A defense of the expression “for the eons of the eons” in the CLNT

In most English Bibles, the expression “forever and ever” is used as if it was equivalent in meaning to the Greek words εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων (or “eis tous aiónas tón aiónón,” as it’s transliterated). Here, for example, is how Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 1:17 read in the English Standard Version:

“To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.”

On the website for the ESV, we find this Bible version described as “an essentially literal translation of the Bible” that “emphasizes word-for-word accuracy.” However, the expression “forever and ever” is not a literal, word-for-word translation of what was originally written by Paul in 1 Tim. 1:17. It is, instead, an interpretation. And not only this, but it’s an interpretation that completely obscures the actual meaning of the Greek words “eis tous aiónas tón aiónón.”

To begin my defense of this controversial claim, let’s consider how 1 Timothy 1:17 reads in three of the most literal and consistently-worded English translations:

Young’s Literal Translation

“…and to the King of the ages, the incorruptible, invisible, only wise God, [is] honor and glory -- to the ages of the ages! Amen.”

Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible

“Now unto the King of the ages - incorruptible, invisible, alone God – be honor and glory, unto the ages of ages. Amen!”

Concordant Literal New Testament

“Now to the King of the eons, the incorruptible, invisible, only, and wise God, be honor and glory for the eons of the eons! Amen!”

Notice that, in each of these translations, the plural noun “ages” or “eons” appears exactly three times. The reason for this is simple: in the original Greek text, the plural form of the Greek noun that means “age” or “eon” (i.e., aiónón) appears exactly three times. Here is what the verse looks like in the Greek (I’ve placed the words translated “ages” and “eons” above in bold):

τῷ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων, ἀφθάρτῳ, ἀοράτῳ, μόνῳ θεῷ, τιμὴ καὶ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων· ἀμήν.

https://biblehub.com/text/1_timothy/1-17.htm

It should be noted that the ESV actually acknowledges that “forever and ever” is not a literal, word-for-word translation of the Greek expression. In the footnote for the words, “forever and ever,” we read, ”Greek to the ages of the ages.” Notice that, in this more literal, word-for-word translation found in the ESV’s footnote, the word “and” is missing. Rather than saying “forever and ever” (or even “ages and ages”), the more literal expression is “the ages of the ages.” This is more grammatically correct, and corresponds better with what Paul actually wrote. There is no conjunction “and” in the expression eis tous aiónas tón aiónón (the Greek word for “and” is “kai”). So to replace the Greek “of the” (a genitive plural article) with “and” (a conjunction) is grammatically inaccurate.

The word that’s translated “ages” or “eons” three times in the more literal translations of 1 Tim. 1:17 (and once in the ESV, with the exception of the footnote) is the plural form of the Greek noun “aión.” This noun denotes a relatively long period of time of indeterminate/unspecified duration – i.e., an age, or eon (https://biblehub.com/greek/165.htm). In Vine’s Expository Dictionary of NT Words the word aión is defined as “a period of indefinite duration, or time viewed in relation to what takes place in the period.” For a more in-depth defense of the view that the word aión (and the various expressions in which it occurs in Scripture) never denotes an endless duration of time, see my article “The Meaning of Aión in the New Testament” (http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-meaning-of-aion-in-new-testament.html).

We find the word aión used throughout Scripture in both the singular form (denoting a single “age” or “eon”) and the plural form (denoting two or more “ages” or “eons”). We read, for example, of past eons (Rom. 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:7; 10:11; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:26, Heb. 9:26), of a present eon (Matt. 12:32; 13:40; 24:3; 1 Cor. 2:6-8; Gal. 1:4), and of future eons that will follow the present eon (Mark 10:30; Matt. 12:32; 13:40; 24:3; Luke 18:30; Eph. 1:21; 2:7; Jude 1:25).[1] 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 Cor. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2). We also read of “the consummation of the eons” (1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 9:26), which indicates that the succession of eons revealed in Scripture has an end as well as a beginning.

Moreover, as pointed out in part two of my study “Eternal or Eonian?” (http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2015/01/eternal-or-eonian-part-two.html), both the noun aión and the adjectival form of this word (aiónios) were used by the inspired authors of the Greek Scriptures – as well as by those who originally translated the Hebrews Scriptures into Greek – as the Greek equivalents of the single Hebrew noun “olam.” This word was derived from the verb “alam” (which means “to veil from sight” or “to conceal”), and denotes a long span of past, present or future time of undefined (and thus “concealed”) duration – i.e., it denotes one or more ages, or eons. The Brown-Driver-Briggs English and Hebrew Lexicon, for example, defines “olam” as “long duration, antiquity, futurity” (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5769.htm). In accord with this definition, we read the following in The Encyclopedia Dictionary of the Bible (p. 693):

“The Bible hardly speaks of eternity in the philosophical sense of infinite duration without beginning or end. The Hebrew word olam, which is used alone (Ps. 61:8; etc.) or with various prepositions (Gn. 3:22; etc.) in contexts where it is traditionally translated as “forever,” means in itself no more than “for an indefinitely long period.””

Just as the idea of endless duration isn’t inherent in the meaning of the Hebrew word olam, so this idea isn’t inherent in the meaning of the Greek noun aión in the Greek Scriptures. And since the Greek noun aión means “age” or “eon” in the Greek Scriptures, the three occurrences of the English nouns “ages” or “eons” in 1 Timothy 1:17 should be understood as grammatically reflecting what actually occurs in the Greek text. This translational decision is consistent and logical, and serves to clarify rather than to obscure.

Like the ESV, the New English Translation has “forever and ever” in the main text while providing the reader with a more literal and accurate translation in a footnote. Here’s the NET’s translation of 1 Tim. 1:17:

”Now to the eternal king, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever! Amen.”

In the footnote for the words “the eternal king” we read,  ”Or more literally, “king of the ages.”” Here in this footnote it’s basically admitted by the translator(s) that the use of the word “eternal” in this verse is not a literal translation of the Greek word used by Paul. It is, instead, an interpretation. The NET has another footnote for the expression “forever and ever”: “Grk ’unto the ages of the ages,’ an emphatic way of speaking about eternity in Greek” (classic.net.bible.org). Once again, we find that the translator(s) apparently decided that the more literal translation (“unto the ages of the ages”) just wouldn’t adequately communicate to the reader the idea that they think Paul was trying to communicate here. But at least we’re able to see their justification for rejecting the more literal expression “unto the ages of the ages” in favor of the less literal expression “forever and ever.” According to the footnote, the expression “unto the ages of the ages” is “an emphatic way of speaking about eternity in Greek.”

Now, there’s no question that the English expression “forever and ever” could be considered “an emphatic way of speaking about eternity.” This expression is a good example of exaggeration or hyperbole. Since a single “forever” by itself literally denotes unending duration (or “eternity”), adding the words “and ever” could only be for the sake of emphasis (for of course, there couldn’t be two eternities or “forevers” in succession). However, the same cannot be said for the expressions “unto the ages of the ages” or “for the eons of the eons.” For the plural form of the Greek word aión (“ages” or “eons”) is not equivalent in meaning to the English word “forever” (or “eternity”). Rather, this term denotes two or more periods of time. Can there be a succession of two unending, “eternal” periods of time? No; clearly not. Are the “ages” in view constituted by one or more finite ages as well as a single “eternal” age? If so, why use the plural “ages” when only one of the ages in view is really “eternal?” The more we reflect on the claim that the expression “unto the ages of the ages” or “for the eons of the eons” is to be understood as “an emphatic way of speaking about eternity” (as is the case with the expression “forever and ever”), the more problematic and dubious it becomes.

Not surprisingly, we’re not provided with any evidence or argumentation in support of the assertion that the Greek expression translated “forever and ever” in the main text is “an emphatic way of speaking about eternity in Greek.” Of course, we shouldn’t expect much argumentation to be found in a mere footnote. However, apart from any evidence given in defense of this claim, the reader should not feel rationally obligated to agree with it. In fact, the more reasonable response would be to reject the validity of such a strong claim until being presented with compelling evidence in support of it. When the literal, straight-forward meaning of a word or expression makes sense in its context – that is, when it doesn’t involve an obvious absurdity or contradiction – the burden of proof is on the one claiming that the expression shouldn’t be understood literally.

Those who believe the more literal translation “unto the ages of the ages” (or “for the eons of the eons”) does not as accurately or sufficiently express the thought of the inspire writer(s) as the much less literal expression “forever and ever” need to justify their deviation from the literal wording. Otherwise, we can simply assume that the translator’s departure from the more literal wording was nothing more than an interpretive decision that’s motivated more by the translator’s own theological bias than to a commitment to translational accuracy.

But what does it mean for God to be “the King of the eons” (βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων), and what is meant by the words, “for the eons of the eons” (τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων)? Answer: When Paul referred to God as “the King of the eons,” he was expressing the truth that God’s sovereign rule extends throughout the time of the eons referred to elsewhere in Scripture. However, God’s existence and rule is not limited to the eons of which he is the King; as A.E. Knoch correctly pointed out in his remarks on 1 Tim. 1:17, “The title “King of the eons’ does not limit God to the eons in time, even as ‘the Lord of the earth’ does not limit Him in space.”

As far as the meaning of the expression “for the eons of the eons,” let’s consider the words of Gabriel as recorded in Luke 1:31-33. In the CLNT these verses read as follows:

“And lo! you shall be conceiving and be pregnant and be bringing forth a Son, and you shall be calling His name Jesus. He shall be great, and Son of the Most High shall He be called. And the Lord God shall be giving Him the throne of David, His father, and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for the eons. And of His kingdom there shall be no consummation.”

The Greek expression translated “for the eons” in Luke 1:33 is “eis tous aiónas” (Luke 1:33 Greek Text Analysis), and consists of the first three words that are found in the longer expression, “for the eons of the eons.” Concerning the meaning of the first word used in this expression (“eis”), we read the following in Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:

εἰς, a preposition governing the accusative, and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, toward, for, among (https://biblehub.com/greek/1519.htm)

We’re further told in this entry that the Greek preposition “eis” can be used of place, time, and various states of affairs. Since the word aión denotes a period of time (i.e., an “age” or “eon”), the information with which we’re provided regarding the meaning of eis when it’s connected with a certain period of time can help us determine what the best translation of eis should be in the above verse. And among the English words provided as valid translations for eis when used of time are “through,” “for” and “unto.”[2]

The second word in the expression “eis tous aiónas” means “the” (https://biblehub.com/greek/3588.htm), while the last word in this expression is the plural form of the noun “aión” (i.e., “ages” or “eons”). We find the same use of the plural form of the noun aión in Eph. 2:7 (where Paul referred to “the oncoming eons” during which God shall “be displaying the transcendent riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus”). We can, therefore, reasonably conclude that Gabriel had in mind these “oncoming eons” when he told the mother of Jesus that her son would “reign over the house of Jacob for the eons.”

The “eons of the eons” are the future eons of Christ’s reign

But does the expression “eis tous aiónas” (“for the eons”) in Luke 1:33 refer to the same future duration of time as that which is referred to elsewhere as “eis tous aiónas tón aiónon” (“for the eons of the eons”)? Yes. The expression “eis tous aiónas tón aiónon” is simply an expanded form of the expression “eis tous aiónas” found in Luke 1:33. The use of the additional words in the longer expression (i.e., “tón aiónón” or “of the eons”) simply serves to emphasize the fact that the future eons of Christ’s reign will be the greatest of all the eons (both past and present). A similar expression that can help us better understand the meaning of the phrase “the eons of the eons” is “the holy of holies.” The expression “holy of holies” refers to the most holy place among the other holy places (Ex. 26:33-34; Ez. 41:4; Heb. 9:1-3, 25). Similarly, “the eons of the eons” should be understood as referring to the last and greatest of all the eons.[3]

This understanding is further confirmed from the fact that, in a number of verses, the expression used is “for the eon [singular] of the eons [plural],” which is of the same grammatical form as the expressions, “holy of holies” and “king of kings.” Just as the “holy of holies” refers to the greatest holy place among other holy places and “king of kings” refers to the greatest king among other kings, so the “eon of the eons” refers to the greatest eon among all the other eons (which will be the final eon of Christ’s reign).

Some understand the expression “the eons of the eons” (or “ages of the ages”) as referring to an infinite number of future eons or ages. But this expression no more refers to an infinite number of eons than the expression “holies of holies” (as found in the LXX translation of 1 Kings 8:6) refers to an infinite number of holy places. Again, the eons that are in view in the expression “the eons of the eons” are simply the future eons of Christ’s reign. And the fact that Christ shall be reigning for more than one future eon (as revealed in Luke 1:33) means that at least one of these eons – i.e., the first one – must be a temporary period of time. And since the first of these eons is temporary, we have good reason to believe that the other eon(s) for which Christ will be reigning will be temporary in duration as well.

But can we know this for sure? Yes. For according to Paul’s prophecy in 1 Corinthians 15:23-28, Christ is not going to be reigning for an endless duration of time. After revealing that everyone dying in Adam is going to be vivified or “made alive” in Christ (1 Cor. 15:20-22), Paul went on to write the following:

Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence; thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power. For He must be reigning until He should be placing all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy is being abolished: death. For He subjects all under His feet. Now whenever He may be saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is outside of Him Who subjects all to Him. Now, whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all.

In the context, the “consummation” of which we read in v. 24 refers to either the consummation of Christ’s vivifying work (i.e., the vivification of all mankind and consequent abolishment of death, “the last enemy”), or the consummation of Christ’s reign (i.e., the time when Christ will “be giving up the kingdom to his God and Father” and will thus “be subjected to [God]”). According to either understanding, the consummation of which Paul wrote is inseparably connected with both the end of Christ’s reign and the abolishing of death.

That Christ’s reign will eventually end (and is thus not going to continue for an endless duration of time) is evident from the fact that, when death is abolished, Christ is going to be “giving up the kingdom to His God and Father.” This is further confirmed by the words, ”For He must be reigning until He should be placing all His enemies under His feet.” Paul is here revealing the goal of Christ’s reign. When this goal is reached – i.e., when all of Christ’s enemies have been subjected to him – there will no longer be any need for Christ to continue reigning, and Christ will thus give up the kingdom to his God and Father.

Now, we know that being subjected to Christ will involve becoming a subject of the kingdom that he’ll be giving up to God, for the same term translated “subjected” is, in verse 28, used in reference to both the “all” who are to be subjected to Christ and to Christ himself (and when it’s used in reference to Christ, we know that it refers to his becoming a subject of the kingdom after he gives up the kingdom to God, for Christ is already completely submitted to God’s will). Thus, when the kingdom over which Christ will be reigning is given up to God, God alone will reign as King over this then-universal kingdom, and all created, intelligent beings – including Christ himself – will be his subjects. Moreover, we also know that the kingdom that will be given up to God will continue, without end, beyond the duration of the eons of Christ’s reign. It is for this reason that we’re told in Luke 1:33 that “there shall be no consummation” of Christ’s kingdom. For, although Christ’s reign over the kingdom will end when he gives the kingdom up to his God and Father, the kingdom itself will have no end (or “consummation”) after it has been delivered to God.[4]

Since Christ’s reign is only “until” a certain point (at which point he will give up the kingdom to his God and Father), it follows that the duration of time for which Christ is going to be reigning “over the house of Jacob” (i.e., “eis tous aiónas” or “for the eons”) is not endless or “eternal”; rather, it will end when Christ’s reign ends, and he gives up the kingdom to his God and Father. Moreover, the “ages” or “eons” that are in view in Luke 1:33 and elsewhere are simply the coming “ages” or “eons” that Paul was referring to in Ephesians 2:7. It is during these future “ages” or “eons” that Christ will be reigning “over the house of Jacob.” And the last “age” or “eon” during which Christ will be reigning will conclude after Christ has placed all his enemies under his feet and abolished death, the last enemy.

Consider the following argument:

1. In Luke 1:33, the Greek expression “eis tous aiónas“ (“for the eons”) does not refer to a span of time that continues beyond the time during which Christ shall be reigning.

2. According to what is revealed in 1 Corinthians 15:23-28, 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 so that God may be “All in all”).

3. Thus, the span of time expressed by the words “eis tous aiónas“ in Luke 1:33 cannot be endless in duration.

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 that conveys the idea of endless duration (e.g., “forever”) 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 over the kingdom of God (such as “for the eons”). Moreover, since the expression “eis tous aiónas tón aiónon” (“for the eons of the eons”) refers to the same duration of time as the duration of time expressed by the words “eis tous aiónas” (“for the eons”), we can conclude that it also denotes a limited duration of time (i.e., the future eons of Christ’s reign).

A Response to “CARM”

One online Christian ministry that has attempted to defend the use of the expression “forever and ever” as a valid translation of eis tous aiónas tón aiónón is the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (or “CARM”). In an article titled “A Look at the Phrase “forever and ever”,” the author of the article begins his defense of this position as follows:

Is the English phrase “forever and ever” a proper translation of the Greek? Does it mean without end? Is it ever used of something not eternal? Does it refer to eternal torment? These questions are important because the universalist position denies the eternality of hellfire. Universalists take the literal Greek phrase of “eis tous aionas ton aionon, — into the age of the ages” which is commonly translated as “forever and ever,” “forevermore,” and state that it refers to an age of time, a finite period of time.

Although it’s claimed that “universalists” state that the expression “eis tous aiónas tón aiónón” “refers to an age of time,” it would be more accurate to say that this expression refers to more than one age (or eon) of time. Setting aside this inaccuracy concerning what “universalists” believe concerning this expression, we go on to find an appeal made to a certain lexicon in which the phrase “eis tous aiónas tón aiónón” is said to mean “unlimited duration of time, with particular focus upon the future – ‘always, forever, forever and ever, eternally.'”

However, we’re not provided with any further information from this particular lexicon that gives us any compelling reasons to think that the meaning it ascribes to this expression is, in fact, the correct meaning. And this means that the author’s appeal to the lexicon doesn’t establish that the meaning of the Greek expression under consideration actually means what the author of the article believes it means. For not even lexicons edited by distinguished scholars are infallible. And it could very well be the case (I would say that it’s very likely to be the case) that the definition of the phrase provided in the lexicon from which the author quotes is ultimately based on the same sort of fallacious assumptions that the author of the CARM article relies on himself when he goes on to attempt to prove that it means “forever and ever.”

Perhaps in recognition of the fact that simply quoting from a lexicon does not prove his case, the author of the article goes on to provide his own defense of the view that “forever and ever” is a “proper translation” of the Greek expression eis tous aiónas tón aiónón. The author begins this defense by asserting that the phrase “is used to describe both God’s eternal attributes and His eternal nature as well as eternal torment.”

We’re then provided with a list of every verse in which the phrase eis tous aiónas tón aiónón occurs in Scripture. According to the author, the list of verses “clearly shows” that the expression was used to mean “forever,” and “without end.” The reason the author believes the list of verses “clearly shows” this is because – according to the author – the inspired writers were using the Greek expression “to describe both God’s eternal attributes and His eternal nature” and to refer to “God’s glory and honor.” However, the author of the article is assuming that, when the inspired writers used the expression eis tous aiónas tón aiónón in connection with God or Christ, the writer’s intention was to communicate the idea that either God or Christ will be living (or will be receiving honor and glory, etc.) for an endless duration of time (i.e., “forever”).

For example, the author assumes that Paul used the expression eis tous aiónas tón aiónón in 1 Tim. 1:17 to communicate the idea that God will receive honor and glory forever. But instead of assuming that it was Paul’s intention to express this idea, we should let the meaning of the expression “eis tous aiónas tón aiónón” inform our understanding of what, exactly, Paul was intending to communicate here. And since the expression “eis tous aiónas tón aiónón” refers to the future eons of Christ’s reign (and not to an endless duration of time), we can conclude that it was not, in fact, Paul’s intention in 1 Tim. 1:17 to communicate the idea that God will receive honor and glory “forever.” Rather, it was Paul’s intention to emphasize the fact that God is going to be receiving honor and glory for the future eons of Christ’s reign.

At this point, it may be objected that, according to this understanding, Paul would’ve been affirming that God will be receiving honor and glory during the eons of Christ’s reign only. However, the force of this objection depends entirely on the word “only.” And this word is completely absent from what Paul actually wrote in 1 Tim. 1:17. We’re not told that God will have honor and glory for the eons of the eons only (or that God will have no honor and glory beyond these future periods of time). And we have good reason to believe that God will continue to be honored and glorified after the eons of Christ’s reign have concluded. In 1 Tim. 1:17 (and elsewhere), Paul was simply putting an emphasis on the honor and glory that God will be receiving during these future time periods.

But why would Paul emphasize the future eons as the time when God will receive honor and glory? Answer: Because the honor and glory that God will be receiving during these future eons of Christ’s reign will be far greater than the honor and glory that God is presently receiving during the present eon in which we’re living. According to Paul, the present eon is “wicked“ (Gal. 1:4), and is comprised of days that are wicked (Eph. 5:16). This present wicked eon is the eon of which Satan is said to be the “god” (2 Cor. 4:4), and is the eon in which our Lord was crucified. It is characterized by spiritual deception and ignorance of God and his purpose. Although God is “the King of the eons,” he is not, at present, receiving anywhere near the degree of honor and glory that he’ll be receiving during the future eons of Christ’s reign. Any honor and glory that God receives from his human creatures during this eon is the exception rather than the rule.

But what about those verses in which we’re told that both Christ and God are “living for the eons of the eons” (e.g., Rev. 4:9-10; 10:6; 15:7)? In these verses, we’re not being told that God and Christ are living only for the eons of the eons (for God has, of course, always been alive, and both God and Christ will continue to live after the eons are over). But why would the truth that God and Christ are “living for the eons of the eons” be a truth worth stating (and repeating)? Answer: On a number of occasions, God prefaced a promise or pledge that he would bring something about with the words, “As I live” (Numbers 14:21, 28; Isaiah 49:18; Jer. 22:24; 46:18; Ezekiel 5:11; 14:16, 18, 20; 16:48; etc.). Similarly, we often read of people using the words “As Yahweh lives” when promising that something will occur (Judges 8:19; Ruth 3:13; 1 Sam. 14:39, 45; 19:6; 20:3, 21; 1 Kings 17:1; 18:15; etc.).

Consider, especially, Rev. 10:5-7. In these verses we read the following:

“And the messenger whom I perceived standing on the sea and on the land lifts his right hand to heaven and swears by Him Who is living for the eons of the eons, Who creates heaven and that which is in it, and the earth and that which is in it, and the sea and that which is in it, that there will be no longer a time of delay, but in the days of the seventh messenger’s voice, whenever he may be about to be trumpeting, the secret of God is consummated also, as He evangelizes to His own slaves and the prophets.”

In light of the above considerations, we can understand the repeated affirmation that God is “living for the eons of the eons” as simply a way of emphasizing the certainty with which something would be accomplished. It implies that everything we’re told will be occurring during (and before) these future eons will, in fact, take place. The fact that both God and his Son will be living for the future time periods when the greatest of all the blessings prophesied in Revelation (beyond which the book of Revelation does not reveal any information) guarantees it.

---

[1] In the CLNT, Jude 1:25 reads as follows: “…to the only God, our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, might and authority before the entire eon, now, as well as for all the eons. Amen!” In accord with the use of the words “eon” and “eons” in this translation, Jude used the noun aión twice in this verse (first in the singular, then in the plural). The “entire eon” to which Jude was referring is the present eon (hence the use of the word “now”). The expression translated “all the eons” (pantas tous aiónas) includes both this present eon and the future eons.

[2] The following is from the entry on the Greek preposition “eis” from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon that pertains to the meaning of this word when used of time: 

1. it denotes entrance into a period which is penetrated, as it were, i.e. duration through a time (Latinin; German hinein, hinaus): εἰς τόν αἰῶνα and the like, see αἰών, 1 a.; εἰς τό διηνεκές, Hebrews 7:3; Hebrews 10:1, 12, 14; εἰς πολλά, Luke 12:19; τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ (ἡμέρα) εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, dawning into (A. V. toward) the first day of the week, Matthew 28:1. Hence, 

2. of the time in which a thing is done; because he who does or experiences a thing at any time is conceived of as, so to speak, entering into that time: εἰς τόν καιρόν αὐτῶν, in their season, Luke 1:20; εἰς τό μέλλον namely, ἔτος, the next year (but under the word μέλλω, 1. Grimm seems to take the phrase indefinitely, thenceforth (cf. Greek text)), Luke 13:9; εἰς τό μεταξύ σάββατον, on the next sabbath, Acts 13:42; εἰς τό πάλιν, again (for the second, third, time), 2 Corinthians 13:2. 

3. of the (temporal) limit for which anything is or is done; Latinin; our for, unto: Revelation 9:15; εἰς τήν αὔριον namely, ἡμέραν, for the morrow, Matthew 6:34; Acts 4:3; εἰς ἡμέραν κρίσεως, 2 Peter 2:9; 2 Peter 3:7; εἰς ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ, Philippians 1:10; Philippians 2:16; εἰς ἡμέραν ἀπολυτρώσεως, Ephesians 4:30.  

4. of the (temporal) limit to which; unto, i. e. even to, until: Acts 25:21; 1 Thessalonians 4:15; εἰς ἐκείνην τήν ἡμέραν, 2 Timothy 1:12. On the phrase εἰς τέλος, see τέλος, 1 a. 

Click the following link for the full entry: https://biblehub.com/greek/1519.htm 

[3] Significantly, in the LXX translation of 1 Kings 8:6 (https://biblehub.com/sepd/1_kings/8.htm), the Greek expression translated as “into the holy of holies” (εἰς τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων) has the same grammatical construction as the expression translated “for the eons of the eons” in 1 Tim. 1:17 and elsewhere (εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων).

[4] It may be objected that, in Daniel 7:14, we’re told that Christ’s “dominion” (or “jurisdiction”) “shall not pass away.” However, in the context, the expression “shall not pass away” should be understood as a contrast with what was said concerning the dominion of the “beasts” mentioned just two verses earlier. In Daniel 7:12 we read, “As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.” The Hebrew word translated “taken away” here (‛ădâ',‛ădâh) is the same word translated "pass away" in v. 14. In v. 12 the word clearly denotes a forced and involuntary removal of the beast’s dominion. 

This is made even more evident in v. 26, where we read that the dominion of the Antichrist (the “little horn” of Dan. 7:8 and 11) shall also be “taken away” (‛ădâ', ‛ădâh), which is explained to mean that it would be “consumed and destroyed to the end.” Thus, in the context, the meaning of Dan. 7:14 is simply that the dominion/jurisdiction of the Messiah would not be forcefully and involuntarily taken away from him (resulting in the destruction of his kingdom). This does not, however, mean that Christ – after having accomplished what he was sent by the Father to do – will not one day voluntarily deliver his kingdom to the One from whom he received it.