Eternal or Eonian? Part Four (The Greek Noun Aión)

The Greek Noun Aión

As noted earlier, the Jewish authors of the New Testament used the Greek language to express what were essentially Jewish ideas and concepts shaped largely by the inspired content of the Hebrew Bible. So when they wanted to express the idea that the Hebrew word olam embodied, they used words from the Greek language that could best serve as vehicles for its meaning. One of the words that they used as the Greek equivalent of olam is the Greek noun aión. In the New Testament, the word aión denotes an indefinitely long period of time - i.e., an “eon.”[1] The Analytical Greek Lexicon defines aión as "a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age."

Consider the following entry on "time" from The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Vol. IV, p. 643):

"Time: The OT and the NT are not acquainted with the conception of eternity as timelessness. The OT has not developed a special term for "eternity." The word aion originally meant "vital force," "life;" then "age," "lifetime." It is, however, also used generally of a limited or unlimited long space of time. The use of the word aion is determined very much by the OT and the LXX. Aion means "long distant uninterrupted time" in the past (Luke 1:10), as well as in the future (John 4:14)."

In every case in which the noun aión (age or eon) appears in the New Testament, it can be understood as referring to long, uninterrupted periods of time in redemptive history that span many generations on earth. We are told that there was a time before the eons began (2 Tim 1:9; Tit 1:2), and that God created the eons by his word (Heb 1:2, 11:3). Hence, Paul calls God "the King of eons" (1 Tim 1:17), since he created and rules over them. In the Greek scriptures we read of past eons (Rom 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:7; 10:11; Eph 3:9; Col 1:26, Heb 9:26), a present eon (Matt 12:32; 13:40; 24:3; 1 Cor. 2:6-7; Gal 1:4), and future eons to follow this present eon (Mk. 10:30; Mt. 12:32; 13:40; 24:3; Lk. 18:30; Eph. 1:21; 2:7; Jude 1:25). We also read of the consummation of the eons (1 Cor. 10:11; Heb 9:26). There are, then, a minimum of five eons referred to in Scripture.[2]

"For the Eon(s)"

Two phrases that appear several times in Scripture are "eis ton aióna [singular]" and "eis ton aiónas [plural]." A literal translation of these expressions would be "for the eon" and "for the eons," respectively. The following are some examples of where the first expression can be found in the New Testament: Mt.21:19; Mk.11:14; Lk.1:55; Jn.6:51, 58; 8:35; 12:34; 14:16; 1 Cor. 8:13; 2 Cor.9:9; Heb.5:6; 6:20; 7:17, 21; 1 Pet.1:23, 25; 2 Pet.2:17; 1 Jn.2:17; 2 Jn.2; Jude 13; Heb.7:24. The form of the expression in which the plural aiónas (ages/eons) is used can be found in the following places: Mt.6:13; Lk.1:33; Rom.1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 16:27; 2 Cor. 11:31; Heb.13:8; Jude 25. 

The fact that the expression appears with both the singular and the plural form of aion makes it evident that neither expression means "forever." For if eis ton aióna [singular] means "forever" (as most English translations have it), then the plural form of the expression would then have to be translated "forevers" -which, of course, is absurd. And since there is a plural form of the expression, it follows that the singular form can't mean "forever."But both expressions make perfectly good sense if they're referring to one or more periods of time (i.e., eons). 

That the expression eis ton aióna(s)doesn't refer to "eternity" is evident not only from the above considerations, but also from its use in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (the LXX). For the expression eis ton aióna ("for the age") is found in several places in the LXX which even the most stubborn opponent of the position being advanced in this study would have to concede doesn't have anything to do with "eternity," or with that which is literally "forever." For example, we read that the servitude of bondmen was to be eis ton aióna (Ex. 21:6; Deut. 15:17; Lev. 25:45-46). Here, the expression eis ton aióna ("for the eon") has reference only to the present eon, in which the people in view existed as bondservants in Israel. The meaning of the expression is simply that one's servitude would last as long as they lived during this eon.

Another similar example from the LXX can be found in 2 Kings 5:27, where we read that Gehazi and his descendents would be afflicted by a skin disease eis ton aióna or "for the eon." Again, the "eon" in view here simply cannot be an endless duration of time. Gehazi and his descendents were not being told that they would have a skin disease literally "forever," or for "all eternity!" That would be absurd. Even when translators render the original expression as "forever," no one in his right mind could interpret this literally. But again, there is an age or eon in view here. And the eon that is in view is the present eon, where people can (and do) live and die with the kind of skin disease that afflicted Gehazi and his descendents. In this verse, eis ton aióna("for the eon") clearly means that Gehazi and his descendents would be afflicted by the skin disease as long as they lived during this eon.

Another interesting verse from the LXX is found in the book of 1 Maccabees. Although I believe this book to be apocryphal and non-inspired (as do most non-Catholics), 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 inspired 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 ("for the eon") cannot be understood to mean "for eternity," or (literally) "forever." For if that were the case, there could be no "until." The obvious meaning is that Simon would be the governor and high priest as long as he lived during this eon (and "until there should arise a faithful prophet").

In Mark 11:12-14 (Concordant Version), we read the following: "And on the morrow, at their coming out from Bethany, He hungers. And perceiving one fig tree from afar having leaves, He came, if, consequently, He will be finding anything on it. And coming to it, He found nothing except leaves, for it was not the season of figs. And answering, He said to it, 'By no means may anyone still be eating fruit of you for the eon [eis ton aióna].' And His disciples heard."

Here again, the expression eis ton aiona simply refers to the present age or eon(i.e., the eon in which the fig tree existed). When Christ spoke these words, the fig tree withered, thereby preventing anyone from being able to eat fruit from it "for the eon." Christ's words had no reference to "eternity," or to any future eon. He had in mind only the eon in which the fig tree existed, and in which it could possibly bear fruit for others to eat.

In Hebrews 5:6, we read of Christ that he is a priest "for the eon [eis ton aióna]." Most translations render this expression "forever." However, we know the aion (eon) in view must refer to a temporary period of time. The work of a priest is to deal with sin (see Heb. 2:17 and 5:1). If Christ's priestly office is to continue "forever," then it would mean that sin is never going to come to an end and be blotted out. A priestly office is only necessary as long as there are sinners in need of a priest to deal with their sins. Thus, Christ's priestly office - and the eon during which he will act as priest on behalf of Israel - will eventually come to an end, since there is coming a time when sin will be no more. Similarly, there is coming a time when there will no longer be a need for Christ to hold his kingly office. Why? Because the purpose for which he was given this office will have been fulfilled. Once there is no one left to be subjected (for all are ultimately going to be subjected to Christ), Christ is going to subject himself to God, and deliver the kingdom to him (1 Cor. 15:24-28).

"For the Eon(s) of the Eon(s)"

A similar expression to eis ton aiona that appears occasionally in the Greek Scriptures is eis tous aionas ton aionon. This and other similar expressions are all translated "forever and ever" in most Bible translations. In the expression eis tous aionas ton aionon, both words which are translated "forever" and "ever" are the plural form of aion. But of course, the English word "ever" is singular. And "forevers and evers" is even more absurd than "forever and ever" (which is bad enough in itself; if something is already "forever," no further duration could be added to it)! Consequently, for those Bible translators desiring to be as literal and accurate as possible in their translation, the English word "ever" is simply not an appropriate choice with which to translate the plural form of the Greek noun aion. The Greek expression eis tous aionas ton aionon would better be translated "to the ages of the ages" (as in Young's Literal Translation or Rotherham's Emphasized Bible) or (perhaps better still) "for the eons of the eons" (as in the Concordant Version).[3]And as noted earlier, the expression "for the eon (or eons) of the eons" implies at least two future eons to follow the eon in which we are now living.[4]

Some erroneously believe that this expression should be understood as referring to an infinite number of eons. But that would be like saying that the phrase "holies of holies" (ta hagia ton hagion) in the LXX translation of 2 Kings 8:6 refers to an infinite number of holy places, for the Greek grammatical construction is the same in both expressions. The expression "holies of holies" simply refers to the most holy places among other holy places. Similarly, "the eons of the eons" should be understood as referring to the greatest eons among other eons, and not to an infinite number of eons. That this is the case is evident also from the fact that, in a number of verses, the expression 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 the "king of kings" refers to the greatest king among other kings, so the "eon of the eons" refers to the greatest eon among other eons (which Scripture clearly reveals will be the final eon).

Interestingly, in the English Standard Version (a self-described "essentially literal" translation), the translators actually acknowledge that the Greek expression they've consistently translated as "forever and ever" in their translation literally means, "to the ages of ages" (see, for example, the footnote provided for 1 Timothy 1:17). This honest acknowledgement of the literal meaning of the Greek makes one wonder why this "alternative" translation was relegated to a footnote rather than placed in the text itself. For the inclusion of this footnote betrays the fact that the words which appear in the text (i.e., "forever and ever") are actually the interpretation of the translator, rather than an "essentially literal" rendering of the Greek.

---

[1] An “eon” is defined as “an indefinitely long period of time; an age” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eon). This, I believe, the best translation of the Greek noun aion that we have in the English language, and is thus the most appropriate word with which to translate it. What makes “eon” especially suitable as a translation of aion is the fact that it has an adjective form (“eonian”) that corresponds perfectly with the Greek adjective aiónios.

[2] Since there is no good reason to assume there to be more, it seems most reasonable to believe that the total number of eons which God planned before creation, and which will transpire before the consummation (when death is abolished and Christ delivers the kingdom to God), is five. That there are five total eons can also be inferred from the fact that there are four great cataclysms referred to in Scripture. If every eon ends with one of these great cataclysms (except the last, which will end with God's being "all in all"), then the total number of eons is five.

[3] The reason is this: ton aionon is in the genitive form meaning "of" or "belonging to" the aionon. And there is no conjunction in the Greek expression tous aionas ton aionon (the Greek word for "and" is "kai," not "ton"). So to replace the Greek "of the" (a genitive plural article) with "and" (a conjunction) is dubious, to say the least. There is no grammatical or linguistic reason for any translator to do this. And if the word aion is rendered "eon" or "age" by an English Bible translation, then to be consistent, the plural form of aion (aionon) should be rendered "eons" or "ages."

[4] It should be noted, however, that some believe this expression should be understood idiomatically rather than literally. Even if this is the case, we have no reason to assume that an endless duration of time is in view. If the expression tous aionas ton aionon should be understood idiomatically rather than literally, it could simply be understood to mean, "into the distant future," or "for a long time," and would convey the same general idea that is expressed in expressions such as, "from generation to generation" (Isaiah 34:10) or "throughout all generations" (Eph 3:21; cf. Col 1:26). Whether such expressions are to be understood literally or figuratively, no idea of an absolute "eternity" or a literal "forever" need be implied.

Eternal or Eonian? Part Three (The Olam God)

Although it is evident from the many examples given earlier that the Hebrew word olam was used in reference to things that are clearly temporary in duration, it may be objected that the same word is also applied to God, his rule, his mercy, his truth, his glory, etc. (see Deut 32:40; 1 Chron. 16:34; Psalm 9:7, 29:10, 102:12, 104:31; 117:2; Lam 5:19; Eccles 3:14; cf. Ex 3:15; Psalm 33:11; 66:7; 100:5; 103:17; 104:31, 105:8; 117:2; 135:13; 146:10; Isaiah 51:6, 8; Dan 2:44, etc.). If olam should best be understood to denote a limited, indefinite duration of time, then wouldn't verses such as these mean that God's existence (along with his reign, his mercy, his truth, etc.) is also of a limited duration? Not at all.

The fact of God's eternality (i.e., his having no beginning or end) stands by itself, and does not rely on the meaning of the word olam. Many consider God's eternality and everlastingness to be expressed in the divine name "Yahweh," for example. We're also told that God is "incorruptible" (which implies his being everlasting or eternal). And in Psalm 102:27 we're explicitly told that God's years have no end. But the idea of eternity, or absolute endless duration,is not inherent in the word olam as it is used in the Old Testament. It is not God's eternal, time-transcending existence that is in view in these verses (which was likely a fact taken for granted by the writers of Scripture). Instead, what is in view when olam is used in reference to God is his continuous, faithful and personal involvement with his creation in all of the time periods of redemptive history, whether past, present or future. It is thisfact that the scripture writers are emphasizing by their use of olam in reference to God, his rule, his glory, his mercy, etc.

Understood in this way, the use of olam in verses such as these is not an argument for or against that which is "eternal" or "everlasting" in the absolute sense of the word. Moreover, by use of parallelism (a common literary device used by the Hebrew people) the authors of Scripture frequently explain their use of olam when applied to God, his reign and other things by adding parallel expressions such as, "throughout all generations," "to a thousand generations," "many generations," "from generation to generation," "from age to age," "unto children's children," etc.[1]Such expressions as these keep the perspective on the ages of history rather than pointing to an "eternal" state of existence. It is in reference to a world in which generations of people are born, live and die that olam is used in many such verses. None of the above verses have any reference to "eternity." Nor were they written to, or for, anyone inhabiting "eternity."

The Olam God

As a review of the conclusions we've arrived at concerning the meaning of the Hebrew word olam, let's consider Genesis 21:33, where God is described as the "olam God." What is the meaning of this description of God, if the word olamdoesn't have God's eternality in view? I think the context can help us out here. A few chapters earlier, we read that God had made an "olam covenant" with Abraham:

"And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an olam covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an olam possession, and I will be their God" (Gen. 17:7-8).

As part of this olam covenant that God made with Abraham, God promised to give to Abraham the land in which he was sojourning as a stranger. Significantly, in the verse that immediately follows the one we're considering (in which God is referred to as "the olam God"), we read that Abraham was, at the time, sojourning in the land of the Philistines (Gen 21:34). This historical detail should bring to the reader's mind the covenant that God had made with Abraham. At some future time, God is going to fulfill his covenant promise to Abraham, and the land of the Philistines in which he was but a sojourner (when we're told he "called on the name of Yahweh") will belong to him and his descendents, as an olam inheritance.

Now, this raises the question: When God fulfills his promise to Abraham and Abraham finally possesses the land, how long will the land be in Abraham's possession? The answer to this question will help us determine how long the duration of time is that is represented by the word "olam" in Gen. 17:7-8. Although the duration of time was apparently unknown to Abraham when God made this promise to him (remember that olam denotes a "hidden" duration of time, whether past, present or future), does Scripture give us any indication elsewhere of how long it will be (either exactly or approximately)? Well, we know that, according to Revelation 21:1, the present heaven and earth is one day going to "pass away" and be replaced by "a new heaven and a new earth" (Rev. 21:1). So assuming the land will be in Abraham's possession as long as the land exists to be possessed and inhabited (which is, I believe, a reasonable assumption to make), Abraham's possession of the land cannot be understood as an "eternal" possession. Why? Because according to what is revealed in Revelation, the entire earth (of which the land promised to Abraham is a part) is one day going to cease to exist and be replaced by a new earth. But in spite of the fact that the present earth is ultimately going to be destroyed and replaced, Abraham will still have plenty of time to enjoy the land promised him by God. For according to Rev. 20, the present earth is going to remain in existence for at least a thousand years after Abraham is resurrected at Christ's coming. Thus, the time period expressed by the Hebrew noun olam in Genesis 17:7-8 is at least a thousand years.

Having established that Abraham's "olam possession" of the land is not "eternal," let's return to Genesis 21:33, where God is referred to as the "olam God." Is Moses saying that God's existence is limited to the time period during which (as well as leading up to when) Abraham enjoys his "olam possession?" Not at all. Moses was no more limiting God's existence to time by the use of the word olam than God was excluding himself from being the God of others when he identified himself as "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Instead, Moses was emphasizing the fact that God was the God who endured through all the ages of history, and was more than able to fulfill his covenant promises to Abraham that he and his offspring would receive the land. He is called the "olam God" out of recognition of the fact that he is intimately involved with all that takes place within the time periods of history, overseeing and directing them according to his sovereign purpose. 

---

[1] Gen 9:12, 16; 17:7; Ex 3:15; 12:14; 27:21; 30:21; 31:16; 40:15; Lev 6:18; 10:9; 17:7; 23:21, 31; 24:3; Num 10:8; 15:15; 18:23; Deut 23:3, 6; 32:7; Josh 8:28; Psalm 33:11; 45:17; 49:11; 61:6-7; 72:17; 79:13; 85:5; 89:1-2, 4, 29, 36-37; 100:5; 102:12; 103:17; 105:8; 106:31; 135:13; 145:13; 146:10; Prov 8:23; 27:24; Isa. 34:10, 17; 51:8-9; 58:12; 60:15; 61:4; Lam. 5:19-20; Dan 4:3, 34; Joel 3:20; cf. Eph 3:21

Eternal or Eonian? Part Two (The Hebrew Word Olam)

"There is no word either in the O.T. Hebrew or in the N.T. Greek to express the abstract idea of eternity." (Hasting's Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 542, art. Christ and the Gospels)

"Let me say to Bible students that we must be very careful how we use the word "eternity." We have fallen into great error in our constant usage of that word. There is no word in the whole Book of God corresponding with our "eternal," which as commonly used among us, means absolutely without end." (G. Campbell Morgan, God's Methods With Men, pp. 185-186)

Although the New Testament Scriptures were written in Greek, they were not written by Greeks but by Hebrew men using the Greek language to express their ideas. Such ideas would've been distinctively Jewish, and largely shaped by the writings of their Hebrew scriptures (the "Old Testament"). Tom Holland (Head of Biblical Research at the Wales Evangelical School of Theology) notes that, "While the vocabulary of the NT could be found throughout the Hellenistic world, it did not have the same meaning when it was used in the religious sense within the Jewish community." Holland goes on to say that when a New Testament writer wrote in Greek, it was "Hebrew in its mind-set and essential meaning."[1]This means that the meanings ascribed to words and expressions by the authors of the New Testament scriptures would have been derived largely from the "Old Testament" Hebrew scriptures rather than from secular Greek literature. 

As we'll see, the word translated "eternal" or "everlasting" in the most popular translations of the Greek Scriptures is the Greek adjective aiónios, which is the adjective form of the Greek noun aion. Because the authors of the "New Testament" Scriptures were Jewish and thought as Jews, we must not turn to secular Greek literature in order to understand the correct meaning of these words, but rather to the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek translation of these Scriptures. Both of these words were used by the authors of the Greek Scriptures and the translators of the LXX as the Greek equivalents of the Hebrew noun olam, and were intended to convey the same basic meaning.

The Hebrew Noun Olam

The Greek words aión (a noun) and aiónios (an adjective) were used by the Jewish authors of the New Testament - as well as by the Jewish translators of the LXX - as the Greek equivalents of the Hebrew noun olam. In The Encyclopedia Dictionary of the Bible (p. 693), the entry on "eternity" is as follows: 

"ETERNITY: 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." Thus, me olam does not mean "from eternity" but "of old" (Gn. 6:4, etc.). In the N.T. aionis used as the equivalent of olam." 

The noun olam was derived from the verb âlam, which is defined by Strong's Concordance as follows: "To veil from sight, that is, conceal (literally or figuratively)."  

Olam thus came to mean a long and/or indefinite (or "concealed") duration of time, whether past or future. Strong's defines olamas "long duration, antiquity, futurity." Being a relative word like "great" or "small," the unspecified duration to which olam refers could be longer or shorter depending on the subject with which it is connected. There are numerous things that are called "eternal," "everlasting," or "forever" in many translations of Scripture, but which are actually of limited duration (and have no reference to "eternity"). Consider the following examples from the Hebrew Scriptures (ESV translation) in which the word olam appears:  

The hills are said to be "everlasting" (olam) (Gen. 49:26; Deut. 33:15; Hab. 3:6).  

The Feast of Unleavened Bread was to be observed by the Hebrew people as a statute "forever (olam)," which meant throughout their generations (Ex. 12:17; cf. Ex 27:20-21; 28:43; 29:28; 30:21; 31:16-17).  

We are told that the Aaronic priesthood would be an "everlasting (olam) priesthood" (Ex. 40:15; Num 25:13), although it has since been superseded by the priesthood of Melchizedek (Heb. 7:14-18).  

The servitude of bondmen was to be "forever" (olam) (Ex. 21:6; Deut. 15:17; Lev. 25:45-46; cf. Philemon 15), though every fiftieth year all Hebrew slaves were to be freed (Lev. 25:10). 

The right of the Levites to redeem the houses in the cities they possessed was said to be "for all time" (olam) (Lev 25:32). 

Israel's annual observance of the Day of Atonement was to be an "everlasting (olam) statute" (Lev 16:34).  

The Mosaic covenant was said to be an "everlasting" (olam) covenant (1 Chron. 16:17; Isaiah 24:5), and its ceremonial statutes "forever" (olam) (Ex 27:20-21; Lev. 24:3, 8; Num. 10:8; etc.). However, this covenant has since been superseded by the new covenant, which was ratified by Christ (Heb 8:13).  

The blowing of the trumpets by the sons of Aaron was to be a "statute forever (olam)" which meant throughout their generations (Num. 10:8).  

The children of Israel are told to "remember the days of old (olam)," which meant the years of past generations (Deut 32:7; cf. Eccl 1:10; Isaiah 46:9; 51:9; Mal 3:4). 

Joshua said that the twelve stones from the Jordan were to be to the children of Israel a memorial "forever" (olam) (Josh 4:7). 

The times past in which the idolatrous ancestors of the children of Israel lived is said to be "of long ago (olam)" (Josh 24:2).  

Samuel was set apart for service in the temple "forever" (olam) (1 Sam. 1:22), which meant as long as he lived (v. 28).  

The Geshurites, Girzites, and Amalekites are said to have been the inhabitants of the land "from of old (olam)" (1 Sam 27:8). 

God was to dwell in Solomon's temple "forever" (olam) (1 Kings 8:13; 2 Chron. 6:2), although both this temple and the temple built after it were subsequently destroyed. 

Gehazi's leprosy was to cling to him "forever" (olam) (2 Kings 5:27), which meant as long as he lived.[2]  

In Psalm 115:18, David said that he and his fellow Israelites would "bless the LORD from this time forth and forevermore" (‛ad olam). However, we know that the expression translated "forevermore" must mean "as long as we live," for in the preceding verse he wrote that "the dead do not praise the LORD, nor do any who go down into silence" (cf. Psalm 6:4-5; 30:9; 88:10-12).

Solomon speaks of the grave as being man's "eternal (olam) home" (Eccl 12:5; cf. Eccl 9:10; Job 17:13; 30:23), although we find elsewhere in Scripture that the dead are to be redeemed from it (Hos. 13:14; 1 Cor. 15:26).  

Isaiah states that "the palaces will be forsaken, the bustling city will be deserted, the forts and towers will become lairs forever" (olam) - that is, "until the Spirit is poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field, and the fruitful field is deemed a forest" (Isaiah 32:14-15). 

The smoke of Edom’s judgment (circa 400 B.C.) was to rise "forever" (olam) (Isaiah 34:10).

In Isaiah 57:11, God is said to have held his peace "even for a long time (olam)."  

It was prophesied that the "ancient (olam) ruins" of Israel would be rebuilt (Isaiah 58:12; 61:4; cf. Amos 9:11).  

The angel of the LORD is said to have lifted up the children of Israel and carried them "all the days of old (olam)" (Isaiah 63:9; cf. v. 11).  

God said that he was going to bring "an ancient (olam) nation" against Israel (Jer. 5:15). 

We're told that God "placed the sand as the boundary for the sea, a perpetual (olam) barrier that it cannot pass; though the waves toss, they cannot prevail; though they roar, they cannot pass over it" (Jer. 5:22). But the perpetual duration of this sea-boundary is 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 (Psalm 102:25-27; Mark 13:31). And in the new earth, we are explicitly told that there will be no more sea (Rev 21:1). 

Because of their unfaithfulness, we are told the land of Israel would become "a horror and a thing to be hissed at forever" (olam) (Jer. 18:16). 

In reference to unfaithful Israel, God states, "I will make you serve your enemies in a land that you do not know, for in my anger a fire is kindled that shall burn forever" (olam)(Jer. 17:4). But later, Jeremiah states that "the fierce anger of the Lord" would be turned back after God had "executed and accomplished the intents of his mind" (Jer. 30:24).  

God said that he would bring upon Israel an "everlasting (olam) reproach and a perpetual shame which shall not be forgotten" (Jer. 23:40), and that he would make Jerusalem an "everlasting (olam) desolation" (Jer. 25:9). However, the judgment upon Israel that is in view lasted only 70 years (Jer. 25:12).  

Jonadab commanded his children not to drink wine "forever" (olam) (Jer. 35:6), which meant as long as they lived (v. 8).  

Because Mount Seir (Edom) is said to have cherished "perpetual (olam) enmity" against the nation of Israel, God promised that he would make it a "perpetual (olam) desolation" (Ez. 35:5, 9).  

Jonah's three-day stay in the belly of the great fish was said to be "forever" (olam) (Jonah 2:6).  

In all of the above verses, the inspired writers used the word olam to refer to things that most Christians would concede were of limited duration rather than things of literally "eternal" or "everlasting" duration. Both promised temporal blessings and threatened temporal punishments are referred to as being olam (of an indefinite, "hidden" duration of time).  

Moreover, it is noteworthy that ina number of these verses, the translators chose words from the English language which literally mean "lasting without end" (i.e., "forever" and "everlasting") to translate olam, even when the word was clearly used in reference to things that were of limited duration. This should alert every reader to the fact that a scriptural word may have a meaning that is not immediately apparent from the English word (or words) with which it has been translated in certain Bibles. This does not necessarily mean that those who translated the above verses into English were knowingly misleading the reader, or that such translations are completely unreliable or worthless. What it does mean is that we should use discernment and critical thinking when reading any translation of Scripture. We must carefully consider and explore the options available to us rather than jumping to conclusions - especially when the subject is as weighty as the one under consideration in this study.

---

[1] Contours of Pauline Theology, Christian Focus Publications, 2004; p. 252 

[2] On 2 Kings 5:27, Methodist theologian and biblical scholar Adam Clark remarks, "The 'forever' implies as long as any of his [Gehazi's] posterity should remain. This is the import of the word le-olam. It takes in the whole extent or duration of the thing to which it is applied. The 'forever' of Gehazi was till his posterity became extinct."

Eternal or Eonian? Part One (Introduction; A Common Argument Refuted)

Introduction

This seven-part study is, essentially, a defense of the few translations of Scripture we have available in which the words "eternal," "everlasting" and "forever" do not appear (such as Young's Literal Translation, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, the Concordant Literal Version and the Dabhar Translation). I will be arguing that the Hebrew and Greek words translated "eternal," "everlasting" and "forever" in the more popular versions (such as the NIV, KJV and ESV) do not, in fact, have "eternity" or endless duration in view. Instead, these words have in view long but finite periods of time (i.e., ages, or "eons") during which God's redemptive plan for the universe is unfolding. This "purpose of the eons" (as Paul calls it in Ephesians 3:11, CV) will find its completion in the abolishment of sin and death from the universe and the reconciliation of all to God, through Christ (who, according to the apostle Paul, secured this ultimate outcome by his death for our sins: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-ultimate-outcome-of-christs-death.html). This is the ultimate goal or consummation toward which everything is heading, and with which the eons will conclude. It is, in short, a universe in which God is "all in all" (1 Cor. 15:28). As a corollary of this main position I will be defending, I will also be arguing that the blessing which Scripture reveals that believers (but not unbelievers) will enjoy prior to the consummation is not "eternal life" (as is commonly believed) but rather "eonian (or "age-abiding") life" - that is, life during the final eons/ages of redemptive history, prior to the consummation referred to in 1 Cor. 15:28.[1]

In contrast to the above position for which I'll be arguing, the belief of the majority of Christians (as well as that of most non-Christians who are familiar with what mainstream Christianity teaches) is that the Bible teaches that God has suspended the "eternal destiny" of each individual on something that they must do or experience before they die. One common question heard from Christian evangelists (and found in evangelical tracts) is, "Where will you spend eternity?" These alarming words are meant to elicit a repentant decision from those to whom the question is posed. However, the underlying assumption of this rhetorical question is that there is more than one place in which a person might "spend eternity," and that one's eternal destiny ultimately hinges on a decision that one must make (or a conversion experience one must have) before death. According to this commonly-held belief among Christians, the Bible reveals that some people are going to enjoy "eternal life"[2] in heaven, while everyone else will be doomed to suffer "eternal punishment" (or "eternal separation from God") in "hell."

Historically, Christians have been divided as to whether one's eternal destiny is fixed as a result of God's sovereign decree (Calvinism), or as a result of the exercise of one's own "free will" (Arminianism). The belief of most Christians today (and perhaps throughout Christian history) is that it is human beings - and not God - who are the final arbitrators of their eternal destiny. In any case, it is believed by the majority of Christians that Scripture teaches that there are two possible eternal outcomes which a person can experience. Even in verses where the word "eternal" doesn't appear in connection with the fate of unbelievers (such as the well-known John 3:16), their fate is taken for granted as being just as "eternal" as that of the redeemed. 

In spite of its deep roots in Christian orthodoxy and its widespread acceptance by most Christians today, I believe this view of human destiny to be irreconcilable with what Scripture actually teaches. Although it must be acknowledged that no translation of the Bible is perfect and infallible, I believe that a misunderstanding of a few key words employed by the inspired authors of Scripture has resulted in many translations of the Bible which teach something vastly different from (and contradictory to) what God has actually revealed concerning the fate of humanity. While some of these Bible translations may, otherwise, be generally reliable, I believe the destructive consequences of the errors they contain far outweigh any good they could possibly have (at least, for those who are unaware of such errors). The detrimental effect which these translational errors have on people's understanding of the gospel - as well as on their understanding of God's character, plan, wisdom and power - makes the translations that contain them useful tools in the hands of "the god of this eon" (whose agenda involves systematic deception, and the keeping of as many people as possible from believing the truth about what Christ accomplished through his death on the cross).[3]For it is by means of such popular translations that Satan is not only able to keep countless people (both Christian and non-Christian) in unbelief concerning Paul's gospel, but also keep the majority of Christians completely oblivious to the fact that they're in unbelief.[4] 

A Common Argument Refuted 

One of the oldest and most frequently employed arguments used to support the traditional Christian belief that there is ultimately going to be a division of eternal duration between two different categories of human beings (i.e., those who die as believers and those who don't) derives its perceived strength from certain popular translations of Scripture. The verse that is perhaps most commonly appealed to in order to support this position is Matthew 25:46. The argument can be expressed as follows:

1. In Matthew 25:46 (NIV), Jesus speaks of both "eternal life" and "eternal punishment."

2. If the "eternal punishment" of which Christ speaks is not endless in duration, then neither is the "eternal life." 

3. "Eternal life" refers to the final destiny of all believers, and is therefore endless in duration.  

4. Thus, the "eternal punishment" must be understood as endless in duration as well.  

Is this a conclusive argument? Not at all. One could, for example, dispute premise (2) as follows: In Habakkuk 3:6, the same word (olam in Hebrew and aionio sin the LXX[5]) is used to describe both the duration of the mountains and the duration of God's ways. Similarly, in Romans 16:25-26 (English Standard Version), Paul speaks of "the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed." The expression translated "long ages" is "chronos aiónios." If the Greek adjective aionios were translated "eternal" here (as it is elsewhere in this translation), it would read "eternal times." And in v. 26 Paul says that the revelation of this mystery was "according to the command of the eternal God."  

Now, it is evident that, in verse 25, the Greek adjective aionios cannot mean "without beginning," for Paul's use of the expression pro chronon aionion elsewhere (see 2 Tim 1:9 and Titus 1:2) implies that the chronos aiónios had a beginning. Nor can the word mean "without end," for it is clearly connected with a limited period of time (during which a mystery was kept secret but later "revealed"). Paul is evidently referring to the periods of time that elapsed before the advent of Christ, and before the gospel began to be proclaimed in the world. If the Greek adjective aiónios carried the idea of endlessness here, the "mystery" of which Paul speaks would have never been made known to "all nations" (as Paul said it had been). Thus, in Romans 16:25-26 we have the same word (aiónios) applied to both God and to a "mystery" that was kept secret for long (but temporary) periods of time. 

So assuming (for the sake of argument) that the words used in reference to God in Habakkuk 3:6 and Romans 16:26 are describing God's eternality (I will dispute this idea later, however), we would then have the same words being used in the same immediate context denoting both eternality and limited duration. Thus, the belief that the Greek word aiónios must refer to the same exact duration when applied to both "life" and "punishment" in Matthew 25:46 is undermined. For even if the "life" in view is understood to be endless in duration, it doesn't mean the "punishment" necessarily is.  

But let us now consider premise (3). Does the expression often translated "eternal life" in the "New Testament" Scriptures even refer to the final destiny of the saved? Does the Greek word translated "eternal" in most Bibles truly mean "lasting forever" or "without end," in an absolute sense? As we'll see in the remainder of this study, this isn't at all what Jesus and his apostles meant by the expression. 

__________________________________________________________

[1] Generally speaking, we can say that the blessing of eonian life will consist of one's being alive during (and therefore able to enjoy) the final eons that will transpire before God's redemptive plan for the universe reaches its ultimate goal. When we dig a little bit deeper, I believe that what Scripture reveals about the nature of "eonian life" and who will enjoy it is somewhat more nuanced (for example, I believe Scripture reveals that some who will enjoy eonian life will be immortal, while others will be mortal). But as these details are not really relevant to the purpose of this study, a more in-depth investigation of this particular subject will have to wait. 

[2] Christ spoke of the blessing commonly translated "eternal life" as a blessing available to believers only (John 3:14-16; 5:24; 6:40, 47). The apostle Paul did so as well. But this necessarily excludes not only those who have made an "informed decision" to reject the gospel, but also infants/young children, many mentally disabled people, and every person throughout history who has lived and died without having ever heard the gospel. Thus, if the expression commonly translated "eternal life" refers to one's final salvation, and if only those who believe the gospel before they die will be finally saved, then all who die as infants/young children, many mentally disabled people, and every person throughout history who has died without having heard the true gospel will be lost forever (and to attempt to make any category of persons an exception to this requirement is to completely undermine the position that belief in the gospel before death is absolutely necessary to being finally saved). However, as I will be arguing in this study, this is (fortunately) not the case! 

[3] According to Paul in 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, Satan (the "god of this eon") "blinds the apprehensions of the unbelieving, so that the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ...does not irradiate them." 

[4] Even so, we must keep in mind that "all is out of God" (Rom. 11:36) and that God is "operating all in accord with the counsel of his will" (Eph. 1:11). And this must necessarily include the deceptive work of Satan, and the fact that the truth of the gospel and the goal of God's redemptive plan for the universe is being hidden from most people (both Christians and non-Christians). It is evidently not God's will that everyone come into a realization of the truth in this lifetime (although they will, eventually; see 1 Tim. 2:3-7). 

[5]In the 3rd century B.C., the Greek king Ptolemy of Egypt commissioned the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. This translation (known as the Septuagint, or the LXX)was the first translation of the Hebrew Bible into another language. Significantly, the Greek dialect or form into which the Hebrew Scriptures were translated was Koine Greek. What's significant about this is that Koine Greek is the dialect in which the "New Testament" was written, and was in common use among the Jews in Christ's day. For more information on the LXX, see 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm

http://www.kalvesmaki.com/lxx/ 

http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTCHART.HTM  

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html 

http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm

You Shall Be With Me In Paradise

Elsewhere on my blog I've argued that, in contrast with what most Christians believe,  those who have died are actually dead and must be restored by God to a living existence (which occurs when they're resurrected) in order for them to consciously go or be anywhere. For those interested in reading more on this important subject, the following are some articles on my blog in which I've defended my understanding of what Scripture reveals concerning the nature of death and the state of the dead: 

Life after Death (Part 3): http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2015/06/life-after-death-part-3.html (links to parts 1 and 2 of this series are included)

The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-parable-of-rich-man-and-lazarus.html

A Defense of the Reality of Christ's Death: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/12/a-defense-of-reality-of-christs-death.html

Now, Christ's words in Luke 23:43 are commonly believed to be inconsistent with the view defended in the above articles. According to what most Christians believe, Christ promised the malefactor to whom he spoke that he would be in "paradise" on the day that he died (or rather, on the day his body died, as most Christians see it). By "paradise," most Christians believe that Jesus was referring to either heaven (where God sits enthroned) or to a mysterious region in the "netherworld" where the "disembodied souls" of the righteous dead were thought to temporarily reside. But is this interpretation required by the original inspired text? 

Here is how Luke 23:39-43 reads in the Concordant Literal New Testament:

Now one of the hanged malefactors blasphemed Him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" Yet answering, the other one, rebuking him, averred, "Yet you are not fearing God, seeing that you are in the same judgment! And we, indeed, justly, for we are getting back the deserts of what we commit, yet this One commits nothing amiss." And he said to Jesus, "Be reminded of me, Lord, whenever Thou mayest be coming in Thy kingdom." And Jesus said to him, "Verily, to you am I saying today, with Me shall you be in paradise."

The original Greek manuscripts had no punctuation, and so commas must be provided by the translators. In the case of this verse, the placement of the comma is just as much a matter of interpretation as it is of grammar, so the fact that most English translations place the comma after "truth" (or "you") instead of "today (or "this day") simply shows the preferred interpretation of the translators, and not how the Greek has to be translated in order to be grammatically correct. The Greek adverb translated "today" or "this day" (sēmeron) may qualify either legô ("I am saying") or esomai ("shall you be").

Because either option is grammatically possible, the question of where the comma should be placed when translating the verse into English must be determined by other considerations. Christ's words, "Truly, I say to you, this day you shall be with me in paradise," may just as legitimately be constructed as, "Truly, I say to you this day, you shall be with me in paradise." By placing the comma after "today" instead of "you," the fulfillment of Christ's promise need not be confined to the day in which they died, but may be understood as having its fulfillment at some time in the distant future. This translation is not only grammatically valid, but it makes Christ's words consistent with what the rest of Scripture teaches (as well as what Christ himself said) concerning the state of the dead.

In addition to the Concordant Version, J.B. Rotherham (in his Emphasized Bible) translates Luke 23:43 as follows: "Verily, I say unto thee this day: With me, shalt thou be in Paradise." It's interesting that Rotherham included a footnote giving the more traditional reading, even though he disagreed with it. Of course, he didn't have as much to lose as the people working on modern translation committees (who likely would not have been on the committees in the first place were it not for their commitment to what is commonly considered "historic evangelical orthodoxy"). While holding to the belief that the dead are actually dead (and thus functionally inactive and unconscious) would not be considered as serious an error as, say, a rejection of the doctrine of hell or of the trinity, this belief is still considered inconsistent with historic evangelical orthodoxy, and would likely disqualify someone from being on the translation committee to begin with.

Objection: "Don't these translations make the word "today" redundant and unnecessary?"

Answer: Not at all. The word "today" (or "this day") was often used by the Hebrew people idiomatically, to introduce a solemn and important statement. According to this Hebrew/Aramaic idiom, "today/this day" often follows a verb of declaration, testification, command or oath, and emphasizes the solemnity and importance of the occasion or moment. Paul, for example, used this idiom in Acts 20:26 when he declared, "Therefore I testify to you this day (semeron) that I am innocent of the blood of all of you" (Acts 20:26). 

This idiom actually occurs about 70 times in Scripture, with 42 instances being found in the Book of Deuteronomy alone (see, for example, Deut. 4:26, 39, 40; 5:1; 6:6; 7:11; 8:1, 11, 19; 9:3; 10:13; 11:2, 8, 13, 26, 27, 28, 32; 13:18; 15:5; 19: 9; 26:3, 16, 18; 27:1, 4, 10; 28:1, 13, 14, 15; 29:12; 30:2, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19; 32:46; cf. Josh 23:14). Moreover, the word semeron appears in the LXX (the Greek Old Testament) and the New Testament 221 times. In 170 of these places, the adverb follows the verb it modifies (some examples of this in the NT are Luke 2:11; 5:26; 22:34; Acts 20:26; 22:3; 24:21; 26:29; 2 Cor. 3:14, 15). There are thus 170 witnesses against 51 in favor of placing the comma after "this day." 

It would, therefore, not only be grammatically legitimate to punctuate Luke 23:43 with the comma after "this day" (so that the adverb follows the verb it modifies), but it would also be consistent with how the word semeron is most frequently used in Scripture. When we take the Hebrew idiom into account it becomes evident that, in response to the malefactor's request, Christ was in effect saying, "I give you my solemn word that you will be with me in paradise." Christ didn't say when they would be in paradise together - only that they would be.

Moreover, the earliest translation of the Greek New Testament was in the language of Israel's nearest neighbor, Syria. Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic, which most scholars believe Jesus spoke at least on occasion, if not regularly (for example, Jesus' words on the cross, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" appear to be the Aramaic form of the words of Psalm 22:1). So it is a reasonable inference that, in his reply to the thief on the cross, Jesus spoke in the idiom that was common to both his own Aramaic language as well as the Hebrew language of the Hebrew Scriptures. It is therefore not surprising that in one of the oldest Syriac manuscripts of the Gospels (the 5th century Curetonian Syriac) the Hebrew/Aramaic idiom was evidently recognized by the translator. In this ancient manuscript the verse is translated so that the adverb "this day" clearly qualifies the verb "say" (and not "will be"): "Amen say I to you today that with me you will be in the garden of Eden."[1]

By introducing the word "that," the translator removed the need for any punctuation to determine the sense of Jesus' words. And while it's true that the Syriac Sinaitic (the only other Syriac translation of the 4 Gospels that is thought to predate the standard Syriac version, the Peshitta) has the more common translation, the Curetonian Syriac (which, like the Syriac Sinaitic, predates all the English versions by hundreds of years) is still a very ancient witness for this interpretation of Luke 23:43.

Objection: "Nowhere else is Christ's frequently-used formula, "Truly I say to you" modified by an adverb of time. Thus, semeron should be understood as most likely being part of the expression that follows the "Truly I say to you" formula."

Answer: This objection loses its force when we take into account the well-known Hebrew/Aramaic idiom that uses "today/this day" to emphasize the significance and solemnity of an occasion. And who can deny the profound importance and solemnity of this occasion? This was one of the last things Jesus said before he died, and was possibly the last thing the man being crucified next to him heard anyone say to him before he died. It would therefore make sense for Jesus to speak in such a way on this highly exceptional and solemn occasion.

Objection: "In the instances where this idiom appears in the LXX we do not find the same verb word used in Jesus' "Truly I say to you" formula (legô)."

Answer: While this is true, this objection is undermined by the fact that the Hebrew idiom exhibits some variation in the verbs used. The only constant in the idiom is that the word "today" modifies a verb of declaration, testification, command, oath (etc.). In the case of Luke 23:43, Jesus simply employed an idiom with which he and the thief would have been very familiar, and in a way that was most consistent with how Jesus normally declared things to people (i.e., using the word "legô").

There is simply no good reason to reject a certain translation based upon the premise that a particular construction must be found in other texts in order for it to be valid grammar. And it is not improbable that Jesus might have, on occasion, modified the introductory formula that he used most often during his earthly ministry. This is, in fact, the case in Luke 4:25. In this verse we read that Jesus modified the expression and said "ep alhtheias de legô humin" ("I say to you in truth"). Here, "ep alhtheias" adverbially modifies "legô humin." As a result, it seems reasonable to conclude that the expression is not to be taken as an inviolable grammatical mantra.

[1] F. C. Burkitt, "The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels," Vol. I, Cambridge, 1904.