The word aeon does not appear in the Spanish Bible. Aion originally meant relative, limited, or unlimited duration of time, e.g. i.e., a period of time, or eternity, and is often translated as “world”, “was”, and “forever”. Aeon is sometimes synonymous with gr. kosmos, world order (eg, Mark 4:19; 1Co 1:20; 1Co 2:6; 1Co 3:19). The consummation of the ages (Heb 9:26) is the period begun at the first coming of Christ; the end of the world (Mat 24:3; Mat 28:20) is the culmination of it at his second coming. We live in the period between (1Co 10:11). This present world and the world to come are contrasted (eg, Mat 12:32; Mar 10:30; Rom 12:2; Eph 1:21; 2Ti 4:10; Tit 2:12; Heb 6:5) .
Source: Hispanic World Bible Dictionary
From the Greek aion, which translates the Hebrew ‘olam. The latter indicates in the Old Testament a time of which neither the beginning nor the end is known: for this reason it can mean either a very distant time in the past or a time that is yet to come. in both cases it refers to a very long time, but certainly limited.
Only in more recent times did ‘olam come to be used to indicate unlimited time, that is, eternity. In the New Testament this term is collected with the traditional double meaning: a) remote or future time, but limited: b) unlimited time, eternity. It should be noted that in the Bible eternity is not conceived as timelessness, as in Greek thought, but as unlimited duration, as time without end. Precisely in this sense, the biblical authors attribute to God on several occasions the characteristic of eternity and highlight the difference between the aeon of God and the aeon of the world: that of God is an aeon superior, qualitatively and quantitatively, to the aeon of the world. Therefore, the aeon of God does not simply last longer than the aeon of the world; God is present to him and surpasses him as sovereign’ (A. VOgtle) – That is why the New Testament thinks that eternity ”is also a peculiarity of the authentic world of salvation, eschatological goods and eschatological damnation’ (A. Darlap).
From the distinction between the aeon of God and the aeon of the world made by the Jewish apocalyptic from the 1st century BC, the doctrine of the two aeons is born, which opposes the present aeon, characterized by injustice and sin and subjected to the influence of evil, to the future aeon, characterized on the contrary by justice, goodness, happiness, life: this last aeon is under the exclusive beneficial influence of God. It is evident that this future aeon constitutes the absolute eschaton, which God himself has made possible and actualized. The contrast between the two aeons is very accentuated in the Qumran community. The New Testament also refers on several occasions to this difference between the two aeons, the present and the future: sometimes it attributes its use to Jesus himself (for example, Mt 12,32: Lk 16,8): in any case , must be presupposed in order to understand the announcement of the Nazarene: certainly his listeners understood the “Kingdom” which he proclaimed as the future aeon, where the sovereignty of God would be perfectly recognized by all and would produce good fruits for all – men, especially for the most poor, The great novelty of the Christian announcement about the future aeon refers to its presence in history thanks to the very person of Jesus; “Through him, the future aeon already extends into this aeon, since in his person, in his words and in his deeds (…) the will of God became palpable as a definitive offering, since that is how the Eschatological kingdom, (A, VOgtle).
GM Salvati
Bibl.: or, Cullmann, Christ and time, Estela, Barcelona ]968; A, Darlap, Time, in CFT 11, 779-785; A. Marangon. Time, in NDTB, 1850-1866.
PACOMIO, Luciano, Encyclopedic Theological Dictionary, Divine Word, Navarra, 1995
Source: Encyclopedic Theological Dictionary
E. is the transcription of the Greek word aión, which in turn corresponds to the Hebrew ólám. These two original expressions are rightly translated by various concepts. Therefore, to achieve a complete understanding of the meaning of e. we must attend to the history of the concept.
I. Terminology
1. In the first books of the Old Testament ólám means a distant and hidden time, whose –> “beginning and end” are lost in the dark; This is why ólám can mean both “past” and “future” time, and thus, in general, it means a long, but absolutely limited time. Sometimes `óldm designates a time perceived as very long, like an “eternity”, but which is actually as short as a man’s life (eg, Dt 15, 17; Ps 37, 12). The duration of the `ólám, is oriented, according to the Hebrew conception of time, according to the conscience of the one who lives it and speaks of it, that is, according to the experience of the finite time of man. The Greek concept of -> eternity (eternal = infinite; temporal – finite) is still foreign to the Old Testament. For the first time in later writings – not before Deutero-Isaiah -, `ólám takes on the meaning of “infinitely long time”, of “eternity” (Is 40, 28). Since `ólám (= aión) is a truly temporary concept, the Greek translation of the Old Testament was able to reinforce the singular of aión, which gradually faded: a) by the repetition of the singular (as, e.g., in Sal 44, 7); b) by the frequent use of the plural; c) more rarely, by the combination of the two procedures: thus in the turn of Ps 83, Tob 14, 15.
2. The New Testament picks up the terminological use of the Old Testament. Consequently, it can only be deduced from the context if it is “a long time” or “eternity”: “since primitive times” (Lk 1, 70), “since ancient” (Act 3, 21), “forever” (Jds 13), “for eternity” (Jn 4, 14; 6, 51 among others). The turn so frequent in the LXX, eis tous aionas, is found a lot in doxological formulas. Mainly Paul and the Apocalypse preferentially use the ascending formula “forever”, or “for all eternity”. As much as this turn referring to the future wants to accentuate the superiority of God and the esjata (in the strict sense) over time, it nonetheless confirms at the same time that also in the New Testament the concept of “eternity” retains its ordination to the time (to the world), and that biblical thought does not come to know the timeless eternity of the Greeks.
II. The aeon of God
Analogous to the change of meaning going from “remote times” to “eternity”, the representation of the aeon of God is also modified. The “oldest God” (Gen 21, 33) is known as the “eternal God” (Is 40, 28; 2 Mac 1, 25). This property of the -> essence of God is clearly affirmed in the NT (Rom 1, 20; 16, 26), and in later writings it is also applied to the glorified Christ (Heb 13, 8; Ap 1, 18 among others) .
Thus, biblical thought measures the e., the “eternity” of God in the e. or world time. God exists before the creation of the world (Ps 90, 2; 102, 25-29; Gen 1, 1; Jn 17, 24; Eph 1, 4), but will also exist after the end of this world (Ps 102, 27; Ap 21, lss); therefore the e. of God is temporary and also qualitatively superior to that of the world. Rich in consequences is the doxology of 1 Tim 1, 17: after “king of the aeons” there is the ancient denomination of God as “eternal king” (Jer 10, 10). But as soon as e. it has a spatial meaning (world, space of the world; especially Heb 1, 2; 11, 3) or it can have both a temporal and a spatial meaning (Mt 13, 39s; 24, 3; 28, 20; cf. 1 Cor 10, 11; Heb 9, 26), the designation of God is thereby changed. God is the king of “the times of the world”, the one who with his grace and judgment makes the times succeed each other. Therefore, the e. of God is not only longer than the e. of the world; but, in addition, God is preordained and supraordained as dominator to the e. mundane.
In keeping with all this, in the NT, “eternal” also means the “peculiarity of the authentic salvific world, of eschatological goods and eschatological condemnation” (A. DARLAP 365).
III. The doctrine of the two aeons
1. In late Judaism
The distinction between the e. of God and the e. of the world led to the doctrine of the two aeons, which from the first century BC was elaborated by the -> Jewish apocalyptic and became usual among the rabbis. Since, according to Dan 7, the successive empires are enemies of Yahweh and oppose the kingdom of God, which will eventually replace them, in principle with this classic apocalypse (cf. also Dan 2) the step has already been taken toward the radically dualistic distinction of two unique aeons, namely, “this e.” (`ólám ha-zeh) and the “e. to come” (`ólám ha-bá’). These two aeons are diametrically opposed by their content, an opposition that – at least – is reinforced under the influence of -> Iranian dualism. “This e.” It is the century of injustice and sin, of work and expiration. As current world time is ultimately under the influence of Satan. Instead, the “e. coming” belongs entirely to God, is essentially good, is full of intense life and happiness; and it is difficult to decide to what extent some writings place this e. coming in heaven (instead of placing it on the renewed earth). As a new time and world, which ultimately introduces God himself, this e. coming is necessarily the absolute eskhaton. The opposition of the two aeons is very accentuated in the community of –> Qumran.
2. In the New Testament
a) Without a doubt, Jesus did not take the contrast between “this e.” and the “e. coming” as the focal point of his preaching. And it’s even problematic if he ever used it. However, some words of Jesus transmitted in the synoptics speak with reason of “this e.” (Mt 12, 32; Lk 16, 8; 20, 34) and of “that e.” (Lk 20, 35), from “e. coming” (Mk 10, 30 = Lk 18, 30), or from “e. future” (Mt 12, 32); for the proclamation of the -> kingdom of God by Jesus clearly presupposes the distinction of two essentially distinct aeons. When Jesus promises entry into heaven or the kingdom of God (“entrance into life”), etc., hearing the expression “kingdom of heaven” (= “kingdom of God”), the Jews had to think of the “e. to come,” in God’s yet future consummated world. In spite of everything, Jesus had every reason to take the abstract concept “kingdom of God” as the key idea in which the preaching and realization of eschatological salvation were summed up. With this he emphasized that the world to come will be realized solely and exclusively by the will and work of God, and furthermore that the final state does not tend “primarily to a purely external transformation of the world”, but rather to completely impose the sovereign rights of God on the world. power of the miracle (F. SCHIERSE 681). And above all, the use of the concept of the kingdom of God as a central idea made possible the modification and even rupture of the scheme of the two aeons by Jesus….