“As we work on taking personal responsibility for our behaviour, confront our own dysfunctional patterns and grieve our losses, we are taking steps toward living at an altitude that transcends the level of the petty, the inane and the insipid. We disconnect from the narcissism of popular culture. We do not take things anywhere near as personally as we did before. We keep our pride in check and recognise we are not the centre of the universe. We heal our wounds before we inflict them on others. We recognise that our capacity to harm and persecute others is equal to our capacity to be victimized by others. We begin to crave the wisdom of the ancients and of our elders – recognising that perennial truths never die and will always satisfy a seekers soul. But, the price of admission to living and breathing at this altitude is high, very, very, high. The price of admission is a suffering which is transmuted into the courage that only faith can produce – the courage to be fully human. Otherwise suffering just leads to more suffering, whether in the form of a victim or persecutor – and the line between these two roles can be ever so thin.”

Abdul Saad, clinical psychologist at Vital Minds Psychology, Sidney Australia

Yesterday I shared a long post covering the mistranslation of “Gehenna” into “Hell”, and explaining the history of Gehenna as well as some proof texts that are misused to defend eternal torment. Today, I will focus in on the word mistranslated “eternal”, and show why verses which speak of “eternal punishment” are also mistranslations. Enjoy!

The Greek word “aionios” is the word translated “eternal” every time you see it in the New Testament, including where it talks about “eternal fire” and “eternal punishment”. This word “aionios” does not mean never-ending. The Greeks had a word which signified “endless” (“aidios”) but that word was not employed for these matters.

Dr. J.W. Hansen, in his short book Aion-Aionios, mentions Aristotle’s use of the word aidios saying,

“[Aristotle] says: ‘aion sunekes kai aidios,’ ‘an eternal (aidios) aion ‘pertaining to God.’ The fact that Aristotle found it necessary to add aidios to aion to ascribe eternity to God demonstrates that he found no sense of eternity in the word aion, and utterly discards the idea that he held the word to mean endless duration.” (p. 22)

The word “aionios” is the adjective form of aion which is where we get our word “eon”, which means an age most of the time but also means “an unknown period”. It is equal to the Hebrew word “olam”, which can mean “age”, or can communicate something more poetic like if one were to say something is “into the horizon.” “Olam” is used for hills (“the everlasting hills”), ages (“from everlasting to everlasting” literally “from age to age”), and judgments on Israel in the Old Testament that had a beginning and an end.

G. Campbell Morgan, a now deceased yet renowned Bible expositor, makes the following remarkable observation concerning “aionios”:

“Let me say to Bible students that we must be very careful how we use the word eternity. We have fallen into great error in our constant use of that word. There is no word in the whole book of God corresponding with our eternal, which, as commonly used among us, means absolutely without end.”

• “It must be admitted that the Greek word which is rendered ‘eternal’ does not, in itself, involve endlessness, but rather, duration, whether through an age or succession of ages, and that it is therefore applied in the New Testament to periods of time that have had both a beginning and ending.” (Elliots Commentary on the Whole Bible)

• “The adjective ‘aionios’ in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective in themselves carries the sense of ‘endless’ or ‘everlasting.’ Aionios means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time.” (Dr. Marvin Vincent, Word Studies of the New Testament)

• “Since aion meant ‘age,’ aionios means, properly, ‘belonging to an age,’ or ‘age-long,’ and anyone who asserts that it must mean ‘endless’ defends a position which even Augustine practically abandoned twelve centuries ago. Even if aion always meant ‘eternity,’ which is not the case in classic or Hellenistic Greek, aionios could still mean only ‘belonging to eternity’ and not ‘lasting through it.'” (Dr. Farrars book, Mercy and Judgment)

• “Since, as we have seen, the noun aion refers to a period of time it appears, very improbable that the derived adjective aionios would indicate infinite duration, nor have we found any evidence in Greek writing to show that such a concept was expressed by this term.” (Time and Eternity by G. T. Stevenson)

• “The Bible has no expression for endlessness. All the Biblical terms imply or denote long periods.” (Professor Herman Oldhausen, German Lutheran theologian)

• “The Hebrew was destitute of any single word to express endless duration. The pure idea of eternity is not found in any of the ancient languages.” (Professor Knappe of Halle)

Professor J.I. Packer admits, “Granted that, as is rightly urged, ‘eternal’ (aionios) in the New Testament means ‘belonging to the age to come’ rather than expressing any directly chronological notion [as in endlessness].”

Professor N.T. Wright agrees and says the following:

“Aionios relates to the Greek ‘aion’, which often roughly translates the Hebrew ‘olam’. Some Jews thought of there being two ‘ages’ – ha olam ha-zeh, the present age, and ha olam ha-ba, the age to come. Aionian punishment and the like would be the punishment in the age to come.”

“Eternal life” and “eternal punishment” could more properly be translated “life of the age to come” and “punishment of the age to come”, not denoting endlessness. The “life of the age to come” does not end, and this is not signified by the word “aionios”, but because it is the divine life of the resurrection where death no longer reigns and we exist for what we were purposed, not to mention that other Scriptures talk about us being given immortality. The “punishment of the age to come” does end, because God’s justice is restorative, punishment is not what any creature is purposed for, and God’s will is for all to be reconciled and have life.

If it is confusing to you that “Aionios” is used for a life that doesn’t end and for a punishment that does end, then let me provide an easy example. If I say “I will eat cake tomorrow” and “I will die tomorrow”, I have used the word “tomorrow” both for something that will be temporary as well as for something that will be permanent. “Tomorrow” does not describe something temporary or permanent, but merely a future time when something will happen.

The fact that Bibles should correctly read “punishment of the age to come” and “fire of the age to come” instead of “eternal punishment/fire” opens up a variety of possibilities, even ones that St. Gregory of Nyssa entertained, which was that this punishment was curative.

What about where it says of the beast and the false prophet: “The smoke of their torment rises forever and ever”? The original Greek word is:

“aionas ton aionon.”

“Aion” is where we get our word “eon” and it means essentially the same thing: an age. “Ton” does not mean “and” but rather “of” or “belonging to”. So a proper translation of this is “The smoke of their torment rises unto the age of the ages.” This makes sense when you realize that forever and ever doesn’t even make sense. Forever and then another ever? Forever plus some more ever? “Forever and ever” to us has become a way to emphasize a things eternality, but in the Greek such a concept did not exist and its redundancy would have been considered ridiculous.

“Perhaps the most significant example of this for our purposes is Isaiah 34:9-10, for it closely parallels the two passages in Revelation. In this passage Isaiah says that the fire that shall consume Edom shall burn ‘night and day’ and ‘shall not be quenched.’ Its smoke ‘shall go up forever’ and no one shall pass through this land again ‘forever and ever.’ Obviously, this is symbolic, for the fire and smoke of Edom’s judgment isn’t still ascending today. If this is true of Isaiah, we should be less inclined to interpret similar expressions in the book of Revelation literally.” – Greg Boyd

Nowhere in Scripture does it declare that the consequence of sin has to do with some legal punishment over some eternal length of time, namely never-ending, but everywhere it says that the consequence of sin is an ontological corruption leading to death. A death that God triumphs over in Christ, who, as the second Adam, is as consequentially universal in scope as the first Adam.

By Jacob M. Wright

Today got me listening to Dr. Barker again. She never fails. Driving to therapy and back I heard a new to me lecture and loved it. While making dinner I turned an old one, making this at least the 3rd time I will have listened to it, and finally, when I heard this beauty, I stopped what I was doing and took a note 📝.

Margaret Barker “Theosis and Divinization” at about minute 47:40.

“The Servant King – (emptied himself, as Matthew quoted in his gospel, for the putting away of sin). His role, to restore all things, the means and focus of unity. This is hidden in the verse where we find temple word play and double meaning. Isaiah 53:5 reads as we are familiar with it …. upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed.

That can also be read ….. our covenant bond of peace was upon him (his responsibility), and by his joining us together we are healed.

This was the central line of the poem because this was the main role of the servant king. This is the prophecy expounded by Jesus on the road to Emmaus when he explained his suffering and resurrection.”

The 2 most quoted OT text in the NT are Isaiah 53:52 and Psalm 110. https://youtu.be/nOnHDQgIoCU

“This is everything I have to tell you about love: nothing.

This is everything I’ve learned about marriage: nothing.

Only that the world out there is complicated,

and there are beasts in the night, and delight and pain,

and the only thing that makes it okay, sometimes,

is to reach out a hand in the darkness and find another hand to squeeze,

and not to be alone.

It’s not the kisses, or never just the kisses: it’s what they mean.

Somebody’s got your back.

Somebody knows your worst self and somehow doesn’t want to rescue you

or send for the army to rescue them.

It’s not two broken halves becoming one.

It’s the light from a distant lighthouse bringing you both safely home

because home is wherever you are both together.

So this is everything I have to tell you about love and marriage: nothing,

like a book without pages or a forest without trees.

Because there are things you cannot know before you experience them.

Because no study can prepare you for the joys or the trials.

Because nobody else’s love, nobody else’s marriage, is like yours,

and it’s a road you can only learn by walking it,

a dance you cannot be taught,

a song that did not exist before you began, together, to sing.

And because in the darkness you will reach out a hand,

not knowing for certain if someone else is even there.

And your hands will meet,

and then neither of you will ever need to be alone again.

And that’s all I know about love.” ~~ Neil Gaiman

“All I could think about was Veronica Roth’s dystopian novel Divergent, in which people choose factions based on their personalities. The axiom was: “Faction before blood. More than family, our factions are where we belong.” Now that’s scary. But what’s even scarier is that it’s starting to edge closer to our reality than the nightmarish fiction it was conceived to be.

Walking away from people we know and love because of our support for strangers we really don’t know, can barely believe, and definitely don’t love, who for sure won’t be there to drive us to chemo or bring over food when the kids are sick- that’s the shadow side of sorting.” – Berne Brown Braving the Wilderness

Huh. Walking away from people we know and love because of our support for strangers. I’m struck. If this isn’t 100% Mormonism. For a church that is supposed to be about families, that families can be together forever, they sure are quick to throw away their children, grandchildren, loved ones, because a stranger who calls himself prophet can never be wrong.

It is a religion based off of sacrifice; the sacrifice of others, not self. Brigham Young could found his Deseret terrestrial kingdom.

I’m so glad I am getting the chance to build my own family, that I can choose them over factions or group thought.

By first confronting the wounds of childhood that were endured and working through the pain, the sufferer will be able to relieve themselves of the burden of bearing the shame of the parent who was not there for them. By seeing the parent as suffering from their own traumas, as having a disease, victims can shift out of a victim mindset and instead, adopt a survivor and thriver mindset.

While the past is in the past, if victims don’t uncover the dynamics that led to the wounds, they will be stuck in a never-ending cycle of confusion, just trying to get validation from others. This sets them up to seek out relationships with narcissistic people who will perpetuate the pattern. Recovery includes healing the wounds of childhood and filling the deep hole in the soul that leaves victims feeling empty and estranged. It is identifying beliefs that were blindly created in order to make sense of the pain such as “I am unlovable”, “I am unworthy”, or “I am an embarrassment” etc. It is reconnecting with the inner child and giving oneself the much-deserved love they never received.

As recoverers revive their true and authentic selves, they are empowered with the realization that no one is responsible for healing but themselves. Once this is acknowledged, they can build a more healthy, sustainable life. While one may be a victim of their past, there is always an opportunity to Be The Cause (R) of a better future. By Yitz Epstein

https://psychologicalhealingcenter.com/narcissism-and-the-abandonment-wound/

“That which you feel yourself to be – you are.

And you are given that which you are.

So assume the feeling that would be yours were you already in possession of your wish and your wish must be realized.

So live in the feeling of being the one you want to be and that you shall be.

Every feeling makes a subconscious impression and unless it is counteracted by a more powerful feeling of an opposite nature, it must be expressed.

Your feelings are different from your thoughts. Your feelings are what you experience in your body, the dominant of two feelings is the one expressed.” Neville Goddard

Love this. The wilderness is not about having a hard time in a bleak place. It’s about stripping away false systems, cultured norms, and getting to know God in all of his many facets. It forges in you the ability to take and steward your personal promised land. – Seneca Schurbon

When they heard you were summoned to the wilderness

They laughed and mocked you

They were happy when your

life came to a screeching halt

They thought you would

die in the wilderness

That the hard processes

would get the better of you

They didn’t know your God

The distance He would go

for those He loves

He will leave the ninety-nine

to look for the one

hurting soul

You were standing there

all eyes on you

Wishing the earth would

swallow you

Your heart torn to pieces

Many questions on your lips

Still you made your way

to the wilderness

Whispered yes, when

you wanted to hide

You could have ignored

Papa’s whisper to come

away with Him

Be like Orpah and never

pursue your destiny

This was just a detour

Leading you to where

He always knew you

would reign

You fought your way

through your pain and scattered emotions

While holding on to Papa

with all your might

You could live without

many things, but not for

a second without Him

Worship became your

greatest weapon

Silencing the voice of your

critics and the voice of satan

Something irrevocable was

birthed inside of you during

these trying times

Where deep would follow

Deep blindly

You found your reason for living

Your purpose for existence

You love Him more than life

You didn’t know that those

Papa greatly uses

He calls aside

He invades their lives

He trains them intensely

Till He can make them His

dwelling place

We didn’t disappear like

they wished we would

Pain could not stop us

Religion could no longer

cage us

We did not die in the wilderness

The wilderness matured us

in ways we never imagined

All over the earth the wilderness daughters are arising

Everything about them are different

They carry the sound of

heaven in their mouths

Its a weighty sound that

was obtained through persecution, rejection and fiery trials

It cannot be imitated by the

ones who never visited the wilderness

They wear their scars, boldly

and unapologetically

Their scars prepared them

for their destinies

Lionesses are arising from

the wilderness dust

Shining with His glory

Ready to take their places

No longer intimidated by

fake giants

They know their worth

They know who they are

They are ready to invade

the earth with the heart of the Father beating through them!

~ Ebigale Wilson

Wilderness Daughters

The Journey

Restored Ministries

I’m disappointed though not surprised in this rebuff from the administrator. I understand that you had a creative idea, organized it, and had certain hopes and expectations, unwittingly it seems that from the start your hopes have been thwarted. I’m thinking though that it is you, and not Elder Chantdown who seems to have missed the point of the stated purpose of this website. You set intended parameters that you judged to have gone far afield. Yet I’m convinced that this statement from you shows your ignorance of the field you’ve chosen and the spirit of the comments of EC. Let me show how I believe the comments of EC do indeed reflect the ideas of Tolkien’s Legendarium and the works of DS Faithful and Slumbered.

First annotation- I, Nephi. I honestly have no idea with what points you take issue, but I’ll pull out a few points that I personally feel are connected to the other works. This comment was made by EC in response to another, previously held, conversation that began with the annotation at “and I know that the record I make is true. And I make it with mine own hand and I make it according to my knowledge.” That conversation discusses creation, though not easy to discover or comprehend on a cursory read over. It talked about mythos (God) creating space that through the word becomes a place/thing. [The first book in the Silmarillion is the “Ainulindale,” the “Music of the Ainur.” The Silmarillion 25 (Christopher Tolkien ed., Houghton Mifflin 2d ed. 2001) (1977).  It opens with “Eru, the One,” the creator, who wills into being “the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought.” In an image illustrating Tolkien’s take on interplay between divine sovereignty and free will, Iluvatar declares the theme, but does not dictate its details, rather, he says “ye shall show forth your powers in adorning this theme, each with his own thoughts and devices, if he will.” – by JKC from the blog Common Consent]

God, mythos, made a record of what He knew to be true and he made it using his own knowledge. What he made, in Tolkien’s work, were the “offsprings of his thought.” What Nephi made were his engraved writings. EC goes on to share his thought that it is creation when a person takes a space created by mythos and “the Spirit continues to flow through linguistics channels”. When the spirit is stopped and the recursion interrupted, then we get vain imaginings not reimagining. Melkor is a great example of this vain imagining when he disrupts the flow of spirit and throws down the two giant lamps lit by the Valar. This is the opposite of creation, not to build up but to tear down.

The conversation comes back to I, Nephi when EC uses it to show archetypes and prototypes in the BoM. It’s true. He didn’t pull out any ideas from Tolkien or DS, but they are able to be independently picked up by the reader. EC mentions earthly emissaries, the archetypes of “gods/ainur” angels, “elves” prophets, ect. And that’s a theory I’m suggesting, not something I know. I, Nephi is an archetype. EC says there is a Qabbalistic teaching, a hidden secret, and the first word is I – the first letter in the name of the Existing One. How does I, Nephi relate to that Existing One? And is he stating that he is an elf? Or an Anuir? I don’t know. But these seemed like ideas worth pursuing.

*EC stands for an online name (handle) Elder Chantdown. This is a response from being kicked off of the Reimagining the Book of Mormon annotation group.

Psalms 85:

Show us thy steadfast love, O Lord,

and grant us thy salvation.

8 Let me hear what God the Lord will speak,

for he will speak peace to his people,

to his saints, to those who turn to him in their hearts.[a]

9 Surely his salvation is at hand for those who fear him,

that glory may dwell in our land.

10 Steadfast love and faithfulness will meet;

righteousness and peace will kiss each other.

11 Faithfulness will spring up from the ground,

and righteousness will look down from the sky.

12 Yea, the Lord will give what is good,

and our land will yield its increase.

13 Righteousness will go before him,

and make his footsteps a way

Steadfast Love: a key phrase denoting the covenant God makes with us. He has performed a work that is steadfast, that cannot be broken or undone, a work of Love, his love to us.

Righteousness is a term that denotes God, creator.

Faithfulness: our opportunity to accept and reciprocate that steadfast love.

Covenant is the title of the Christian Scriptures: Old Testament and New Testament is the more familiar translation. We should expect ‘covenant’ to be the central theme of the Bible. Covenant was the central theme of the Last Supper, and so passed into the central Christian liturgy.

The question I shall explore this evening is which covenant are we talking about? Not, I shall argue, the Moses covenant, with all the problems this brings of the new covenant superseding the older one; but rather the everlasting covenant that encompasses all the historic Old Testament covenants and forms the basis of the New Testament. This is the covenant that Jesus renewed at the Last Supper. He restored a covenant that had in his time been neglected, and in our current theological scene is almost completely unknown.

Matthew attributes to Jesus at the Last Supper more words than appear in Luke and Mark. Matthew’s Jesus defines the covenant as ‘for the putting away of sins, aphesis’ (Matt.26.28). Blood poured out for the putting away of sins. Which Old Testament covenant was this? We usually assume that Matthew’s gospel was written for a community with Hebrew roots, and so he needed to define which of the many possible covenants Jesus meant.

The covenant with Abram was a promise of land and had nothing to do with sin (Gen.15.18-21).

The covenant that Moses mediated at Sinai was an agreement to observe the ten commandments and did not deal with putting away sin (Exod.24.

The covenant with David was a promise that his heirs would be the rulers in Jerusalem and did not deal with putting away sin (2 Sam.7.12).

The covenant with Noah was a promise that God would never again destroy the earth. It was the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth (Gen.9.16).

1 Corinthians 15:58

58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

http://ecocongregationireland.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Everlasting-Covenant-Margaret-Barker-DD.pdf