I am a Christian who believes in the salvation and restoration of all things, including all of mankind, and I was wondering if the genetive Greek phrase αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων is designating the αἰῶνας (plural "ages") as a subset that is separated out of the total number of αἰώνων? I ask because it seems that nearly all translations use the phrase "forever and ever" to translate this Greek construction, as though there is an eternal repetition of "αἰῶνας" or ages added one after another, which in totality makeup the parent set of "αἰώνων" that the αἰῶνας belong to. I am wondering if what this phrase is really doing is the singling out of 2 or more limited periods of time (the plural αἰῶνας) out of a larger number of "αἰώνων" (also limited time periods). I know that "αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων" is used to describe God and things that are associated with Him, so people who claim that the "aion" family of words has to mean "eternal" use this fact to back up their claim. I don't know how many universalist apologists have use the argument that I would like to put forward, but it seems to me that there is a big difference between a statement of fact and a statement of limitation. Just because I see the phrase "βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων" as stating that Jesus is King of ages, which are periods of time with an end, does not mean that I am limiting Him to being a King only during those ages and not beyond those ages. He is King beyond those ages as well, it is just that the scope of the phrase is focused on the "ages", not on what is beyond them. It is like the phrase "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob". No one I know would claim that this phrase means that God is only God to those three men. The statement is meant to draw attention to some aspect of God's dealings with these three men. The same kind of argument is made in regards to ζωὴν αἰώνιον. As a Christian universalist I have no problem limiting the term αἰώνιον in that phrase to denoting a limited period of time, and yet I also know that I will live forever because at some point during those ages/αἰώνιον, the last enemy, death, will be destroyed and life will be all that is left. ζωὴν αἰώνιον describes life that endures through ages, but does not have to denote that life as eternal. Life in the ages is the scope of the statement. Until we are totally transformed and know God just as He is, it seems pointless to try to come up with a word that encompasses the idea of "forever/eternal". All of the various terms in the bible that point more unequivocally to something enduring, imperishable and unchanging than the "plastic" Hebrew word olam or the Greek "aion" words all seem to begin with a negating particle or word, like aidios, akatalutos, athanasia, in Greek or לֹא יִתָּמּוּ and אֵין קֵץ in Hebrew. Since God is not the author of confusion, it seems to me that one good argument for universal salvation would be the fact that the "universalist" passages in scripture are far more straightforward and require less "explaining" or complicated translation logic than passages where words with very wide ranges of meaning are involved (like olam and "aionian") . Sorry for rambling on, it is just that communicating meaning through language is complicated. In any case, if you know of anyone who can answer my original question about αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων I would appreciate any information you can provide.
Here we have a problem of convention vs. possibilities! αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων, or any variation thereof, can mean both endlessly repeating ages, OR it could be interpreted in the way you suggest. The clearer meaning is that the αἰῶνες go on forever, but that is only because it is arguably the simplest way of understanding the wording itself, and so it has become the more conventional translation. We are approaching in language the distinction between idiomatic and literal ways of writing, which is why this word itself (αἰών), is subject to so much debate.
To look at this let’s use a common English word you reference. We might say things like “I haven’t seen you in forever”. Obviously we are speaking idiomatically. But we might also say that God is King forever and ever. Obviously here we are being more literal. The “ever” in “God is King forever and ever” serves to emphasize the long duration, just like aion of aions. The context of the phrase is what really matters, but context is often lost over the centuries. In this case the genitive serves to emphasize the duration of the aions and gives no clear end. The Stoics bring up similar questions in their doctrine of ekpyrosis, where the world is cyclically destroyed and reborn in a conflagration. But, like you said, this does not necessarily mean “eternity” or “eternal processions”. It is entirely possible there is another subset of αἰῶνες that continues after this one series of aions.
So to answer your question, yes. That is a valid and grammatical way to interpret the words. The phrase could be simply a statement of fact, not limitation. This aion does not need to imply something like “for all eternity” by necessity. Going back to Plato and Aristotle, there is a tension in the meaning of the word itself. It is both bounded and boundless, endless but complete, and this adds to the confusion for translators. Things break down at this point in human thought and language. This might be the reason for your observation on the negating words or particles for more definitive words. This is also why some theologians follow more a “via negativa” path.
After a certain time period when this phrase becomes more commonplace, however, it does mean something like the eternal procession of aions (or more properly just eternity), by the common consent of the Fathers and philosophers. However, this consent comes much later than the biblical authors. That meaning is not clear in Hellenistic Greek, in the Septuagint, or in the New Testament. There are examples of aion of aions meaning endless procession of time, all time itself, etc. in Hellenistic Greek, but the examples are relatively few (See something like Diodorus 1.6.3 for example). There’s an old joke around classics circles-when an archaeologist finds one example, it becomes a rule. The Philologist scoffs. “In philology,” he says, “we know that it is precisely TWO examples that make an unbreakable rule all must follow.” So although the “traditional” way to translate is that it’s a statement of limitation (the aion of aions is an eternal repetition and all there is), this is merely convention and not a necessary rule. There’s lots of room for personal interpretation. And, as always, I think meaning in translation can always take on a “both/and” approach, rather than an “either/or” one.
