,
while all the considerations he urges
irrefutably demonstrate that duration
without limit does not reside in the
| term.
1t is gratifying to find in such pub
licatiOn a full Endorsement of the con-
clusions of our own critics and scholars.
ONE AND ONE ARE MORE THAN
TXUO