PMW 2023-079 by Geerhardus Vos

Gentry note:
Soon a new version of several of Geerhardus Vos’ works on eschatology will be published. This book collects together some of his important eschatological articles and updates them in the process — removing his awkward, cumbersome, early-20th century writing style. In this clip from updated Vos, we will note his helpful observations on the Greek words kosmos and aion. These words overlap in meaning and significance, making it easy to confuse matters when interpreting biblical texts. I hope this posting is helpful.

Geerhardus Vos observations

There are two problems connected with the aion and kosmos terminology, since they are to some extent interdependent. The first problem concerns the antiquity and origin of the contrast in general; the second concerns the relation of aion to kosmos.

The Johannine writings do not employ “this aion” or “the coming aion” for the purpose of eschatological contrast. Wherever aion occurs in them either in the purely-temporal or in the eternity-sense, the associations are thoroughly favorable; the pronoun “this” is not prefixed to it. The standing phrase is eis ton aiona, “until eternity.” This receives sufficient explanation from the older Scriptural time-use of ‘olam (“age”) and the plural ‘olamim (“ages”). On the other hand, for the evil member of the antithesis the word kosmos, ho kosmos houtos (“this world”) finds characteristic employment with John (cp. John 12:31;14:30; 16:11 [ho archon tou kosmou toutou, “the ruler of this world”] with “the god of this aeon” [2 Cor 4:4]).

THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN
by Milton S. Terry
This book is Terry’s preterist commentary on the Book of Revelation. It was originally the last half of his much larger work, Biblical Apocalyptics. It is deeply-exegetical, tightly-argued, and clearly-presented.

For more study materials: https://www.kennethgentry.com/

Now this word kosmos with Paul also occasionally occurs synonymously with ho aion houtos (“this age”). So we find it in Romans 3:6; 1 Corinthians 1:20–21; 2:12; 3:19; 11:32; 2 Corinthians 7:10; and Philippians 2:15. That the word kosmos had evil coloring when used in ethico-religious connections appears most clearly from the fact of its never being transferred to the state to come. Thus, ho kosmos ekeinos (“that age”) is neither Johannine nor Pauline. Jesus in his speech to the Jews shows conscious avoidance of it in John 8:23: “Ye are of this world; I am not of this world,” instead of “I am of that world.” This does not, of course, prevent either John or Paul the ethically-neutral use of “world” as a comprehensive quantitative designation of the lower creation. For Paul, see Romans 1:8; 5:12; 1 Corinthians 4:9 (7:31); 14:10; Ephesians 1:4; Col. 1:6; and 1 Timothy 6:7. For John, see John 1:9–10; 3:19; 6:14; 8:26; 9:5; 10:36; 11:27; 13:1; 16:21; 17:5, 24; 18:37; 21:25; 1 John 2:2; 4:1, 3, 9; and 2 John 7.

The usage of both terms in Paul leaves the impression that the antithesis is not of the Apostle’s own coining. He may have accentuated the evil aspect of “the present age” more than was done previously. But he certainly did not frame as altogether new either the phrase itself nor its close association with ho kosmos. In the Jewish writing 4 Ezra, scarcely a generation later than Paul, it is said “that God made two aions” (7:50). Further, the present age and the future age are contrasted in a number of passages. The same appears in the Apocalypse of Baruch (of approximately the same period). God revealed to Abraham “this aion” but not “the coming aion.” To these may be joined, as a Jewish witness for the way of speaking, Eleazar from Modiim (somewhat later than Jochanan). He enumerates among the six good gifts bestowed upon Israel the coming aion and the new world.

As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary?
Book by Ken Gentry

Presents the exegetical evidence for Six-day Creation and against the Framework Hypothesis. Strong presentation and rebuttal to the Framework Hypothesis, while demonstrating and defending the Six-day Creation interpretation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

These Jewish authorities would certainly not have borrowed a phrase of this kind from Paul nor from the vocabulary of Christian eschatology in general. So that, even if earlier indubitable instances of occurrence could not be quoted, the ones just mentioned will suffice to prove the Pauline usage a derived one. Dalman, who is on the whole disinclined to carry the phrases farther back than is absolutely necessary, here also has critical suspicions. Yet he is compelled to admit: “the existence of the phrases ‘this aion,’ ‘the future aion’ is at any rate established for the close of the first post-Christian century.”