Aion-terminology and literal endlessness

 

Aion-terminology and literal endlessness

“But if punishment is to be weighed out according to sin, not even so would punishment be endless. For as regards that which is said in the Gospel, 'These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal;' [Mt 25:46] this word 'eternal' is not definite: for if it be not so, how did Peter say to our Lord, 'Thou shalt never wash my feet,' [Jn 13:8] and yet He washed him? And of Babylon He said, 'No man shall dwell therein for ever and ever,' [Is 13:20] and behold many generations dwell therein.” (Solomon of Basra probably quoting Diodore of Tarsus, book of the Bee, chapter 60, https://sacred-texts.com/chr/bb/bb60.htm )

Much interesting things have been written by defenders of the doctrine of ‘universal salvation’ about how the Greek word ‘aionios’ (and cognate expressions like ‘eis ton aiona’) have been mistranslated as ‘eternal’ or ‘everlasting’. Supposedly, this is the reason why the doctrine of ‘endless torment’ took prominence and became the more or less ‘official’ doctrine.

Supposedly, also, the ‘Greek Fathers’ were more aware about the meaning of the word and the doctrine of ‘endless torment’ was mostly due to the ‘Latin Fathers’ who incorrectly translated the word as ‘aeternus’, ignoring that ‘aionios’ means something like ‘pertaining to an age’ (i.e. an aion  when interpreted as the English ‘eon’ or ‘age’). I am not saying that this is entirely wrong but, in my opinion, this is a bit an overstating of the case.

I have seen the above quote, for instance, as evidence that the Syriac Christian writer Solomon of Basra (fl. 13^th century) or the ancient Greek Diodore of Tarsus (fl. 4^th century) understood the word ‘aionios’ or the related expression ‘eis ton aiona’ (often translated as forever or never, if the sentence is negative) as referring to something pertaining to an age.

As it happens, the excerpt is, after all, arguing that one can’t conclude that the punishment is literally eternal simply because it is called ‘eternal/everlasting’ in the Gospel. Rather, the argument here is that similar expressions have been used to something that did, in fact, have an end. St. Peter ‘promise’ to ‘never’ (eis ton aiona) wash Jesus’ feet was broken and, also, the promise that Babylon will be inhabited ‘for ever and ever’ (‘eis ton aiona’ again in the Greek translation) was also broken.

‘Eis ton aiona’ also appears in the Greek translation of Genesis 3:22 (“He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever (eis ton aiona).”) as well as in John 11:26 (“and whoever lives by believing in me will never (eis ton aiona) die.”), where it is difficult to believe that the expression doesn’t refer to literal true unendingness.  

No lexical argument that the words/expressions here refer to an age have been made. So one wonders if truly these figures that endorsed a punishment of finite duration were criticizing their opponents because the latter were mistranslating a word would have make more clear the content of their criticism.

To me all the above simply means that according to Solomon/Diodore sometimes the Scriptures use the language of ‘eternity’ to refer to something that, ultimately, might not be literally ‘without end’. Soon after, either Solomon or Diodore continues writing:

“In the 'Book of Memorials' he says: 'I hold what the most celebrated of the holy Fathers say, that He cuts off a little from much. The penalty of Gehenna is a man's mind; for the punishment there is of two kinds, that of the body and that of the mind. That of the body is perhaps in proportion to the degree of sin, and He lessens and diminishes its duration; but that of the mind is for ever, and the judgment is for ever.' But in the New Testament le-`âlam [Syriac word for ‘eternal’/’aionios’/’eis ton aionia’] is not without end.” (ibid.)

Again, if the mistake was simply a mistranslation, we would expect that a lexical criticism that showed how, in fact, aion-related words and expressions did refer to age. Surprisingly, this is not found.

In any case, it is also true that even in English words like ‘endless’, ‘eternal’ or ‘everlasting’ might refer to something that it isn’t literally endless. “This lesson is endless” is probably a hyperbolic statement that is made out of frustration and refers to the fact that the lesson is ‘incredibly long’. An ‘everlasting transformation’ might refer to an irreversible transformation with everlasting effects rather than a transformation that never ends. An ‘eternal destruction’ is perhaps an irreversible destruction.

If the above is true, then, all of this would show a certain plasticity of the language about ‘eternity’ and the Bible and, perhaps, if the ‘everlasting/eternal punishment’ could be interpreted as an irreversible ‘annihilation’, it could, in my opinion, be called in such a way. So, the ‘eternal punishment’ would completely annihilate evil. This seems, indeed, the idea behind the fragment of Theodore of Mopsuestia (fl. 5^th century) quoted in the same chapter where the punishments of the afterlife are interpreted as purifying and educative:

“Those who have here chosen fair things will receive in the world to come the pleasure of good things with praises; but the wicked who have turned aside to evil things all their life, when they are become ordered in their minds by penalties and the fear that springs from them, and choose good things, and learn how much they have sinned by having persevered in evil things and not in good things, and by means of these things receive the knowledge of the highest doctrine of the fear of God, and become instructed to lay hold of it with a good will, will be deemed worthy of the happiness of the Divine liberality. For He would never have said, "Until thou payest the uttermost farthing," unless it had been possible for us to be freed from our sins through having atoned for them by paying the penalty; neither would He have said, "he shall be beaten with many stripes," or "he shall be beaten with few stripes," unless it were that the penalties, being meted out according to the sins, should finally come to an end.” (ibid.)

Clearly, Theodore saw punishments as educative and purifying and also quoted some texts form the Synoptic Gospels (see Matthew 5:26/Luke 12:59 and Luke 12:47-48) as textual evidence in support of his view.

So, as interesting as arguments that ‘aion’ might in fact mean ‘age’ and ‘aionios’ might mean ‘of the age’ and so on may be, it is far more interesting to show that even if one accepts the traditional understanding of those terms, one is not obliged to accept the traditional position of ‘endless torments’ simply because of that.

Also, in the ‘universalist’ or ‘universalist-leaning’ texts that posited the possibility of post-mortem salvation via intercession, one can’t find linguistic arguments. For instance, see this quote from the Sybilline Oracles:

“To these pious ones imperishable God, the universal ruler, will also give another thing. Whenever they ask the imperishable God to save men from the raging fire and deathless gnashing he will grant it, and he will do this. For he will pick them out again from the undying fire and set them elsewhere and send them on account of his own people to another eternal life with the immortals in the Elysian plain where he has the long waves of the deep perennial Acherusian lake.” (Sibylline Oracles, Book 2, 330–338, source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Peter#Prayers_for_those_in_hell )

Here one doesn’t find a denial that the terms ‘deathless’ or ‘undying’  have a different meaning when applied to the ‘fire’ or the ‘gnashing’. Nevertheless, this text appears to accept at least the possibility of deliverance from such punishments.