1. The Greek expression “eis tous aiónas tón aiónon” refers to the
same future duration of time as that which is referred to in Luke 1:33 as “eis
tous aiónas.”
2. The duration of time referred to by the
words “eis tous aiónas” in Luke 1:33 is the duration of time for which Christ
shall be reigning.
3. According to what is revealed in 1
Corinthians 15:24-28, Christ is not going to be reigning for an endless
duration of time (his reign is only “until” a certain point, at which time he
will give up the kingdom to his God and Father).
4. Thus, the duration of time expressed by the
words eis tous aiónas tón aiónon cannot be endless.
It should be emphasized that the argument above
is logically valid; if all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be
true as well. Thus, in order to avoid the conclusion, it must be shown that one
of the premises is faulty. However, if the argument is sound (and I’m convinced
that it is), then it follows that any translation of the expression eis tous aiónas tón aiónon that conveys the idea of endless duration is inaccurate,
and should be rejected in favor of a translation that is consistent with the
truth of the limited duration of Christ’s reign (i.e., a more literal,
word-for-word translation in which the terms “eons” or “ages” is used).
Now, shortly after I posted my article and began sharing it on Facebook, I began receiving some critical feedback from those who did not agree
with the position being defended in the article (which is, of course, not
surprising given its controversial nature). Interestingly, however, the critics
who took the time to respond to the article did not, in their comments,
directly address or attempt to refute the premises of the above argument. Other
objections against my position were, of course, raised, but the premises by
which I arrived at the main conclusion of my article were left untouched.
One of my critics (who I’ll be referring to as J.M.) asked, “What makes you
think that your translation of these two words is the only correct translation,
and that thousands of years worth of the majority of Greek scholars have had it
wrong?”
I think the skepticism underlying J.M.’s question is completely
reasonable. When someone claims that the majority of scholars are (or could be)
mistaken on any particular point related to how a certain Greek term or
expression ought to be (or ought not to be) translated, I think the burden of
proof is entirely on the one making such a claim to show why their claim is
worthy of one’s consideration, and why their position should be taken
seriously. On the other hand, a less reasonable response to a claim that
challenges a majority view would be to conclude
that the person must be wrong entirely on the basis of scholarly authorities or
tradition (I added “tradition” because they tend to be close companions).
Now, if all I’d done was claim that the expression “forever and
ever” is an inaccurate translation (and simply left it at that), an appeal to
scholarly authorities would be an appropriate response. But I did more than
merely make this claim; I accepted the “burden of proof” and made a case for my
position with reasons and argumentation. And in response to actual reasons and
arguments presented, I find a mere appeal to scholarly authority (without
actually showing how such authorities
disprove the arguments presented) less than compelling as an actual argument
against my position. If someone thinks the arguments I made in defense of my
position are weak (or simply choose to trust that my position could be easily
refuted by those scholars who think “forever and ever” is just as valid a
translation as the alternatives), then they are certainly free to take this
stance. But it would be a fallacy to conclude that I must be wrong because my
position is contrary to the position of those who are directly or indirectly
responsible for the presence of the expression “forever and ever” in most
Bibles.
Now, it needs to be emphasized that the majority of Greek
scholars would not disagree with the following point (as well as other similar
points) made in my article: the words “the ages of the ages” (or some similar
expression) would constitute a grammatically valid English translation of the
Greek expression τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. So in regard to this particular point
– i.e., the grammatically valid translational use of the term “ages” or “eons”
in the above Greek expression – the scholarly majority to which J.M. appealed
would agree with me. The more controversial claim that I made in the article
is, of course, that the expression “forever and ever” is not a tenable
alternative to those expressions in which the terms “ages” or “eons” are used.
But again, I presented reasons why I believe this to be the case, and why I
think my claim ought to be taken seriously (rather than being simply dismissed
out of hand with an appeal to scholarly authority or tradition). If my argument
is sound, then it logically follows that the duration of time expressed by the
words eis tous aiónas tón aiónon is not endless.
Echoing his earlier appeal to the “scholarly majority,” J.M
later asked, “Wouldn't you think that if what you're saying is true, that there
would be a whole lot more scholars raising huge red flags?”
Actually, I’m not at all surprised that “a lot more scholars
aren’t raising huge red flags.” One reason for my lack of surprise could be
expressed as follows: In accord with the truth of the sovereignty of God, I believe that it’s actually a part of God’s plan that the majority of humans during this wicked eon remain “in
the dark” concerning what Christ accomplished through his sacrificial death on
the cross and subsequent resurrection (which I believe to be the procuring of
the salvation of all). That is, I believe that it’s not God’s intention that the
majority of people on this planet (whether religious or secular) come to a
realization of this truth yet. And I see this plan as being reflected in the
fact that the majority of scholars throughout “church history” (although not
all without exception) have failed to see that there’s a problem with how
certain terms and expressions used in Scripture (terms and expressions which
have huge implications concerning what Christ accomplished) have been generally
understood and translated.
J.M.
went on to write, “From what I've found, it turns out
that these arguments hinge more on cultural context and understanding of
phrases like 'to the ages of the ages' i.e. how did first century Greeks
understand them?”
Although
I think J.M. is making a rather big mistake here, I don’t think he’s alone in
making it. In fact, I’m inclined to think that the erroneous assumption that’s
underlying J.M.’s comment is, to some extent at least, responsible for the confusion
that persists among otherwise intelligent, scholarly people concerning the meaning
of aión in the New Testament (it is usually dubious assumptions and erroneous
presuppositions that tend to be the culprit when otherwise intelligent and
scholarly people arrive at wrong conclusions concerning a certain subject that
is within their general area of expertise).
Notice
how J.M.’s focus is on the cultural context and understanding of “first century
Greeks.” The problem with this focus
is that the authors of the New Testament were not “first century Greeks,” and their “cultural context” was not the same cultural context in which
first century Greeks were immersed. They were, instead, Jewish men who were
simply using the Greek language to express ideas which had, as their primary
background, their own inspired Hebrew Scriptures.
This is an important point that needs to be emphasized. The
“cultural context” of those whose writings constitute the New Testament
Scriptures was not the same cultural context as “first century Greeks.” This
means that the meanings ascribed to words and expressions by the New Testament
writers would have been derived largely from their inspired Hebrew Scriptures
rather than from Hellenistic culture or first century Greek literature. So, the
answer to J.M.’s question – although not completely irrelevant – is not going
to get us nearly as close to the truth of what a particular expression used by
the NT writers means as would the answer to the following, more relevant
question: “What did the first century Jews who wrote the inspired books of the
New Testament mean by their use of certain terms and expressions?” Rather than
secular or religious Greek culture, these men would’ve been far more influenced
by their Jewish religious culture and (more importantly) by the inspired
Scriptures around which their religious culture was largely based. They
would’ve also been heavily influenced by whatever more recent revelation they
received from God concerning his redemptive purpose, and which they sought to
communicate in their writings.
J.M. went on to draw my attention me to a couple of Wikipedia
articles concerning the meaning of aión, one of which he noted provides “an
extra-biblical example of the use of the word aión for eternal” (here’s a link
to the article in which the example he had in mind is found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeon). Interestingly,
this article states that the more “common usage” of aión is “for any long, indefinite period” –
which is basically the idea that I believe the New Testament writers were
expressing when they used the term. But concerning the “extrabiblical example”
to which J.M. was referring, we’re told the following concerning the
philosophical view of Plato: “Plato used the word aeon to
denote the eternal world of ideas, which he conceived was ‘behind’ the
perceived world, as demonstrated in his famous allegory of the cave.” Apparently,
then, J.M. thinks that we would do well to look to the Greek philosopher Plato to better understand what the NT
writers meant when they used the term aión. Although this would certainly be in
accord with the methodological approach which J.M. appears to think would get
us closer to the truth (which involves a focus on Hellenistic culture), I’m
convinced that this approach is flawed.
In part five of
my study “Eternal or Eonian?” I argued that Plato should be considered a poor
source for understanding what the meaning of aión is in the New Testament Scriptures. Plato, of
course, had a completely different cultural background and worldview than that
of Christ and the NT writers, and in my study I showed how the metaphysical
meaning which Plato attached to the term aión (at least, in certain contexts)
is very different from the way in which the term is used throughout the New
Testament. Plato, I noted, contrasted aión with time (chronos).
For Plato, time was but “a moveable image of aionos,” and that of
which time is an image is the unchanging, timeless realm of ideas/forms, which
transcends the ever-changing world we experience and perceive.
Thus, Plato used aión to denote an unchanging, timeless realm, and
contrasted it with all changing, temporal duration.
Keeping
in mind J.M.’s comment concerning the cultural context of first century Greeks,
it would be worth noting what the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, Philo of
Alexandria (who was a contemporary of Christ), had to say concerning the
meaning of aión. It should be emphasized that, despite his Jewish ethnicity,
Philo was a staunch Platonist. And, just like Plato, Philo used the term aión to
express the concept of eternity (i.e., timelessness). For example, Philo wrote
that “there is
nothing future to God, who has the very boundaries of time subject to him; for
their life is not time, but the beautiful model of time, eternity [aión]; and
in eternity [aión] nothing is past and nothing is future, but everything is
present only” (Deus. 31-32).
But the writers
of the New Testament simply did not use the term aión to mean what Plato (and
those influenced by his philosophy) used the word to mean in their
philosophical writings. Rather than using the term aión to refer to a timeless,
unchanging realm of ideas/forms which transcends the created world we perceive
and experience, they used it to refer to long spans of time (past, present and
future) of undefined/unspecified duration. We read, for
example, of past eons (Romans
16:25; 1 Corinthians 2:7; 10:11; Ephesians 3:9; Col 1:26, Hebrews 9:26), of
a present eon (Matthew
12:32; 13:40; 24:3; 1 Corinthians 2:6-8; Galatians 1:4), and of future eons to follow the present
eon (Mark 10:30; Matthew 12:32; 13:40; 24:3; Luke 18:30; Ephesians 1:21; 2:7;
Jude 1:25). It’s also clear from what is said concerning the past eons that
they are limited in number, for we read that there was a time before the eons began (1 Corinthians
2:7; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2). We also read of the consummation of the eons (1
Corinthians 10:11; Hebrews 9:26), which suggests that the succession of eons
revealed in Scripture has an end as well as a beginning. This is further
confirmed from the fact that the future eons referred to (e.g., in Ephesians 2:7)
are the eons for which Christ will be reigning, and – as previously argued –
Christ’s reign is not going to continue endlessly.
In
light of these and other scripture-informed considerations, I see no good
reason to believe that Plato’s philosophical views had any influence whatsoever
on the way aión was used by the Jewish writers of the New Testament, or that
these inspired writers ever used aión in the philosophical, metaphysical sense
used by Plato and others. The uses of the term aión
that we find referenced above can tell us far more about what aión means
throughout the New Testament than the use of the term by any writers whose
writings can be said to reflect, or to have shaped, Greek culture.
J.M.
wrote: ”I did want to share a bit from Vine's that I
found really compelling. It goes a whole lot deeper than this, but for the sake
of brevity, I would just encourage you to check it out for yourself, if you own
one or are able to obtain one.”
Although I don’t own a copy of Vine’s, I was able to find it
fairly easily online. And in the entry on aión, we find it defined as “a period of
indefinite duration or time viewed in relation to what takes place in the
period.” This definition is actually similar to the first definition I
provided in part four of the study I referred to earlier (where it’s defined as
“an indefinitely long period time”). I went on to quote from the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible
(Vol. IV, p. 643), which noted that “The use of the word aión is determined
very much by the OT and the LXX. Aión means ‘long distant uninterrupted time’
in the past (Luke 1:10), as well as in the future (John 4:14).” But all of
these meanings are perfectly compatible with the view that all of the time
periods that are being referred to in Scripture through the use of the term aión
are, ultimately, of limited duration (even if they’re indefinite in the sense
of being of “an unknown or unstated length of time,” which is one of the
primary meanings of “indefinite”).
J.M. wrote: “So, essentially they are saying, and
I think you would agree, that these arguments aren't settled so much on literal
interpretation of these words from Greek, but more so on the cultural context,
i.e. how did the Greeks of that time understand these phrases. This and other
sources who appear to know a good bit about 1st Century Greek culture, seem to
assert that they would understand phrases like this to mean 'eternal,' or
'forever and ever.'”
Once
again we find J.M. referring to first century Greeks and their culture.
However, it must again be emphasized that the cultural context in which the
writers of the NT Scriptures were immersed – and which so heavily influenced
the ideas/concepts which they sought to express in their writings through the
use of the Greek language – was not “1st century Greek culture.” The terminology used by the NT writers ought to be understood primarily
from a Hebrew mindset rather than a Greek (or Roman) mindset. And insofar as
this is the case, I
wouldn’t agree with my critic that these arguments are to be settled by
focusing on Greek culture, or on the literature which could be considered an
expression of Greek culture (whether it be from the first century or any other
century). Instead, I believe we must look to the Hebrew Scriptures.
Aion in
the NT = Olam in the OT
Outside
of the New Testament itself, it is the inspired writings that constitute the
Hebrew Scriptures which should be considered the most important and relevant
sources in determining what, exactly, the inspired NT writers had in mind when
they used certain Greek words to express their ideas. Thus, it would be helpful
to consider the Hebrew term that influenced how the NT writers used the term aión (and its adjectival form aiónios).
It’s
a known fact that both the noun aión and
its adjectival form, aiónios, were used by the NT writers (as well as the translators of the Septuagint, or LXX) as the Greek equivalents of the single Hebrew term olam. Thus, an understanding of the meaning(s) of
the term olam will invariably shed light on the meaning(s) of the terms used as
its Greek equivalents in the LXX and NT. So what does olam mean? According to
the Brown-Driver-Briggs
English and Hebrew Lexicon, olam means
“long duration, antiquity, futurity” (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5769.htm). The term was derived from the verb alam (which means “to veil from sight”
or “to conceal”). Thus, olam can be understood as denoting a long span of past,
present or future time of undefined (and thus “concealed”) duration.
That the
“long duration” denoted by olam need not be understood as endless in duration
seems clear from how the term is regularly used by the inspired writers (and is
a fact that, as far as I can tell, is not at all considered controversial among
even mainstream Biblical scholars). In defense of this point, let’s consider some
examples from the Hebrew Scriptures in which the word olam appears.
Because
of its consistent rendering of olam with the English noun eon (or its adjectival
form, eonian), I’ll be quoting from the Concordant Version of the Old
Testament. In parentheses I’ll also be providing the LXX translation of the
relevant Hebrew term or expression in which the term olam is used (for, as
already noted, both the noun aión and the adjective aiónios were used throughout the LXX as the Greek
equivalents of olam). As I
think will become evident to the reader, the use of aión in the LXX corresponds
perfectly to the meaning of aión that we find expressed in the verses from the
New Testament referenced above.
Gen. 6:4
They were the masterful ones, who were from the eon (LXX: ap aión), mortals of renown.
Clearly, the “masterful ones” being
referred to didn’t exist from “eternity”; rather, they lived in what would’ve
been considered by Moses as the distant past (and which, being before the
global flood of Noah’s day, was, I believe, a previous eon).
Gen. 13:15
For all the land that you are seeing, I shall give it to you and to
your seed unto the eon (LXX: eós
tou aiónos).
Genesis 17:8 (cf. Gen. 48:4)
And I give to you and to your seed after you the
land of your sojourning, all the land of Canaan, as an eonian (LXX: aiónion)
holding; and I will be Elohim to them.
The territory promised to Israel is not
going to belong to Israel “for eternity,” for we know that the earth of which
the promised land is a part will one day be destroyed and replaced by a new
earth (Hebrews 1:10-12; 2 Peter 3:7-13; cf. Matthew 5:18; Rev. 21:1). Thus,
although Israel will be enjoying their promised territorial allotment for a
long period of time (more than a thousand years), this promise has nothing to
do with “eternity.”
Genesis 17:13
He shall be circumcised, yea circumcised, the
manservant born in your household or acquired with your money. Thus will My
covenant be marked in your flesh as an eonian
(LXX: aiónion) covenant. As for the
uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, this
soul will be cut off from his people; he has annulled My covenant.
The covenant of circumcision between
God and Israel does not pertain to “eternity.” Rather, it pertains to the
present eon (as well as, I believe, the future eon).
Exodus 15:18
Yahweh, He shall
reign for the eon and further (LXX: eis
ton aióna kai ep aióna kai eti).
The
Greek term eti (which appears at the
end of the LXX translation of this verse) translates the Hebrew ‘ad, and – in connection with the
preceding terms – expresses the idea of additional duration (https://biblehub.com/greek/2089.htm). However, there can be nothing further than or beyond eternity, so the
duration of time beyond which God will be reigning cannot be a reference to
eternity.
Exodus 21:6
Then his lord will bring him close to the door or to the jamb, and
his lord will bore his ear with an awl; and he will serve him for the eon (LXX: eis
ton aióna).
Obviously, there are no servants from
Moses’ day who are still serving their masters. The servitude in view in this
and other similar verses (e.g., Lev. 25:46 and Deut. 15:17) is not something
that is still ongoing, or something that will be occurring in “eternity.” The
servant’s servitude was to continue “for the eon” – i.e., as long as he lived
during the eon. The indefinitely long period of time that’s in view here (and
which is being denoted by the Hebrew term olam) has no reference to any period of time
beyond the eon during which the lords and servants in Israel lived and died.
Exodus 30:21
Then they will wash their hands and their feet so
that they should not die. It will become to them an eonian (LXX: aiónion)
statute, for him and his seed throughout their generations.
Numbers 19:10-11
This will be an eonian (LXX: aiónion)
statute for the sons of Israel and for the sojourner sojourning in their midst:
The one touching the dead body of any human soul will be unclean seven days…
Exodus 30:21 and Numbers 19:10-11 are just two of many
examples in which the term olam is used to describe the duration of the
statutes of the law of Moses. Although these and other statutes of the law
could be accurately described as pertaining to an indefinitely long period of
time, they are by no means “eternal.” Scripture is clear that the law of Moses
was never intended to continue for “all eternity.” Moreover, God (who inspired
and instructed Moses to say what he did concerning the duration of the law and
its statutes) knew that these and other statutes wouldn’t remain forever, and
would not have inspired Moses to use the term olam if its meaning wasn’t
consistent with the limited duration of the law.
It’s worth noting that, in the LXX, the Greek term that is
regularly substituted for olam in verses where the statutes of the law of Moses
are in view is the adjectival form of the noun aión (i.e., aiónion).
Exodus 40:15
So it will come to be that their anointing is to bestow on them an eonian (LXX: eis
ton aióna)
priesthood throughout their generations.
The priesthood in view here will not be
functioning for “eternity”; the state of affairs is confined to a long and
undefined - but ultimately limited - span of time. Notice also the parallel use
of the statement, “throughout their generations.” This indicates that the
undefined span of time that’s in view here is one in which generations of
Israelites come and go.
Deut. 23:3, 6
No Ammonite or Moabite shall come into the assembly of Yahweh. Even
the tenth generation from them shall not come into the assembly of Yahweh for the eon (LXX: eis ton aióna)…You shall neither inquire
after their well-being nor their good all your days for the eon (LXX: eis ton aióna).
This
restriction and command concerning the Ammonites and Moabites has no reference
to anything that will be occurring in “eternity.” The state of affairs in view
here is confined entirely to people’s mortal lifetimes (“all your days”) during
the eon in which the commands were given.
Deut. 32:7
Remember the days of the eon
(LXX: aiónon); understand the years of generation after generation.
Israel was not being exhorted to
remember the days of “eternity.”
Joshua 4:7
Thus these stones have become a memorial for the sons of Israel unto the eon (LXX: eis
tou aióna).
The
state of affairs in view here has nothing to do with “eternity.” It pertains
entirely to the undefined span of time in which the stones would serve as a
memorial for the sons of Israel.
1 Samuel 1:22
When the lad is weaned, I will bring him; for he must appear before
the face of Yahweh and abide there for the
eon (LXX: eis ton aióna).
Hannah
didn’t believe Samuel would have to abide in “the house of Yahweh at Shiloh”
for “all eternity.” The expression simply means that Samuel would minister to
Yahweh in the house of Yahweh for as long as he lived (v. 28) during this eon.
1 Samuel 27:12:
Now Achish put his faith in David, saying, He has made himself a
stink, yea a stink among his people in Israel, and so he has become mine as a
servant for the eon (LXX: eis
ton aióna).
Again, the duration of time in view
here has no reference to any period of time beyond the eon in which Achish and
David lived.
2 Kings 5:27
Now Naaman’s leprosy, it shall cling to you and to your seed for the eon (LXX: eis ton aióna).
Psalm 73:12
Behold, these are the wicked! Even these at ease eonian (LXX: eis ton aióna), who make their estate huge.
Obviously, the time during which the wicked
are “at ease” will not continue beyond the eon in which they live and die
(i.e., the eon which Paul referred to as “the present wicked eon,” and of which
Satan is said to be the “god”).
Psalm 143:3
For the enemy| has persecuted my soul; he has crushed my life to
the earth; he has made me sit in utter darkness like the eonian (aiónos) dead.
The time during which the dead being
referred to here had been dead cannot, of course, be a time of unlimited
duration.
Isaiah 32:14
For the citadel, it will be abandoned, the clamorous city, it will
be forsaken; fort and lookout, such will become caves into the future, unto the eon (LXX: eis tou aióna).
The future duration of time that’s in view in this verse
cannot be a reference to “eternity.”
Isaiah 61:4
And they will rebuild the places deserted for an eon (LXX: aiónian); the desolations of former times they shall raise up; and
they will renew the wasted cities, the desolations of generations after
generation.
The past duration of time that’s in view in this verse cannot
be a reference to “eternity.”
Jeremiah 5:22
I, Who placed the sand as the boundary for the
sea, an eonian (LXX: aiónion) statute, and it shall not pass
beyond it? Though its waters reel, yet they shall not prevail, and its billows
clamor, yet they shall not pass over it.
The duration of the sea-boundary is, of course, relative to
the existence of the sea itself. The sand can only be considered a barrier for
the sea as long as both the sand and the sea exist together. But since the
present heavens and earth are not “eternal” or “everlasting,” neither is the
sea. Moreover, we’re explicitly told in Revelation 21:1 that, on the new earth
(which will replace the present earth after it’s “passed away”), the “sea” will
be “no more.”
Micah 4:5
Though all the peoples, they shall walk, each man in the name of
his elohim, yet we shall walk in the Name of Yahweh our Elohim, for the eon and further (LXX: eis
ton aióna kai epekeina).
Notice
that, in the LXX, the expression eis ton aióna is followed by the expression kai epekeina. The term
“kai” means “and,” while “epekeina” means “further on” or “beyond” (https://biblehub.com/greek/1900.htm). However, as noted in my remarks on Exodus 15:18, there
can be nothing further than or beyond “eternity.” Thus, it follows that the
duration of time beyond which faithful Israel will be walking in the Name of
Yahweh their God (and which is expressed in the LXX as “eis ton aióna”) cannot be a reference to eternity.
Another interesting verse from the LXX is found in
the book of 1 Maccabees. Although I don’t believe this book has the same
inspired status as the Hebrew Scriptures, I still regard it as being of
important historical value. And in this instance it can tell us a good deal
about how the Greek expression eis
ton aióna was understood by those Jews who translated the Hebrew
Scriptures into Koine Greek (which, again, is the same Greek dialect in which
the New Testament was written). In 1 Maccabees 14:41, we read, “Also that the Jews and priests were well pleased that Simon
should be their governor and high priest eis ton aióna, until there should arise a faithful
prophet...” Obviously, the expression eis ton aióna cannot be understood to literally mean “for
eternity” or “forever.” For if that were the case, there could be no “until.”
Now, in
light of the above, let’s consider the following quote from Vine’s entry on the
term aión (and which J.M. quoted in defense of his position):
“The phrases containing this word [i.e., the word aión]
should not be rendered literally, but consistently with its sense of indefinite
duration. Thus 'eis ton aiona' does not mean 'unto the age' but 'for ever'
(see, e.g., Heb. 5:6).”
In
this quote from Vine’s, we find Hebrews 5:6 being referenced as an example of
how the expression eis ton aióna means “for ever” in the New Testament. Here is
how the verse reads in the Concordant Literal New Testament: “Thou art a priest for the eon [eis ton aióna] according to the order of Melchizedek.” It should be
noted that the author of Hebrews is quoting from Psalm 110:4, and in the LXX
the same expression eis ton aióna is used to translate the Hebrew in this
verse. Although Mr. Vine (who, of course, represents the mainstream view here) believed
that this expression would be better translated “forever,” there is good reason
to not only question this view, but to reject it completely.
That
the expression eis ton aióna need not be understood as referring to an unending
or “eternal” duration of time is evident from the fact that this same exact
expression was used in the LXX to denote temporary rather than interminable
duration (see, for example, the following verses quoted above: Exodus 15:18;
21:6; 40:15; Deut. 23:3, 6; 1 Sam. 1:22; 27:12; 2 Kings 5:27; Psalm 73:12;
Micah 4:5). It is both grammatically valid and within the scope of its usage to
understand the expression eis ton aióna as meaning, “for (or into) the eon.” In
light of this fact, I think a fair question to ask of Mr. Vine (or any other
scholar who subscribes to the view articulated in the above quotation) would
be, “If the author of Hebrews had wanted
to express the idea that Christ would be a priest ‘for the eon,’ what better
Greek phrase could he have used than the one he actually used?” The fact is
that the expression eis ton aióna is perfectly suited to expressing the idea of
something’s lasting for an indefinitely long but limited duration of time.
It would seem that the main reason that Mr. Vine (and others)
thinks that eis ton aióna means “forever” in Hebrews 5:6 (and elsewhere) involves
the assumption that the inspired
writer’s intention was to express the idea of “forever” or “eternity” through
their use of the expression. In other words, Mr. Vine (who we can understand as
representative of those scholars who would agree with him on this point) was assuming that, by the author’s use of
the expression eis ton aióna in Hebrews 5:6, the author of Hebrews must have been trying to express the
idea of eternality. But that’s an entirely unwarranted assumption. For not only
do we have evidence from the LXX that the duration being conveyed through the
use of this expression should be understood as limited, but there are other
scripture-based considerations which make the translation “forever” completely
untenable.
First,
we know that the work of a priest is to deal with sins (see Heb. 2:17 and 5:1).
A functioning, God-ordained priesthood presupposes that there are sinners on
whose behalf the priest is interceding, and for whom he must act as an
intermediary between the sinner and God. If Christ’s priestly office is to
continue “forever,” then it would mean that those on whose behalf Christ acts
as Chief Priest are going to continue sinning forever. But since there is
coming a time when sin will be no more, Christ's priestly office - and the eon
during which he will act as Chief Priest on behalf of those who are in need of
his priestly ministry - will eventually come to an end.
Second,
the very essence of the Melchizedekian priesthood is such that the priest of
this order is also a king. Significantly,
the verse from which the author of Hebrews is quoting (i.e., Psalm 110:4) comes
from the same Psalm in which Christ’s enemy-subjecting reign is prophetically
referred to (Psalm 110:1-2). And, as I argued in my article, the reign of
Christ being prophetically referred to in this Psalm (and in 1 Corinthians
15:24-28) is not going to be of endless duration. When the purpose for which
Jesus has been given his kingly office and authority by God is fulfilled (and
this will take place when all are subjected to Christ and the last enemy,
death, is abolished), he is going to subject himself to his God and Father, and
deliver up the kingdom to God (1 Cor. 15:24-28).
Consider
the following argument:
1.
Jesus’ function as chief priest according to the order of Melchizedek will
continue for no longer than his reign as king.
2.
But we know from 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 that Jesus’ reign is not going to be of
endless duration.
3.
Thus, the expression “eis ton aióna” in Hebrews 5:6 cannot denote a span of
endless duration.
Thus, in addition to how the expression eis ton aióna is used in the LXX, we actually have two scripturally-based reasons to believe that eis ton aióna in Hebrews 5:6 cannot refer to an absolutely endless duration of time. But these considerations were clearly not on Mr. Vine’s “radar screen” when he referred to this verse as an example of how the expression eis ton aióna denotes endless duration.
J.M. wrote: “I think this is most important:
"The Greeks contrasted that which came to an end with that which was
expressed by this phrase, which shows that they conceived of it as expressing
interminable duration."”
We’re not told in the Vine’s entry who “the Greeks” being referred to are, or how close they lived to the time in which the New Testament was written (and it should be noted that one could refer to something that came to an end – for example, the priestly work of Aaron – and contrast it with something that is said to be eis ton aióna – i.e., the priestly work of Christ – without believing that the latter will be of “interminable duration”). But really, it’s irrelevant which “Greeks” are (or aren’t) in view here. For it is not the writings of “the Greeks” but rather the writings which constitute the Hebrew Scriptures (in conjunction with the LXX) which should be appealed to in support of what the term aión means (and doesn’t mean) in the New Testament.
I also think it’s interesting that, in the Vine’s entry on aión,
we’re told that the word aión “is sometimes wrongly rendered ‘world.’” And yet,
in an earlier comment by J.M., he said that one of the meanings of aión that
was in accord with “the agreeing consensus” was “the worlds.” In response to his
list of various “scholar-approved” meanings for aión, I asked how, exactly,
“context, prefixes and suffices of the Greek language” could determine when the
singular noun aión should be translated “age” in some places and “eternity,”
“universe” “the worlds,” and “for ever” in other places.” Apparently, Mr. Vine
would’ve agreed with me that there is no good reason for aión to ever be
translated “world” (or “the worlds”) anywhere in Scripture. I would simply go
further and eliminate every word from the list of meanings J.M. provided except
“age” or “eon” (which is the only consistent
way of translating aión).
I want to close this article with some remarks on an excerpt
from an article that J.M. considered to carry quite a bit of weight insofar as
understanding the meaning of the term aión goes. The article is from The New International Dictionary of New
Testament Theology (Volume 3), and the excerpt on which I’ll be commenting
is from an entry written by Joachim Guhrt on the term αἰών (aión). On page 830 (second
paragraph), Mr. Guhrt wrote, “It is further clear that passages
such as Matt. 21:19; Mk. 3:29; Lk. 1:55; Jn. 13:8; and 1 Cor. 8:13 are speaking
of a future within time which is linked with the duration of that to which
reference is made. On the other hand, the statements of the Johannine writings,
which cannot always be pinned down with absolute certainty of meaning (Jn.
4:14; 6:51, 58; 8:35, 51 f.; 10:28; 11:26; 12:34; 13:8; 14:16: 1 Jn. 2:17; 2
Jn. 2), Heb., where the meaning is quite clear (1:8, quoting Ps. 110:4; 5:6;
6:20; cf. 1:2; 6:5; 7:17, 21, 24, 28; 9:26; 11:3; 13:8, 21) and naturally those
cases where aión is used in the plural, all reveal a strong inclination to
conceive of a timeless, because post-temporal, eternity.”
Among
the verses in which Mr. Guhrt thought it “quite clear” that aión referred to a “post-temporal
eternity” is Hebrews 5:6. However, the same question asked of Mr. Vine could be
asked of Mr. Guhrt as well: “If the author of Hebrews had wanted to express the idea that Christ would be a priest “for the
eon” in this verse, what better Greek phrase could he have used than the one he
did use (i.e., “eis ton aióna”)?”
We know for a fact that (1) the inspired Hebrew writers used the
term olam to refer to things or events that are of known limited duration, (2)
that the term aión (and its adjective
form aiónios) is regularly used in the LXX as a translation of olam, and (3)
that the expression eis ton aióna was used in the LXX to refer to things that
are by no means “of interminable duration,” and which have no reference at all
to anything that will be continuing in existence for “all eternity.” So there
is no problem whatsoever with understanding Hebrews 5:6 (or any occurrence of
the term aión in the NT, whether singular or plural) as referring to a period
of indefinite but ultimately limited duration (e.g., the future eons of
Christ’s reign, prior to the consummation when God becomes “all in all”). Again, the expression eis ton
aióna is perfectly suited to expressing the idea of something’s lasting for an
indefinitely long but limited duration of time. Moreover, in light of the
points considered earlier, it’s reasonable to conclude that the expression “eis
ton aióna” in this verse can’t refer
to a “timeless” and “post-temporal eternity.” It refers, instead, to a long but
limited period of time that will continue no longer than there are sinners who
remain in need of Christ’s priestly work on their behalf.
Among
the verses from John’s account in which the term aión was apparently thought by
Mr. Guhrt to express the idea of a “timeless eternity” are John 8:51 and 11:26.
Here is how these verses read in the English Standard Version (which can be
understood as representative of most popular translations):
“Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps
my word, he will never see death.”
“…everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
These
verses must be among those from John’s account that Mr. Guhrt believed couldn’t
“be pinned down with absolute certainty of meaning,” because, as translated
above, they represent Jesus as declaring something which, when understood in a
literal and straight-forward sense, is completely false. It’s simply not the
case that those who kept Christ’s word and believed in him during his earthly
ministry never saw death, and never died. Everyone who kept Christ’s word and
believed in him during his earthly ministry eventually “saw death” and died (and
they’re still just as dead today as they were on the day that they died). Since
Christ did not teach what is false, we can conclude that it’s the translation
(and not what he actually said) that is at fault here.[1]
The problem
that the above erroneous translation creates is resolved with a more accurate
translation. Here are the same verses from the CLNT:
“Verily, Verily, I am saying to you, If ever
anyone should be keeping My word, he should
under no circumstances be beholding death for the eon.”
“And everyone who is living and believing in Me, should by no means be dying for the eon. Are
you believing this?”
In
both verses, it is “for the eon” (eis ton aióna) that believers will “under no
circumstances be beholding death” and will “by no means be dying.” The “eon” in
view is not the present eon but the future eon (the “eon to come”) that will
begin when Christ returns to earth, and in which Christ will be resurrecting those
who believed in him. It is during this
time that those who believed in him during this lifetime will “under no
circumstances be beholding death” and will “by no means be dying.”
Mr.
Guhrt also believed that “those cases where aión is used in the plural” should
be understood as “naturally” revealing “a strong inclination to conceive of a
timeless, because post-temporal, eternity.” However, among those verses in
which aión is used in the plural is Luke 1:33. And since the eons in view in
this verse are the future eons during which Christ will be reigning – and since
we know that Christ’s reign is not going to be “eternal” in duration – we can
conclude that, in this verse, the plural form of aión does not denote a “timeless, post-temporal eternity.” And what is true of this verse
can, I believe, be understood as true of every
verse in which the term aión is used in the plural.
[1] Some might suggest that the
“death” Christ had in view in these verses should be understood as something
other than literal, physical death (i.e., the death that occurs when someone’s
life on earth ends, and they “breathe their last”). However, a closer look at
the broader context of John’s account indicates that the death which Christ had
in view is the kind of death from which resurrection saves us. Based on what we
read in John 6, the kind of death of which Christ was referring in the above
verses should be understood as the same sort of death that the Israelites died
in the wilderness (:48, 58), and as being the kind of death that, for the
believers to whom Christ spoke at that time, will end when they’re raised up by Christ “in the last day” (:39, 40, 44,
54; cf. John 5:21-29). This is also evident from the larger context of chapter
11 (the main focus of which is, of course, the death and resurrection of
Lazarus). So there is simply no good reason to understand the death in view in
John 8:51 and 11:26 as being something other than the kind of death that every
believer in Christ’s day eventually "beheld" (and from which they’re in need of
being saved via resurrection).
