Final Thoughts on A. J. Pollock’s “HADES and Eternal Punishment”

Posted July 5, 2015 by Glenn
Categories: Annihilationism

I finally feel compelled to finish my series of posts on A. J. Pollock’s “HADES and Eternal Punishment.” Frankly I haven’t been sure what to say about this whole exercise so I have allowed myself to procrastinate. Some of what I am going to write is my own opinion and I expect no one to treat it as divinely inspired; in other words I am under no delusions as to my infallibility. However, if we are honest with ourselves, all Christians hold personal beliefs about God and the way “things” work that we know are matters of personal belief and opinion. As long as we don’t contradict clear teachings of scripture it should not be held against us.

  1. What Was the Original Question?

I want to remind anyone who has been following these posts what the original question was that I was looking at: How exegetically solid is the case for eternal suffering of the unbeliever in the Lake of Fire? My question has never been: “does the unbeliever suffer in the Lake of Fire?” I do believe that the Lake of Fire exists and there will be suffering there. I also do not believe that there is any hope of reconciliation between the unbeliever and God after death. Rather the question for me is one of duration: will unbelievers suffer forever in the Lake of Fire or will the eventually be annihilated?

  1. Have I Come to a Definitive Conclusion?

In a word: No! I am not prepared to dogmatically state I believe either eternal conscious torment (ECT) or annihilationism to be the correct doctrine. I will say that when I started researching this I did expect the traditional ECT argument to have the stronger support but I no longer believe that. What I have concluded is that there is tradition involved and creeds of different denominations to be defended. These forces are very powerful and we all (including myself) tend to defend what we have been taught without always thinking it through.

I do believe that scripture is a complex network or interleaving of principles revealing who God is and showing us the way we should live our lives. It is rare that one principle can be changed without it affecting other principles. What I plan on doing is to continue studying God’s word, I am confident that as time goes by I will find other doctrines affected by the ECT/annihilationism debate and I will pay particular attention to these doctrines. I don’t see why this shouldn’t shed much light on this.

  1. Don’t Heretics Hold to Annihilationism?

One of the common charges I have seen made in this debate is that what are considered heretical groups hold to annihilationism. Specifically this includes the Seventh Day Adventists and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I don’t want to dwell on this too much since it isn’t the point of these articles however I think I need to make my position clear.

I believe Seventh Day Adventists to be Christians while I do not believe that Jehovah’s Witnesses to be Christians. The reason that I do not believe that Jehovah’s Witnesses to be Christian is because of their teachings about the person of Jesus Christ.

Should that in and of itself make belief in annihilationism impossible for me? I have decided that the answer to that is “no.” I will bet you money (figuratively speaking) that if I carefully go through the teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses that I can find some points in agreement with whatever creed you hold. Does that mean you should immediately abandon those teachings? I think most people would say “no” to that and I would agree with them.

However if you still think that Jehovah’s Witness teaching taints annihilationism so much that it should be abandoned then I would like to point something out to you. If you are not a member of the Roman Catholic Church then you should consider abandoning the doctrine of eternal conscious torment (ECT). The teaching of ECT was cemented in church history by Augustine of Hippo who is a doctor of the RC Church. The teaching that Jesus paid an infinite price for our sins on the cross and that requires and infinite and eternal suffering of the unbeliever in the Lake of Fire comes from Anselm of Canterbury who was also a RC priest. If you are a protestant you should be very hesitant to accept Roman Catholic doctrine.

  1. What Am I Willing to Say Dogmatically?

Here is the one thing that I will state without doubt: my Lord and savior Jesus Christ is God and creator. He possesses infinite wisdom, justice, and righteousness and whatever He chooses to be the eternal destiny of the unbeliever is truly good and just. He has not chosen to provide me the details of many things but I am still confident in His character and will always strive to uphold his good name before the world.

Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!

If anyone would like to start at the beginning of this series of posts please follow this link to my first post: Is There a Case for Annihilationism? I have tried to daisy chain the posts so that by clicking on the link at the bottom of each post you can go to the next one in the series.

Pollock’s Concluding Remarks

Posted June 17, 2015 by Glenn
Categories: Annihilationism

We have now reached the end of A. J. Pollock’s “HADES and Eternal Punishment” where he presents us with his concluding remarks and observations. There aren’t any new arguments presented here so I am going to provide a long quote with some comments interspersed. I am not going to quote the last two pages of Pollock’s treatise which are footnotes. Any interested reader is encouraged to read them for his or herself.

I have two general comments to make before I begin the extended quote. First, as I have said again and again, many of Pollock’s arguments work only if annihilation is not punishment. I will certainly agree that eternal conscious torment (ECT) is punishment but that does not mean that annihilation is not punishment. Christians often say that human life is sacred and I completely agree with that. However, when the debate turns to annihilationism all of the sudden life isn’t so sacred. The concept of the permanent extinction of human existence is considered a non-punishment. This really does confuse me. Annihilation may or may not be true but it is not a non-punishment.

The other comment I have is that the issue of the translation of the Greek aionios (Strong’s G166) is pivotal in this debate. If you follow the link and read Strong’s definition of aionios you will see that it is defined as eternal or unending. Of course the definition chosen often depends on which side of the ECT/annihilation debate one takes. I know that Strong was a Calvinist so he would definitely come down on the side of aionios having a connotation of eternality. I have dealt with the aionios issue in several previous posts:

Edward William Fudge (an annihilationist) spends an entire chapter on aionios in his book “The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment”. On a lark I did an internet search for word studies on aionios and I quickly found three that reject the idea that aionios has a meaning of eternal or everlasting:

Okay, so who’s right? I am leaning toward the idea that the correct translation of aionios is context dependent (text without context is pretext). If that is the case then Pollock cannot claim that the use of aionios in the New Testament automatically proves the doctrine of ECT.

Here is Pastor Pollock: Read the rest of this post »

Pollock: Does Fire Consume?

Posted May 27, 2015 by Glenn
Categories: Annihilationism

We are now nearing the end of A. J. Pollock’s defense of the doctrine of eternal conscious torment (ECT). At this point Pastor Pollock has made most of the arguments he is going to make and is now tying up loose ends. Because of this I am going to begin moving faster with an eye to finishing my review of Pollock’s booklet in the very near future.

In this post I am quoting from pages 32 through 34 of Pollock’s HADES and Eternal Punishment. I am going to intersperse my comments with Pastor Pollock’s text.

First off Pastor Pollock deals with objections that a person must burn up in the Lake of Fire. I agree with Pollock that a person does not necessarily burn up in the Lake of Fire, God can preserve unbelievers in the Lake of Fire if He so chooses.

Here is Pastor Pollock:

There are, however, two striking incidents given in Scripture, which may well silence any objector.

When Moses was keeping the flock of Jethro, his father-in-law at Horeb, he saw a wonderful sight.

“And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed” (Ex. 3:2).

The caviller may say, ‘How could the bush be on fire and yet not be consumed?’ Yet here we have the plain statement that it was so.

Again, you remember how the three Hebrew children were flung into a burning fiery furnace, heated seven times so that the fierce flame slew the mightiest men of Nebuchadnezzar’s army who threw them in, and yet the three Hebrew children were not burned, nor their hair singed, nor the smell of fire on their clothes, only their bonds were consumed. Can you explain this?

Rather let us bow to God’s Word without question, and believe just what it states.

We must ever bear in mind that we cannot apply the conditions that obtain in this life in connection with mortal bodies to the bodies of unbelievers which will be raised for judgment. To do so is to betray our ignorance.

There is one very expressive passage affording much room for thought. It comes in at the end of the Scripture, in which the Son of God gives solemn warning as to gehenna. Read the rest of this post »

Pollock on Revelation 19:20

Posted May 17, 2015 by Glenn
Categories: Annihilationism

In this excerpt A. J. Pollock brings in one of the key passages in the entire debate pitting eternal conscious torment against conditional immortality: Revelation 19:20. To try and clarify the issues at hand I am going to quote Pastor Pollock and then Robert Allen Taylor. The extended quote I provide from Pastor Taylor is for Revelation 20:10; I understand this isn’t the same verse that Pastor Pollock is dealing with but there is a lot of overlap here. It is clear that both men are writing on the same topic.

Both Pollock and Taylor present their views in a thorough manner so there is really nothing more I can add at this point.

Here is Pastor Pollock:

There is one very clear Scripture which makes abundantly plain that to be cast into the lake of fire does not mean annihilation.

In Revelation 19:20, we read:-

“These [the beast and false prophet] both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.”

Then in chapter 20 we learn that the devil is found in the bottomless pit for one thousand years, during the course of the millennium, and at the end of that time is let loose, and after a brief rebellion we read:-

“And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever” (Rev. 20:10).

Here we learn two things. For over one thousand years two individuals, the beast and the false prophet, will have been in the lake of fire, when they will be joined by Satan himself, and their portion is to “be tormented day and night for ever and ever [literally to the ages of the ages ].”

In the face of this, shall it be said that punishment is not eternal? I know there is an attempt to whittle away the solemn truth of this passage, because of the expression “day and night,” but this is idle opposition to the truth, and worse. Moreover, if this is urged, there is still the expression to face, “To the ages of the ages.” The fact is, the expression “day and night” only emphasizes the continuous unremitting character of the punishment.

But, says an objector, ‘How can an individual be in a lake of fire and not be instantly consumed?’ We believe untold harm has been done by preachers enlarging in a lurid and graphic and unscriptural way as to the language of Scripture concerning “gehenna,” “the lake of fire and brimstone,” “their worm,” and “the outer darkness.” We believe the very language of Scripture should be used by the preacher and if he does not use it he is lacking in faithfulness to his hearers. Let him warn his hearers of the danger of hell fire and of eternal punishment, but let it be strictly in the language the Holy Ghost teacheth.

One thing is perfectly plain. If it is urged that these terms are symbolic it in no way lessens the awful truths we are considering. Let us never forget that.

The Lord Jesus, in infinite wisdom and in boundless compassion for the lost, has seen fit to use plain, warning language and we do well to adhere to it, not taking from it nor adding to it. The late Sir Robert Anderson wrote, “So awful is the teaching of the Lord Jesus respecting the doom of the impenitent, that every statement on the subject ought to adhere strictly to the very words of Scripture.” With this we are in hearty accord, but let us use the very language of Scripture. We shall find it to be the sword of the Spirit.

 HADES and Eternal Punishment
A J Pollock
p. 32

Here is Robert Allen Taylor:

Revelation 20:10

The final strong-hold of the traditionalist view is built on the foundation of Revelation 20:10. From this verse the traditionalist reasons that Adam’s race will be tormented eternally. The subject of the verse, however, is not mankind; it is Satan.

The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (Rev. 20:10)

This passage should be appreciated for its actual contribution to end times theology. Satan is a major figure and his casting into the Lake of Fire is an important event. The NIV makes the satanic focus of Revelation 20:10 even more clear by correctly translating the elided Greek verb. “And the devil …was thrown into the lake …where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown.”

Revelation 20:10 teaches that Satan will be tormented in the Lake of Fire. It also informs us that the beast and false prophet will share the devil’s punishment. The entire scope of traditionalism’s bedrock verse is limited to the “unholy trinity” –Satan, the beast, and the false prophet!

Inasmuch as Satan, the beast, and the false prophet rule together over Adam’s race prior to the Second Coming of Christ, it is appropriate that the satanic trinity suffer together in the Lake of Fire.

THE IDENTITY OF THE BEAST AND FALSE PROPHET

Some traditionalists hold that the beast and false prophet are human beings and prefigure the fate of the unsaved. In John’s presentation, however, the solidarity of Satan, the beast, and the false prophet are striking.

And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea …the dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority (Rev. 13:1b-2).

Then I saw another beast [AKA the false prophet] coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon. And he exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence, and causes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. (Rev. 13:11-12)

And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. (Rev. 16:13-14)

“Spirits of demons” come out of the mouths of Satan, the beast, and the false prophet. What is the identity of the beast and false prophet, then? In Revelation, we learn that the beast both suffers a mortal wound (Rev. 13:1-3, 12, 14) and ascends out of the bottomless pit (Rev. 11:7; 17:8). These events call the continued humanity of the beast into question.

Satan wants to be worshipped as God and seeks to deceive the world into thinking he has divine powers, which would include the ability to raise the dead. Believers know that Satan is a false imitator of God. I don’t question that the beast was originally a man. But if the beast suffers a mortal wound, is it not more likely that a fallen angel will subsequently assume the identity of the beast than that Satan will duplicate the resurrection of Christ? Even more problematic is the pit from which the beast ascends.

What is the bottomless pit? It is where Satan is bound during the millennial reign of Christ (Rev. 20:1-3). It is also home to the demonic horde that, for five months, torments those without the seal of God. Scriptural commentary on this pit profoundly affects our understanding the beast’s identity.

Then the fifth angel sounded: And I saw a star fallen from heaven to the earth. To him was given the key to the bottomless pit. And he opened the bottomless pit, and smoke arose out of the pit like the smoke of a great furnace. So the sun and the air were darkened because of the smoke of the pit. Then out of the smoke locusts came upon the earth. And to them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. They were commanded not to harm the grass of the earth, or any green thing, or any tree, but only those men who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads. And they were not given authority to kill them, but to torment them for five months. Their torment was like the torment of a scorpion when it strikes a man. In those days men will seek death and will not find it; they will desire to die, and death will flee from them. The shape of the locusts was like horses prepared for battle. On their heads were crowns of something like gold, and their faces were like the faces of men. They had hair like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth. And they had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the sound of chariots with many horses running into battle. They had tails like scorpions, and there were stings in their tails. Their power was to hurt men five months. And they had as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, but in Greek he has the name Apollyon. One woe is past. Behold, still two more woes are coming after these things. (Rev. 9:1-12)

Who or what came out of the bottomless pit? Commenting on Revelation 17:8, Thomas writes,

The designation of the beast as the one who “was and is not, and is about to ascend out of the abyss” …ties him to the beast, with the death-wound who was healed in 13:3, 12, 14. Both there and here the earth-dwellers express amazement (Johnson). The words “is not” refer to the beast’s death, and his ascent from the abyss means he will come to life again (cf. 13:14)…
The discussion at 13:1 identified the beast’s future ascension from the abyss …with his coming up from the sea. After his death he will come to life again. When he does, he will come back in a demonic rather than a purely human form [emphasis mine] to establish his world domination (Beckwith). This explains why the abyss, the abode of demons (Luke 8:31; Rev 9:1, 2, 11) is his origin.

While the exact composition of the beast is unknown, the reality of the bottomless pit as described in revelation 9:1-12 persuasively indicates that the beast is demonic rather than human in nature.

Scripture indicates that the second beast is similar in nature to the first beast. “Then I saw another [Gr. allo “one like in kind”] beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon” (Rev. 13:11). Moreover, “spirits of demons” come out of the mouth of the false prophet, even as out of the mouth of Satan and the beast. As Satan is, so are his counterparts, the beast and the false prophet–demonic beings.

In Revelation 20:10, it appears that demonic beings experience torment in the Lake of Fire. It might also be noted that the text simply states that the Lake of Fire is where the satanic trinity is housed and tormented. The methodology of the torment is not disclosed to us.

Revelation 20:10 Summary

We are seeking to define the penalty God has established for sinners like you and me. If we want to know what happens to unsaved human beings in the Lake of Fire, we should turn to Scripture where that fate is unequivocally addressed. Revelation 20:10 does not present the fate of unbelievers. We discover neither the goats of Matthew 25 nor everyday sinners who reject God’s grace there. Revelation 20:10 addresses a very specific situation–the satanic trinity.

The differences between fallen angelic beings and mankind; the unique union of the beast and false prophet with Satan; the nature of the bottomless pit out of which the beast ascends; the fact that only the satanic trinity is described experiencing torment in the Lake of Fire; the multiple scriptures which teach death/perishing/being burnt up as the penalty unsaved sinners must pay–all of these truths should be kept in mind when interpreting Revelation 20:10.

Taylor, Robert Allen (2012-3-28). Rescue From Death: John 3:16 Salvation (pp. 155-160). Outskirts Press.

[Click on this link to see the next installment in this series: Pollock: Does Fire Consume?]

Pollock: Is God Too Kind to Torture?

Posted May 17, 2015 by Glenn
Categories: Annihilationism

I have finally found the time to continue my look at A. J. Pollock’s defense of the traditional doctrine of eternal conscious torment (ECT). In this excerpt Pastor Pollock argues that the unbeliever receives no punishment he does not deserve. I agree with that principle: God is just and cannot be unjust.

It is important for me to clearly state a presupposition that I come to this topic with. The first is that one of the main purposes of the Mosaic Law was to reveal God in all His glory to this lost and dying world. Whenever the topic of God’s justice and righteousness come up I will tend to go look to the Mosaic Law as an example of God’s justice in action. The Mosaic Law revealed God’s love, mercy, grace, and many other attributes including His justice. This is a common teaching among conservative Christians and it isn’t difficult to find statements like this one from The Mosaic Law: Its Function and Purpose in the New Testament:

The Purpose and Function Explained

 […]

 (1) In a general sense, it was given to provide a standard of righteousness (Deut. 4:8; Psalm 19:7-9). In the process, the Mosaic Law revealed the righteousness, holiness, and goodness of God (Deut. 4:8; Lev. 11:44-45; 19:2; 20:7; Rom. 7:12-14). The Law at Sinai was given to Israel to reveal who God is and to shed light on the reality of an infinite gulf that separates God from man.

I don’t know of any Christians who hold the scriptures in high regard that would not agree with that statement.

Given that the Mosaic Law was designed to reveal God and His character to the world has anyone noticed that it does not command anyone to be tortured? The closest that any command comes to ordering torture is when the daughter of a Levitical priest turned to prostitution they were to be burned. I will say that I am not sure that the woman was not to be stoned first and then have her body burned. I know of no example in the entire Old Testament where anyone was actually tortured by God’s command.

I have already posted an essay arguing that the concept of sin against an infinite God requiring an infinite punishment (please see my post “Does Sin Against An Infinite God Require Infinite Punishment?”). In that post I mention the law of lex talionis (the principle of an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth) from the Mosaic Law which is important. I believe that God’s punishment of humanity follows lex talionis and that unbelievers may very well suffer greatly. What I have began to question is whether our “sins against an infinite God require infinite punishment”. If human philosophical speculation is disregarded then the case for ECT is greatly weakened.

The only other comment I would like to make about Pollock’s argument is that he compares God to a human judge which I don’t believe to be quite right. A human judge executes judgment of laws that he does not write, he is following the statutes written by others. God’s situation is different. He is creator, law-giver, judge, jury, and executioner.

Now here is pastor Pollock:

But it is often argued that God is too kind to torture any. This is true. God tortures none. The Bible never affirms that He does. “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

Does anyone accuse the King of torturing his subjects, who are by their misdeeds the inmates of H.M. prisons? Go into the prisons, see the tormented mind, the accusing conscience; the bitter remorse that often fills with exquisite torture the minds, the consciences of the prisoners. Would anyone in his senses accuse the King of deliberately torturing his prisoners? Assuredly not! It is the remembrance of their own evil deeds, and the hourly consequences of them, that torment them. They torment themselves.

Scripture says:-

“The wicked is snared in the work of his own hands” (Psalm 9:16).

Or to go a step further, is it necessary, as a punishment, for the magistrate to order a wicked youth to be birched? Or does the judge condemn a criminal to hard labour? Will any right-minded citizen accuse the magistrate or judge of torturing those so condemned to punishment for their misdeeds? In connection with the affairs of this world one does not hear of such sickly sentimentality, but this is a common argument, if such a term it can be dignified by, often urged in connection with this solemn subject. It recoils on the heads of those who use it.

 HADES and Eternal Punishment
A J Pollock
p. 28-31

[Click on this link to see the next installment in this series: Pollock on Revelation 19:20]

Aionios: How Do Pollock’s and Vincent’s Arguments Stack Up?

Posted May 6, 2015 by Glenn
Categories: Annihilationism

After reading through both Pollock’s analysis of aionios ( see “Point-Counterpoint: Pollock on Aionios“) and Vincent’s (see “Point-Counterpoint: Vincent on Aionios“) I can see one major difference between their conclusions which can be summarized as follows:

Pollock considers aionios to have a connotation of “everlasting” or “never ending” and will always interpret it that way unless there is something in the passage that explicitly restricts the time in view. On the other hand Vincent makes it clear that he does not consider aionios to connote an “everlasting” or “never ending” span of time and never interprets it that way unless something in the passage explicitly extends the time in view. Their difference of opinion is in regard to what I would call the “default” meaning of the word (I am sure there is a technical term for this but I am not aware of what it is).

There is one paragraph in Vincent’s that I believe Pollock would take the strongest exception to:

Thus, while aionios carries the idea of time, though not of endlessness, there belongs to it also, more or less, a sense of quality. Its character is ethical rather than mathematical. The deepest significance of the life beyond time lies, not in endlessness, but in the moral quality of the aeon into which the life passes. It is comparatively unimportant whether or not the rich fool, when his soul was required of him (Luke 12:20), entered upon a state that was endless. The principal, the tremendous fact, as Christ unmistakably puts it, was that, in the new aeon, the motives, the aims, the conditions, the successes and awards of time counted for nothing. In time, his barns and their contents were everything; the soul was nothing. In the new life the soul was first and everything, and the barns and storehouses nothing. The bliss of the sanctified does not consist primarily in its endlessness, but in the nobler moral conditions of the new aeon, the years of the holy and eternal God. Duration is a secondary idea. When it enters it enters as an accompaniment and outgrowth of moral conditions.

If you read that paragraph and take it to be the antithesis of what Pollock believes you will have a good understanding of the issue here.

What is my take on this? I believe that given the context of a particular passage of scripture we should be able to tell exactly how aionios is being used. I think the saying “A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text” is true. But what about situations where the time dimension of aionios still isn’t clear? In those situations the length of time involved is probably tangential to whatever is being said and we shouldn’t be trying to use the passage to prove something that the authors (human and Divine) weren’t speaking to. If any Greek scholars ever stumble upon this post you are invited to bring any errors on my part to my attention but until then that is what I believe.

As an added bonus Pastor Vincent answered what I think is an important question: if aionios doesn’t connote “eternal” or “without end” what Greek word does have that meaning? According to Vincent that word is aiodios (see Strong’s G126). The point being that if the author of scripture wanted to say “everlasting” he would have used aiodios instead of aionios.

[Click on this link to see the next installment in this series: Pollock: Is God Too Kind to Torture?]

Point-Counterpoint: Vincent on Aionios

Posted May 3, 2015 by Glenn
Categories: Annihilationism

Below is a word study of the Greek word aionios by Marvin R. Vincent. It is scholarly and not light reading but I think that we need this type of analysis to properly evaluate passages using aionios.

I checked up on Pastor Vincent (see his Wikipedia page here) and he was an ordained Presbyterian minister born in 1834 and most certainly would have held to the Westminster Confession of Faith and eternal conscious torment (ECT). Because of that I don’t think his objectivity on the subject can easily be questioned.

Here is Pastor Vincent:

from Word Studies in the New Testament
by Marvin R. Vincent

Note on
Olethron Aionion
(eternal destruction)

‘Aion, transliterated aeon, is a period of longer or shorter duration, having a beginning and an end, and complete in itself. Aristotle (peri ouravou, i. 9,15) says: “The period which includes the whole time of one’s life is called the aeon of each one.” Hence it often means the life of a man, as in Homer, where one’s life (aion) is said to leave him or to consume away (Iliad v. 685; Odyssey v. 160). It is not, however, limited to human life; it signifies any period in the course of events, as the period or age before Christ; the period of the millenium; the mythological period before the beginnings of history. The word has not “a stationary and mechanical value” (De Quincey). It does not mean a period of a fixed length for all cases. There are as many aeons as entities, the respective durations of which are fixed by the normal conditions of the several entities. There is one aeon of a human life, another of the life of a nation, another of a crow’s life, another of an oak’s life. The length of the aeon depends on the subject to which it is attached. Read the rest of this post »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: