A dictionary or lexicon is the not the most authoritative
place to find the true definition of a word. Especially if the word
in question makes or breaks a particular controversial doctrine,
such as, is punishment of the wicked for a period of time that
ends, or for eternity.
In many Bibles the Greek word: "aion" is translated as
"forever," and "aionios" is translated, "everlasting," or
Strong's Greek Dictionary defines "aion" as follows:
"an age, perpetuity, the world, a Messianic period, course,
eternal, forever, evermore, without end." Strong's defines the
adjective aionios as follows: "perpetual, eternal, forever,
Are these definitions good scholarship or religious
bias? Imagine defining the word "white" like this: "white,
WHITE LIGHT, bright, maximum lightness, brilliant, blanch,
off-white, shaded, light gray, dark gray, between light and dark,
dark gray, dark, COAL BLACK." Does anything see a problem with
my definition of "white?" Does anyone see a problem with
Strong's definition of "aion/aionios?"
In the following paper, I answer an email from a "wanna-be scholar"
on this very subject.
I (Ray Smith)
will make "Comments" to your unscriptural assertions
using blue type:
STUDY ON "AIONIOS":
LIFE MEANS ETERNAL LIFE
another critical word in the Bible which a number of cults claim
cannot mean everlasting because it is used to refer to everlasting
condemnation and everlasting life:
Your opening statement is not reputable scholarshipit is a
mis-direction. The fact that there may or may not be "cults" who
claim that the word "aionios" is mistranslated in many Bibles, has
absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the argument. I
personally know that "aionios" is not translated properly in most
places of the King James Bible, yet I am not a cult. Furthermore,
the reason given as to why this word cannot be translating
"everlasting" is also not as you state, "because it is used to
refer to everlasting condemnation and everlasting life." That is
decidedly NOT the reason at all. The true test of this words
meaning is, usage and etymology. Your statement is designed to
prejudice the reader from the first sentence. After all, who wants
to be associated with "a cult?" and what kind of silly proof is
your statement attributed to these cults?
secular Greek-English lexicon by Bauer, p.28, defines "aionios" and
it's family of words, ("aionion", "aioniou") to most commonly mean
"without beginning or end" and "eternal".
Comment: Mr. Bauers phrase "to most commonly mean," of
course is a clear statement of admission that not even Mr. Bauer
believes that "aionion" ALWAYS means what you suggests it means. I
will prove that it does not ever mean "without beginning or end" or
"eternal" in the Scriptures. Note: When I refer to the
"Scriptures," I am assuredly not referring to error-filled Bible
translations of the Scriptures.
Furthermore, who cares that the "secular Greek-English
lexicon by Bauer" defines aionios as without beginning or end and
eternal? Does that mean that we should pick up our tents and go
home? Should we burn all the other lexicons and dictionaries on our
book shelves, that teach contrary, because "Bauer has spoken?" If a
dictionary definition carries weight on this matter, then consider
some real scholars on the subject:
Testament in Modern Speech, by Dr. R. F. Weymouth: Eternal: Greek: "aeonion," i.e.,
"of the ages." Etymologically this adjective, like others similarly
formed, does not signify "during," but "belong to" the aeons or
Interpreters Dictionry of the Bible (vol. IV, p. 643): Time: The O.T. and
the N.T. are not acquainted with the conception of eternity as
timelessness. The O.T. has not developed a special term for
"eternity." The word aion originally meant "vital force,"
"life," then "age," "lifetime."
Commentary on the Whole Bible (Matt. 25:46(. Everlasting
punishment--life eternal. The two adjectives represent the same
Greek word, aioniosit must be admitted that the Greek word
which is rendered "eternal" does not, in itself, involve
endlessness, but rather, duration, whether through an age or
succession of ages, and that it is therefore applied in the N.T. to
periods of time that have had both a beginning and ending (Rom.
Dictionary of the New Testament (Vol. I, p. 542, art.
Christ and the Gospels): Eternity. There is no word either
in the O.T. Hebrew or the N.T. Greek to express the abstract idea
of eternity. (Vol. III, p. 369): Eternal, everlastingnonetheless
"eternal" is misleading, inasmuch as it has come in the English to
connote the idea of "endlessly existing," and thus to be
practically a synonym for "everlasting." But this is not an
adequate rendering of aionios which varies in meaning with
the variations of the noun aion from which it comes. (p.
chronoios aioniois moreover, are not to be thought of as
stretching backward everlastingly, as it is proved by the pro
chronon aionion of II Tim. 1:9; Titus. 1:2. (Note: pro
chronon aionion means "BEFORE times eonian." Since this
Scripture tells us that there was time "before" eonian, eionian
cannot possibly mean eternal, for nothing can be "before"
Catholic Bible dictionary, The Encyclopedic Dictionary of the
Bible (p. 693): 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 (Gen. 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 Gen. 6:4; etc.). In the
N.T. aion is used as the equivalent of olam. (Note: even
the Catholic translators of The Jerusalem Bible and The
New American Bible have failed to heed the scholarship of their
own Catholic authorities.)
Dr. R. F.
Weymouth, a translator who was adept in Greek, states in The New
Testament in Modern Speech (p. 657), Eternal, Greek
aeonion, i.e., of the ages: Etymologically this adjective,
like others similarly formed does not signify, "during" but
"belonging to" the aeons or ages.
Vincent, Word Studies of the New Testament (Vol. IV, p. 59).
The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of
time. Neither the noun nor the adjective in themselves carries the
sense of "endless" or "everlasting. Anionios means enduring
through or pertaining to a period of time.
Dr. F. W.
Farrar, author of The Life of Christ and The Life and Word of
St. Paul, as well as books about Greek grammar and syntax,
writes in The Eternal Hope (p. 198), "That the adjective is
applied to some things which are endless does not, of course, for
one moment prove that the word itself meant endless; and to
introduce this rendering into many passages would be utterly
impossible and absurd."
argued this point for years. Just because a word translated WRONGLY
can still make sense does NOT justify doing so. Perchance someone
might wish to translate Mark 9:41 as follows: "For whosoever shall
give you a GLASS OF ICE COLD LEMONADE to drink in my name shall not
lose his reward." Does not the verse make equal SENSE as when it is
correctly translated "A CUP OF WATER?" Yes it does, but that is NOT
what the Holy Spirit inspired to be preserved for us. Hence, "a
glass of ice cold lemonade" is wrong, just as translating Rom.
16:26 as "the everlasting God," is wrong. The Holy Spirit
inspired the word aionios, which translated to our English
equivalent "eonian," and this is how it must be translated if we
are to be faithful to Gods Word.
And so I
will repeat this most important truth of translating:
"That the adjective is applied to some things which are
endless [as with God in Rom. 16:26] does NOT, of
course, for one moment prove that the word itself meant endless;
and to introduce this rendering into MANY PASSAGES [some of which
we will look at later] WOULD BE UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE AND ABSURD."
(CAPS are mine).
Farrars book, Mercy and Judgment, (p. 378), "Since
aion meant age, aionios means, properly, belonging to
an age, or age-long, and anyone who asserts that it must mean
endless defends a position which even Augustine practically
abandoned twelve centuries ago. Even if aion always meant
eternity, which is not the case in classic or Hellenistic
Greekaionios could still mean only belonging to eternity and
not lasting through it."
Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, (Vol. 4, p. 641), "The O.T. and the N.T.
are not acquainted with the concept of eternity as timelessness."
Page 655: "The O.T. has not developed a special term for eternity."
Page 645: "The use of the word aion in the N.T. is
determined very much by the O.T. and the LXX. Aion means
long, distant, uninterrupted time. The intensifying plural occurs
frequently in the N.T. but it adds no new meaning."
Plumptre, an eschatologist, "I fail to find, as is used by the
Greek Fathers, any instance in which the idea of time duration is
and Eternity by G.
T. Stevenson, (p. 63), "Since, as we have seen, the noun
aion refers to a period of time it appears, very improbable
that the derived adjective aionios would indicate infinite
duration, nor have we found any evidence in Greek writing to show
that such a concept was expressed by this term."
Herman Oldhausen, German Lutheran theologian, "The Bible has no
expression for endlessness. All the Biblical terms imply or denote
Knappe of Halle wrote, "The Hebrew was destitute of any single word
to express endless duration. The pure idea of eternity is NOT FOUND
IN ANY OF THE ANCIENT LANGUAGES." (CAPS emphasis are mine).
An Alphabetical Analysis
by Charles H. Welch (Editor
of The Berean Expositor and a man well versed in Greek),
(Vol. 1, p. 279), "Eternity is not a Biblical theme." (Vol. 1, p.
52), "What we have to learn is that the Bible does not speak of
eternity. It is not written to tell us of eternity. Such a
consideration is entirely outside the scope of
meaning is based on the most frequent usages of the word by the
people to whom the ancient koine Greek language was native. Plato,
Phocylides, Philo, Clement, Diodorus Siculus, Arrianus, Josephus,
Maximus Tyrius, Ignatius, Homer are among those who used this
meaning of the word "aionios".
couldnt get me to read all of these pagan authors at the end of the
barrel of a 57 Magnum. However, consider the following:
Mangey, a translator of the writings of Philo, says, "Philo did not
use aionios to express endless duration."
Complete Works of Falvius Josephus. Josephus obviously did not
consider anionios to be "everlasting," seeing that he uses
the word to represent the period of time between the giving of the
law of Moses and that of his own writing [clearly not
an eternity]. He also assigns aionios to the period of
imprisonment of the tyrant John by the Romans [clearly he was not
imprisoned for an eternity], and also for the period during which
Herods temple stood [since Herods temple was not even standing at
the time Josephus wrote, it too proves that Josephus did not mean
eternity when he wrote
Gregory of Nyssa speaks of anionios diastema, "an
eonian interval." How many intervals do you know of that are
"endless" or "eternal?"
Chrysostum, in his homily on Eph. 2:1-3, says that, "Satans kingdom
is aeonian; that is, it will cease with the present
Justin Martyr, in the Apol. (p. 57), used the word
aionios repeadedly: aionion kolasinall ouchi chiliontaete
periodon, "eonian chastening but a period, not a thousand
years," or as some translate this clause "but a period of a
thousand years only." Hence, to Justin Martyr, aionios was
certainly not "endless."
THE GREEK WORD AI?N -- AI?NIOS, TRANSLATED Everlasting --
IN THE HOLY BIBLE, SHOWN TO DENOTE LIMITED DURATION
BY REV. JOHN WESLEY HANSON, A.M.
Editor of THE NEW COVENANT
CHICAGO: NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSALIST PUBLISHING HOUSE 1875
The verbal pivot on which swings the question, Does the
Bible teach the doctrine of Endless Punishment? Is the word Ai?n
and its derivatives and reduplications. The author of this treatise
has endeavored to put within brief compass the essential facts
pertaining to the history and use of the word, and he thinks he has
conclusively shown that it affords no support whatever to the
erroneous doctrine. It will generally be conceded that the tenet
referred to is not contained in the Scriptures if the meaning of
endless duration does not reside in the controverted word. The
reader is implored to examine the evidence presented, as the author
trusts it has been collected, with a sincere desire to learn the
THE PLATONIC DERIVATIONS
We have proceeded on the ground that Aristotle's etymology
is authoritative. But nothing is further from the truth. The
scholarship of to-day, possessed by an average educated
philologist, is far more competent to trace this or any Greek word
to its real source, than Plato or Aristotle was able to do. In his
analysis of Plato's Cratylus,(8) Grote accurately observes of
Plato's etymologies: "Though sometimes reasonable enough, they are
in a far greater number of instances forced, arbitrary, and
fanciful. The transitions of meaning imagined, and the structural
transformations of words, are alike strange and violent. Such is
the light in which these Platonic etymologies appear to a modern
critic. But such was not the light in which they appeared either to
the ancient Platonists or critics earlier than the last century.
The Platonists even thought then full of mysterious and recondite
wisdom. So complete has been the revolution of opinion that the
Platonic etymologies arenow treated by most critics as too absurd
to have been seriously intended by Plato, even as conjectures. It
is called 'a valuable discovery of modern times' (so Schleiermacher
terms it) that Plato meant most of them as mere parody and
The character of Aristotle as an etymologist is thus
stated by Grote: "Nor are they more absurd than many of the
etymologies proposed by Aristotle." A slender hook this, whereon to
hang such a doctrine as that of the immortal wo of countless
millions of souls.
The conclusions to which any judicial mind must arrive are
these: 1, It is uncertain from what source the word Ai?n sprang; 2,
It is of no consequence how it originated; 3, Aristotle's opinion
is not authority; and 4, It is probable that he was not defining
the word, but was alluding to that being whose ai?n, or existence
is continuous and eternal. That he did not understand that ai?n
signified eternity, we shall demonstrate from his uniform use of
the word, in the sense of limited duration. And we find no reason
in its etymology for giving it the sense of endless duration. And
if it did thus originate, it does not afford a particle of proof
that it was subsequently used with that meaning.
ETERNAL DURATION AND MODERN CONCEPTIONS
It does not seem to have been generally considered by
students of this subject that the thought of endless duration is
comparatively a modern conception. The ancients, at a time more
recent than the dates of the Old Testament, had not yet cognized
the idea of endless duration, so that passages containing the word
applied to God do not mean that he is of eternal duration, but the
idea was of indefinite and not unlimited duration. I introduce here
a passage from Professor Knapp, or Knappius, the author of the best
edition of the Greek Testament known, and one in use in many
colleges and ranks as a scholar of rare erudition. He
"The pure idea of eternity is too abstract to have been
conceived in the early ages of the world, and accordingly is not
found expressed by any word in the ancient languages. But as
cultivation advanced and this idea became more distinctly
developed, it became necessary in order to express it to invent new
words in a new sense, as was done with the words
eternitas,perennitas, etc. The Hebrews were destitute of any single
word to express endless duration. To express a past eternity they
said before the world was; a future, when the world shall be no
more. . . . The Hebrews and other ancient people have no one word
for expressing the precise idea of eternity."
1.-- THE GREEK CLASSICS
It is a vital question How was the word used in the Greek
literature with which the Seventy were familiar, that is, theGreek
Some years since Rev. Ezra S. Goodwin(13) patiently and
candidly traced this word through the Classics, finding the noun
frequently in nearly all the writers, but not meeting the adjective
until Plato, its inventor, used it. He states, as the result of his
protracted and exhaustive examination from the beginning down to
Plato, "We have the whole evidence of seven Greek writers,
extending through about six centuries, down to the age of Plato,
who make use of Ai?n, in common with other words; and no one of
themEVER employs it in the sense of eternity."
When the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into
Greek by the Seventy, the word ai?n had been in common use for many
centuries. It is preposterous to say that the Seventy would render
the Hebrew olam by the Greek ai?n and give to the latter (1) a
different meaning from that of the former, or (2) a different
meaning from ai?n in the current Greek literature. It is
self-evident, then, that Ai?n in the Old Testament means exactly
what Olam means, and also what Ai?n means in the Greek classics.
Indefinite duration is the sense of olam, and it is equally clear
that ai?n has a similar signification.
In the Iliad and Odyssey Ai?n occurs thirteen times, as a
noun, besides its occurrence as a participle in the sense of
hearing, perceiving, understanding. Homer never uses it as
signifying eternal duration. Priam to Hector says,(14) "Thyself
shall be deprived of pleasant ai?nos" (life.) Andromache over dead
Hector,(15) "Husband thou hast perished from ai?nos" (life or
Sophocles nine times. "Endeavor to remain the same in mind
as long as you live." Askei toiaute noun di ai?nos menein.(21) He
also employs makraion five times, as long-enduring. The word long
increases the force of ai?n, which would be impossible if it had
the idea of eternity.
Ai?nios is found in none of the ancient classics above
quoted. Finding it in Plato, Mr. Goodwin thinks that Plato coined
it, and it had not come into general use, for even Socrates, the
teacher of Plato, does not use it. Aidios is the classic word for
Plato uses ai?n eight times, ai?nios five, diai?nios once,
and makrai?n twice. Of course if he regarded ai?n as meaning
eternity he would not prefix the word meaning long, to add duration
In all the above authors extending more than six hundred
years, the word is never found. Of course it must mean the same as
the noun that is its source. It having clearly appeared that the
noun is uniformly used to denote limited duration, and never to
signify eternity, it is equally apparent that the adjective must
mean the same. The noun sweetness gives its flavor to its
adjective, sweet. The adjective long means precisely the same as
the noun length. When sweet stands for acidity, and long represents
brevity, ai?nios can properly mean eternal, derived from ai?n,
which represents limited duration. To say that Plato, the inventor
of the word, has used the adjective to mean eternal, when neither
he nor any of his predecessors ever used the noun to denote
eternity, would be to charge one of the wisest of men with
etymological stupidity. Has he been guilty of such folly? How does
he use the word?
1. He employs the noun as his predecessors did. I give an
illustration*- "Leading a life (ai?na) involved in
2. The Adjective.(30) Referring to certain souls in Hades,
he describes them as in ai?nion intoxication. But that he does not
use the word in the sense of endless is evident from the Ph?don,
where he says, "It is a very ancient opinion that souls quitting
this world, repair to the infernal regions, and return after that,
to live in this world." After the ai?nion intoxication is over,
they return to earth, which demonstrates that the world was not
used by him as meaning endless. Again,(31) he speaks of that which
is indestructible, (anolethron) and not ai?nion. He places the two
words in contrast, whereas, had he intended to use ai?nion as
meaning endless, he would have said indestructible and
Once more,(32) Plato quotes four instances of ai?n, and
three of ai?nios, and one ofdiai?nios in a single passage, in
contrast with aidios (eternal.) The gods he calls eternal, (aidios)
but the soul and the corporeal nature, he says, are ai?nios,
belonging to time, and "all these," he says, "are part of time."
And he calls Time [Kronos] an ai?nios image of Ai?nos. Exactly what
so obscure an author may mean here is not apparent, but one thing
is perfectly clear, he cannot mean eternity and eternal by ai?nios
and ai?nion, for nothing is wider from the fact than that
fluctuating, changing Time, beginning and ending, and full of
mutations, is an image of Eternity. It is in every possible
particular its exact opposite.
make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an
everlasting covenant with them...
= [Grk] aionios[Septuagint];
and I will
give blessings to them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary
in the midst of them forevermore"
olam = [Grk] aionios [Septuagint]
covenant was unilateral - so it would not be broken - therefore it
was for all time: "forevermore". None of His unilateral covenants
were for a season or an age. All of His unilateral covenants were
for an eternity and God does not renege on His promises.
the Hebrew word "olam" in the Hebrew bible and the Greek word
"aionios" in the Septuagint are indeed translated "forevermore"
Oh really? And do you think that we are too slow of intellect to
detect your deceitful little insertion of the word "unilateral?" As
if to admit that an "EVERLASTING covenant" which is NOT unilateral
might come to an end, but an "EVERLASTING covenant" which IS
unilateral can never come to an end. What kind of scholastic
trickery is this?
unilateral covenant is one in which there is NO NEEDFUL
PARTICIPATION OF A SECOND PARTY. The second that one puts a second
party requirement into receiving the benefit of a unilateral
covenant, it is no longer truly unilateral, but rather
COVENANT: Possibly the only truly unilateral covenant in the Bible,
where absolutely no participation on our part is required for its
fulfillment. Gen. 9:16,
"And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon
it, that I may remember the everlasting [Heb:
olam aionion/eonian] covenant between God and
every living creature of all flesh that is upon the
covenant has no requirements on our part, but is it truly
When God is "All in all" (I Cor. 15:28), and there is "a
NEW heaven and a NEW earth: for the first heaven and the first
earth were PASSED AWAY; and there was no more sea
[pretty hard to flood the entire earth without ANY SEA
WATER]" (Rev. 21:1), and when God says, "Behold, I
make ALL THINGS NEW." (Rev. 21:5), perhaps even you can agree that
this "rainbow covenant" will have come to an END, and then be of no
consequence or have no application in a scriptural, heavenly
COVENANT: Gen. 17:1:
"And when Abraham was ninety years old and nine, the Lord
appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God;
walk before Me, AND be you perfect. And I will make
My covenant between Me and thee, and will multiple thee exceedingly
And I will establish my covenant between Me and thee and your seed
after you in their generations for a everlasting
[Heb: olam] covenant. And I will give unto you, and to
your seed after you, the land wherein you are a stranger, all the
land of Canaan, for an everlasting [olam] possession
This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you
and your seed after you; Every man child among you shall be
CIRCUMCISED He that is born in your house, and he that is
bought with your money, must needs be circumcised: and My covenant
shall be in your flesh for an everlasting
[olam] covenant." (Gen. 17:1-2, 7-10,
was clearly not a "unilateral" covenant. It required walking
perfectly before God and being circumcised. Now then, was this a
covenant that would never end? Hardly: We are now instructed that
if we are to be "Abrahams seed," we are NOT TO BE PHYSICALLY
CIRCUMCISED of our foreskin! Paul emphatically and dogmatically
declares: "Behold, I Paul say unto you, "IF YE BE CIRCUMCISED,
CHRIST SHALL PROFIT YOU NOTHING" (Gal. 5:2)! So much for that
"unilateral EVERLASTING covenant."
OLD COVENANT: What we term the Old Covenant obviously was not to
continue "forever" or "eternally," as it was REPLACED by a NEW
Covenant which was clearly "NOT according to the covenant that I
made with their fathers." (Heb. 8:9).
long did "EVERLASTING STATUTES" last?
Is the "everlasting statute" regulating the "day of
atonement," still in force? "And this shall be an
EVERLASTING [olam] statute unto
you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their
sins once a year." (Lev. 16:34). Now compare Rom. 5:11, "And not
only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by
Whom we have NOW received THE ATONEMENT."
what do you suppose happened to that "EVERLASTING statute"
regarding atonement for sin?
"But in those sacrifices there is remembrance again made
of sins EVERY YEAR [on the day of ATONEMENT] Then said
He, Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God, He TAKES AWAY THE FIRST
[covenant] that He may establish the second [covenant]. By the
which will we are sanctified through the OFFERING OF THE BODY OF
JESUS CHRIST ONCE [no longer once a year] FOR ALL"
(Heb. 10:4, 9-10).
much for your "everlasting/eternal" statute regulating the annual
Day of Atonement. The Levitic Priests, the offering, the temple,
the holy of holies is all, gone gone. Now there is ONE atonement
for all, offered ONCE and never again. This particular "eternity"
lasted less than 1500 years! So just maybe an olam is NOT
ETERNAL afterall. What do you think?
The "EVERLASTING [olam]
priesthood" of Exodus 40:15. And just how long did this
"everlasting priesthood" last?
therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under
it the people received the law,) what further need was there that
another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not
be called after the order of Aaron? For the PRIESTHOOD BEING
CHANGED, there is made of necessity a change also of the law For it
is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses
spake nothing concerning priesthood" (Heb. 7:11-12, 14).
so we have no more "EVERLASTING" Levitical priesthood, but rather a
CHANGE in law and a CHANGE in the priesthood. And so this
"everlasting/eternity" also lasted shy of 1500 years, and
will give just one of many examples in the Old Testament where
"olam" absolutely cannot mean "forever" or "eternal" as Dr. Strong
so erroneously defines it: Exodus 21:6
"Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he
shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his
master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve
him FOR EVER [Heb: olamStrongs
really? And does Dr. Strong also believe in ETERNAL SLAVERY?
Therefore we have just seen absolute and unarguable proof that
the Hebrew olam does not and cannot possibly mean
everlasting or eternal.
"Since we consider and look not to the things
that are seen [temporal - temporary] but to things that are unseen
[spiritual - eternal]; for the things that are visible are temporal
(brief and fleeting), but the things that are invisible are
deathless and everlasting
Comment: The concept of "eternity" is foreign to the Holy
Scriptures. There is virtually nothing that is outside of the time
periods known as aions. There are just a couple of hints
regarding life beyond the ages of time. Luke speaks of things
pertaining to the Kingdom, not coming to an end. And Paul tells us
that in resurrection we will have "incorruption" and "immortality"
signifying "deathlessness," but neither word has to do with time
itself. Paul also speaks of a time in which God will be "ALL in
all." That is the extent to which the Scriptures even hint of
eternity or anything beyond the ages of time.
Cor. 4:18 is neither speaking of "deathless" or "everlasting," as
you suggest. It is speaking of what is happening now, in our life
of flesh, and what will happen during the ages of our reign with
Christ in the kingdom of God. The things of this life, we SEE
daily. The things pertaining to the Kingdom of God are as yet "NOT
seen." Again, it is not even speaking of what is "visible" and
"Invisible," but rather what is NOW SEEN as compared with things
"eonian" and NOT YET SEEN, which when seen will not be temporary,
but will last through whole eons of time. And all that is perfected
through the Kingdom of God and the reign of Christ bringing all
enemies into subjection, will last on PAST the eons, and will have
next great event in prophecy is not eternity, but rather the END of
this eon and the BEGINNING of the nextthe one in which the very
elect will reign with Christ. There is no sense in jumping into
eternity when as yet, we have numerous ages to yet live and
administer Gods government and His Great Judgment. And so, what is
not yet seen, is "eonian" (pertaining to the eons), and not
"eternity" as you and the King James suggests in this verse.
in this passage the contrast is between the temporal and the
Comment: No, it is contrasting what is "seen" now and what is
"not seen," now, but is yet future.
the material and the spiritual.
Comment: No, strictly speaking it is not
contrasting material with spiritual, but rather what is perceived
in this temporary life and what is ahead as our reward in the
Surely the Greek word "aionios" could not be translated to mean
"age" which would force the passage to provide a meaning of
comparing the difference between spiritual things which then,
because of the mistranslation of "aionios", portray spiritual
things lasting just for a finite age as opposed to temporal things
which do not last for an age.
Comment: You are arguing from a false premise. Plus you
misrepresent aionios on both ends of the spectrum. From your
point of view, you want to extend what pertains to the ages into
ETERNITY. And from the perspective of the Truth, that is what the
word actually means, you are trying to limit it to ONE SINGLE AGE.
Neither is true. Aionios is the adjective of the noun aion,
and as such it must mean "that which pertains to ages." It could be
one or many ages, just as the adjective "hourly" pertains to hours.
It could be pertaining to only one, but it could also be pertaining
to very many hours. But it must pertain to hours, and not weeks,
months, or centuries!
know that spiritual things prove out to last longer. Furthermore,
this meaning makes no sense in the context which Paul is
establishing which is a permanence of spiritual things over the
temporary nature of the material world.
Comment: No, Paul is not speaking of spiritual things over the
material world. Notice the previous verse:
"Four our light affliction, which is but for a
moment [this is temporary, and this is what Paul tells
us we are NOW OBSERVING], works for us a far more
exceeding and AIONIOS weight of glory."
is contrasting the  light affliction with  and exceeding
weight of glory. This cannot be denied, for I have just merely
numbered the two contrasting points he is making. Now then, we know
that the light affliction is as he says momentaryit is SEEN, it is
NOW, and it is TEMPORARY. But, he tells us that this NOW SEEN
TEMPORARY affliction will bring us an EXCEEDING WEIGHT OF GLORY.
WHEN? Why IN THE RESURRECTION, of course, the first resurrection,
when we will be GLORIFIED WITH CHRIST and and what? Why we are to
be "kings and priests" with our Lord. When? All through ETERNITY?
NO, during the "oncoming ages." These verses are speaking of the
trials we now see and are enduring for a temporary moment,
contrasted with the glory that will be ours IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD
on this earth ruling and reign with Christ THROUGH THE AGES, not
for eternity. Not even Christ rules as "King" for eternity.
Therefore the Greek word "aionios" must mean eternal or
Comment: Nonsense, it means eonianspertaining to the oncoming
AGES. Our glorious reign with Christ on the earth over the nations
is for the AGES, not for eternity. The reign of Christ COMES TO AND
END, just as aionios comes to an end (I Cor
now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets,
according to the commandment of
tou ...aioniou ...............Theou
the ...everlasting ..........God
known to all nations for the obedience of faith."
adjective, when used to modify a noun, must agree with its noun in
gender, number and case in the Greek. Is the above word aioniou an
adjective which then describes God?
Answer: YES and it does agree in gender, number and case!
tou .............aion- iou .........The -
def article..stem .ending....stem .ending
article .......adjective .........noun
masculine .singular ...........genitive
this verse was supposed to say "...according to the commandment of
the God of the ages." then the Greek transliteration would have to
look like this: "ton Theou ton aion" but it does not.
Comment: Nice try, Walter, but try that on a Junior High Debate
Team. Aionios is the adjective form of the noun aion, is it
not? Yes, of course it is, you know it is. And even Dr. Strong
concedes that the definition of aion is AGE.
Therefore the adjective aionios pertains to that which is of
an age or ages. Why are you then trying to cleverly suggest that
the ONLY way that this verse could "pertain to the ages" would be
to CHANGE AN ADJECTIVE INTO A NOUN AND THEN CHANGE THE SENTENCE
STRUCTURE TO "God of the AGES," rather than leaving it as is and
translate it correctly "touaion-iouTheou""The EONIAN God?" One does
NOT have to change the phrase "hourly schedule" into "schedule of
hours" in order for it to make the same sense!
falsely try to make it sound as if "God of the ages" cannot be
translated correctly as "the eonian God." That is both nonsense and
deceitful. You see, there are TWO ways to say the same thingone
with a noun and the other with an adjective. Furthermore, Walter,
since when does a noun in ANY LANGUAGE take on a much GREATER AND
DIFFERENT meaning when it is turned into an adjective? NO ADJECTIVE
can take on a greater or different means from the noun from which
it is derived. Talk about "adding TO the word of God." You take a
word olam/aion which means a period of time as short as a
mans lifetime (Deut. 15:17), and you try to turn it into
is both foolish and unscriptural to insist that any "adjective"
applied to God, such as "aionios/eonian," must be of an "eternal"
nature, or it cannot be applied to an "eternal God." Here is your
whole unscriptural argument: Since aionios/eonian pertains
to ages or eons which have a BEGINNING and have an ENDING, it
absolutely according to your theories of grammar and
your theories of interpretation, can NEVER be applied to
God, unless we change the etymology, meaning, and Scriptural usage
of this word to a totally DIFFERENT WORD, "eternal."
Therefore, according to you, God can be "the God OF the eons,"
but He absolutely cannot be "the eonian God." Did I say all that
that said, do we find God getting "jealous" anywhere in the
Scriptures? Yes, many places. Is God ever called "the God of
jealousy" used as a noun? NO. No we dont. Nowhere. Not once. But do
we find the term "a JEALOUS God" used as an adjective? YES, many
times. One example: "for I the LORD thy God am a JEALOUS GOD." (Ex.
unless you are able to turn this adjective word "jealous" into
something that is "ETERNAL," I suggest that we have once more,
Scripturally contradicted your theory. By Gods own definition of
this word, it means: "God is JEALOUS, and the Lord revengeth; the
Lord revengeth, and is FURIOUS; the Lord will take VENGEANCE on His
adversaries, and He reserves WRATH for His enemies" (Nahum 1:2).
"for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, VISITING INIQUITY of the
fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of
them that hate Me" (Deut. 5:9). "For the Lord thy God is a JEALOUS
God among you lest the ANGER of the Lord thy God be kindled against
thee, and DESTROY thee from off the face of the earth" (Deut.
"jealous" means to God: "FURY," "VENGEANCE," "WRATH," "VISITING
INIQUITY," "ANGER," "DESTRUCTION." Etc. Must we believe that all of
these attributes of jealousy must be ETERNAL since God is "a
jealous God?" Say, did you catch that "unto the third and fourth
generation" thing in Deut. 5:9. I wouldnt call four generations an
"eternity," would you? Do you really believe that God in heaven
will be, furious, vengeful, wrathful, FOR ALL ETERNITY? And God is
called "the HAPPY God?" Can you not see how unscriptural, and
stupid theories are?
Adjectives may be used in three distinct ways in Greek:
attributively, predicatively and substantively. The attributive use
of the adjective is that use in which the adjective attributes a
quality to the noun modified. In the attributive construction there
are two possible positions of the adjective in relation to the
either before the noun as in the passage on the previous
after the noun which would then look like this:
Theou tou aioniou
that the adjective aioniou is immediately preceded by the definite
article tou in this second possibility of the attributive
the attributive case therefore the adjective aioniou strongly
modifies Theou in whichever position the adjective is placed. Since
God is an eternal God the adjective aioniou must be translated
eternal or everlasting in the above two examples.
Comment: Balderdash. That is nonsense. That has no basis
in fact or Scripture. We know that Satan is the "god of this
age [aion]" (II Cor. 4:4). But he is nowhere
called the "god of the ages," all of the ages, in the plural. Well,
if Satan is not the God of the "ages," then Who is? Why, GOD, of
course. God created the ages [aions] (Heb.
1:2), and He is working out His plan of the ages, therefore God is
"the aionios/eonian GOD." This is not
second case for adjectives is the predicative case. The above
phrase in the predicative case would look like -
this: "tou Theou aioniou"
(Notice: no definite article before "aioniou".
indicates the predicative case)
or this:"aioniou tou Theou"
third and final case for adjectives is the substantive case in
which the adjective itself is used as the noun in order to be the
subject of the sentence. The Greek word for God, Theou, is the noun
and the subject in this passage in Ro 16:26. Since there already is
a subject in the passage, then there is no need for an adjective to
act as a noun. Therefore in this particular passage in Romans 16:26
the Greek word aioniou is in the attributive case and it therefore
modifies the Greek word for God: Theou and must be translated
everlasting or eternal God and not 'God of the ages' or an
Comment: Defining "aionios" as "agelasting" is not correct. The
adjective "aionios" does not mean "age lasting," thereby
erroneously suggesting that such verses if translated "eonian God"
would be in fact saying that God Himself will only last or live FOR
ONE AGE. That is nonsense, that is not honest scholarship. Aionios
means to "belong TO the ages," NOT, "agelasting" or "during an
age." Aionios can be used in reference to multiple ages, as we will
eternal), god because the grammar and the context just does not
support those interpretations. An 'agelasting' god makes no sense
in this passage.
Comment: Certainly this verse is not speaking of an "agelasting
god." But "aioniou Theou" should not be translated "agelasting God"
but "eonian God." God is NOT an "agelasting god" but rather "THE
God of the ages." If you could but get it through your head that a
Greek "aion" is an English "eon," and a Greek "aionios" is an
English "eonian." Your charade in trying to imply that since the
noun "age" has no adjective form, that we must then change the
Greek adjective into a noun in order for this verse to be correct,
will not fool anyone with a lick of sense.
all know that the word "age" has no adjective form, and thats why
it is more accurate to translate "aionios" as "eonian" rather than
to invent words like "age-lasting" or age-during," or
"age-abiding," etc. Eon IS the English spelling of the Greek aion,
and eonian IS the English spelling of the Greek aionios. Eon is the
exact English equivalent of the Greek aion, and eonian is
the exact English equivalent of the Greek aionios. And so
all of your grammatical gyrations are of no value
OTHER EXAMPLES SUBJECT ADJECTIVE DEFINITE ARTICLE
Tim 1:17 - predicative case]:
to the King of the ages "
..de Basilei ...ton ...aionon "
Comment: Interesting that you should correct this King James
translation of I Tim. 1:17. But a shame that you didnt finish and
correct the whole verse. So you admit that "tpsde Basileitonaionon"
should be translated "Now the King of THE AGES." What then with the
rest of the verse? Here is the last of I Tim. 1:17 from an
"honor and glory for the ages of the ages; so be it."
Are you going to argue that aionon
[ages/eons] in the plural in the first half of this verse
should be "of the ages" but in the last half of the same verse that
aionon of the aionon [eons of the eons] should
NOT be translates eons or ages, but rather "for EVER AND
EVER?"and never mind the fact that "aionon ton aionon" is
Cor 13:11 - predicative case]:
"the God ....of .Love."
Theou tes agapes "
in the Bible - predicative case]:
The god ...of the ages
tou .theou tou ....aioniou
16:26 - the attributive case]:
tou .aioniou ......Theou
Comment: This is all very interesting, Walter, but what exactly
does it PROVE regarding the translating of "tou aionios Theou" as
"the eonian God?" Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing
you have said is proof that "tou aionios Theou" cannot or should
not both Scripturally and grammatically be translated as "the
the New World Translation of the Bible and the Concordant Bible
translations, (Jehovah's Witnesses), are correct in their
insistence upon aioniou having one meaning and one meaning only in
Scripture no matter what the grammar or context; and that meaning
is 'eonian', meaning 'for an age', 'for an eon'. And that's it, no
Comment: Walter, you got your facts concerning the Jehovahs
Witnesses and The Concordant people all mixed up. First of all, the
Concordant Literal New Testament is not associated with the
Jehovahs Witnesses. Second, the New World Translation (which is the
Jehovahs Witlnesses Bible) DOES translate "aioniou" ( albeit
erroneously) as "everlasting"in accord with the commandment of the
EVERLASTING God." (Rom. 16:25, New World Translation). "And
these will depart into EVERLASTING cutting-off, but the righteous
ones into EVERLASTING life" (Matt. 25:46, New World
Translation of Jehovahs Witnesses).
"kolasin aionio " =
falsey claim this to be punishment 'eonian' = for an eon, age.
Punishment not eternal but limited to an age.
Comment: This statement has many problems. You say, "They," but
we must now exclude the JWs as they follow the error of the KJV
with reference to "aionio." And as for the word "kolasin," you make
a mistake here as well. Actually the New World Translation
translated this word correctly, but the word is not "punishment."
The Greek word "kolasin" comes from "kolazo" and it means to "cut
off" or to "prune." Since the New World Translation knew to
properly translate this word "cutting off," it is remarkable that
they still erred and translated "aionio" as everlasting, hence:
"everlasting cutting-off." Pruning is administered to INCREASE LIFE
AND PRODUCTION. They should have seen by this alone that this
"pruning" could not be "everlasting.
word "kolasin" is better translated "chastening" which agrees with
pruning or cutting off. And "aionio" mean "eonian"pertaining to the
aions, hence "chastening eonian" is the proper translation. And
"life eonian" is also proper. Hence both times "aionio" is eonian
and not eternal. The life that is promised to the elect who
overcome is life for the eons"eonian life." They are promised
rulership with Jesus on this earth over the nations, Rev. 2:26.
They are NOT promised rulership over the nations for all eternity,
as not even Christ Himself rules over the nations eternally:
"Then comes the END, when He shall have delivered up the
kingdom to God, even the Father, when He shall have put down all
rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, TILL
[and no longer] He has put all enemies under His feet. The
LAST enemy that shall be destroyed [abolished] is
death" (I Cor. 15:24-26).
proper translation "punishment" is used but one time only with
reference to sinners, and that is in Heb. 10:29, and nowhere else
in the entire New Testament!
Thes 1:8]: "olEthron aiOnion" destruction eonian is falsely claimed
to be for an eon, age. Destruction not eternal but limited to an
Comment: What? Not even an argument for "eternal" in this verse?
Are we simply to take your word for it? The word is "aionion" and
it means "eonian" not eternal. Actually a proper translation of
this phrase is, "the justice of eonian extermination." Now lest
anyone think that some "exterminated" is beyond the redemption of
the cross, consider that this very same Greek word "olehtros" is
found in I Cor. 5:5 where we read this:
"To deliver such an one unto Satan for the
destruction [extermination] of the flesh,
that the spirit MAY BE SAVED in the day of the Lord
to the utter chagrin of many a holier-than-thou Christian
theologian, there will be MANY SAVED in the Day of the Lord
"Zoen aionio "
'eonian' = if false claimed to be for an eon, age.
not eternal but limited to an age.
Comment: Once more you are making statements that are not
grammatically true. When there are no words of limitation present,
"aionios" is NOT limited to "an [one]
age," as you keep repeating. Aionios can be used as either
singular or plural, but the word itself carries no connation
whatsoever about what might or might not happen at its conclusion
or consummation. The Elect will reign and JUDGE the nations not
only through the millennium, but also for the whole period of the
Great White Throne/Lake of fire/Second death
AFTER the consummation of the ages, the elect saints continue to
live, not because they were promised "eternal" life, but because
they have been resurrected from the dead or changed at our Lords
coming, hence they are all given IMMORTALITY! Which means that they
will NEVER EVER die, even though they have never been promised
"eternal" life by such a name or term.
if all of the above false claims were true, then the following must
be considered true and God is merely mortal not eternal, he is just
a god with a limited finite existence:
Comment: This again is nonsense, Walter. The Scriptural
fact that God is an "aionios [eonian]
God" in no way suggests that God lives only for the period
covered by the word "aionios." That is unjustifiable speculation
based on false deductions from a false premise. This reasoning is
so silly that it hardly deserves comment.
Gen. 24:3 we read that God is the "God of the earth." Now the earth
is visible; is God therefore visible? No. The earth is physical; is
God therefore physical? No. The earth will pass away (Matt. 24:35);
does this mean that God too will "pass away," since He is the "God"
of this "visible, material, passing away" earth? NO. Pretty silly
therefore must simply be a god who is not eternal and limited to an
'eonian' - an eon, an age.
Comment: I will say it just one more time: Where under heaven do
you get the idea that since God is an "eonian God" that His very
LIFE is LIMITED to the period of an age or two? This is a straw man
argument that has no basis in fact.
However, the God of the Bible has no beginning and has no end.
The god of the New World Translation and the Concordant 'Bibles' is
therefore not the same as the God of the Bible.
Comment: Maybe you too, would do well, to start using the word
"Scriptures" when you want to make reference to the words Gods
Spirit preserved for us, rather than the word "bible."
perhaps He [Jesus Christ] therefore departed for a season, that
thou shouldst receive Him forever."
word "aionion" must mean forever here in order for the verse to
make any sense. Would Jesus depart for a season - for a while - so
that we will then be enabled to receive Him for a while? Then what?
Do we unreceive Him?
Comment: I wont be too hard on you for this one, Walter, for I
believe it to be just a sincere mistake on your part. The Scripture
you are quoting is from Philemon 15, but it does not have reference
to Jesus Christ, but rather to Philemon, the runaway servant of
Onesimus. Paul is behooving Onesimus to take back his servant,
Philemon, as a brother and not as a slave. However, since you
brought up this Scripture, lets look at just how silly your
argument is regarding it.
You believe that the phrase "receive him for EVER" is the
only correct translation of this verse, and that it would be wrong
to translate it "receive him for an age [or
eon]." Consider: If your interpretation is correct,
then what Paul is advocating in this verse is "ETERNAL SLAVERY."
That Onesimus should take back Philemon as a SLAVE FOR ALL
ETERNITY. Kind of silly, huh? You shot yourself in your theological
foot again, Walter.
"Nor by the blood of goats and calves, but by His
own blood, entered once for all into the holies, having obtained
Would God redeem
us for just a few ages? (Then what?)
"aionian" here must mean "eternal" to make sense because Christ
entered, (sacrificed Himself), once for all and for all time! Why
would His sacrifice be for anything less than for eternity - all
time? Is He not God?
Comment: Let me try this one more
time. God created the eons of time, therefore, He is "the eonian
God." God is working out His plan of salvation for the entire human
race within the confines of these "eonian times." The Scriptures
know nothing of "eternity." They didnt even have a word for the
concept. Redemption is only one of many things that God will
accomplish in the eons. There are no promises, no prophecies, no
anything, mentioned in Scripture that goes beyond the conclusion of
the eons. After the eons are over, then what? What will we do? IT
DOESNT SAY. We know of only two things that are taught in reference
to anything beyond the eons  we will all have IMMORTALITY
[we will never die]. The word itself has nothing
to do with "time," but rather death-less-ness, and  God will be
ALL IN ALL. Thats it! Beyond these, we must trust God in faith
regarding what eternity holds for us.
for one of the most important truths of all regarding this word
"aionios." When God says that He is "the EONIAN God," He is stating
a FACT. That Jesus procured "EONIAN redemption" for us, is a
statement of FACT. Neither "eonian God" nor "eonian redemption" are
statements of LIMITATION. And to suggest that they are statements
of limitation is to pervert the Scripturesthey neither say nor
insinuate any such thing.
principle of stating a FACT, which is not a statement of LIMITATION
is found throughout the Scriptures. God is for example: "The God OF
Abraham, OF Isaac, and OF Jacob"(Ex. 3:6). This is a statement of
FACT. It is not a statement of LIMITATION. This statement of fact
does not limit God from also being the God of Moses, David, Peter
the statement said that God is the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob ONLY," then it would be a statement of limitation, but
we dont find any such words of limitation in the verses in
question. It doesnt say that God is the "eonian God, ONLY," or that
Jesus procured "eonian redemption ONLY" for us. Does it? Well, DOES
IT? Why then do you deceitfully suggest that that is what IT MUST
AND HAS TO MEAN?
so this verse doesnt say that Jesus procured for us eonian ONLY
redemption, nor does it mean such a thing. But it does say that
Jesus procured "EONIAN redemption for us," that that is a statement
of fact, and that fact is Scripturally true. Gods elect will
receiving "redemption" during the remaining eons of time. Nowhere
does it say that at the end of the eons we will then LOSE our
redemption. These are but unscriptural carnal arguments used to
discredit Gods word and promote the pagan doctrine of eternal
[Compare 1 Ti 6:16]:
[God] only hath immortality dwelling in the
light which no man can approach unto; Whom no man hath seen, nor
can see; to Whom be honour and power everlasting.
order for this passage to make sense and be admissible as the word
of God the words "athanasia", and "aionio " must not contradict one
another in this passage so as to provide a nonsensical or no
Comment: For once, I can agree with your statement.
"Athanasia" is translated even by the New World translators and
the Concordant Bible translators as "immortality".
Comment: That too is correct. Virtually all bibles on earth
translate it "immortality."
Therefore the word "aionio " must be translated "everlasting" in
order to make any sense.
Comment: What? WHAT? Just were under heaven did that bit of
unscriptural nonsense come from? Because "athanasia" is correctly
translated as "immortality," "aionio" MUST BE TRANSLATED
"everlasting?" Give me a break. True, they must not contradict
(seeing that the Scriptures properly translated do NOT contradict),
but translating "athanasia" as "immortality," and "aionio" as
"eonian" DOES NOT CONTRADICT ANYTHING except your unscriptural
only God has, as a part of His essence, immortality, then how could
the word "aionio " mean just for an age:
Comment: Will you kindly drop the unscriptural assertion of
"JUST" and "AN" age. These limitations are no part of the word or
any part of the verses. There are no words of limitation in any of
these verses, which refer to God as the "eonian God."
God only hath immortality.........to Whom be ......honour and power
for an age - or for everlasting???"
Comment: I just explained all this in the paragraphs
above. You are the one inserting the word "JUST for an age."
"Aionios" has no such connotation as "JUST for an age." Dr. R. F.
Weymouth correctly states the following: "Etymologically this
adjective [aionios], like others
similarly formed, does not signify during, but belong to the aeons
or ages." Likewise, Dr. Farrar concers stating that "aionios
belonging TO, not lasting THROUGH."
more you are trying to interject limitations on a simple statement
of fact. The IMMORTAL GOD is going to show forth "honour and power
eonian." Dont try to suggest that God is belittled if this word is
translated properly and Scripturally. What you are doing is wrong.
Statements of facts are not statements of limitations unless there
are only words within the verse that set limitationswords like,
"just" and "only."
The reign of Jesus is for the "eons of the eons." First
it behooves us to know that this phrase means. They are specific
eons of time. This phrase does not heap eons upon eons for all
eternity, hence "everlasting eons" or any other such unscriptural
nonsense. But the point to be made is, what happens when the
consummation of all the ages [I Cor 10:11]
arrives? Lets ask the Scriptures:
"Then comes the END [the end of WHAT? The
end of life? The end of Christ? NO], when He [Jesus] shall have
delivered up the kingdom of God, even the Father; when He shall
have put down all rule and all authority and power. [His reigning
has fully and completely accomplished its purpose. THEN what?] For
He [Jesus] must reign, TILL [Websters till, until, up to the
time] He has put all enemies under His feet. The last
enemy that shall be destroyed is death" (I Cor.
If God is immortal then His honour and power is likewise
immortal - everlasting.
Comment: "Immortal honour"
is a bit of a stretch, Walter, seeing that inanimate things dont
really have life of their own. As already shown, "immortality" and
"everlasting" are two different words with two different meanings.
They are not synonymous. And the "God Who has immorality" being
honoured for the "eons" is not a contradiction, but rather a
confirmation of dozens of other Scriptures.
"That whosoever believeth in Him [Jesus
Christ] ..............should not perish but
have eternal life."
(lit.)"not should perish"......(lit.) life
eternal" The phrase should not perish would make no
sense if "aionion" only meant for an age: "For God so loved the
world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth
in Him should not perish but have life 'eonian' - for an
God so loved the world that He went through the agony of giving up
His one and only Son so that whosoever believes in Him..... He'll
only let you live for just an age??? And then what -
annihilation??? What kind of god is that? Certainly not the God of
Comment: No, what kind of silly unscriptural argument "is that?"
It is almost blasphemy to take a grand and marvelous reward, of
Gods, and turn it into something stupid and worthless. NO, God WILL
NOT ANNIHILATE His very elect after the "eons"plural. The eonian
life of rulership and reigning with our Lord is a MOST SPECIAL AND
PRECIOUS GIFT afforded the very elect overcomers ONLY. It is a
glorious reward that lasts for THOUSANDS of years before the rest
of humanity and the whole heavenly host of messengers are judged
and enter the Family of God. Dont demean it!
[Compare 1 Cor 15:53]:
this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put
the body of a believer becomes immortal according to the first
phrase, i.e. eternal, then in the following phrase the word
"aionion" which describes the same subject - the believer in Christ
- must also mean eternal.
Comment: Walter, your statements are nonsense. That statement is
not based on any Scriptural principal. It is not based on any law
of language or grammar. It is a carnal human argument of the flesh.
The chosen elect saints CAN TOO rule and reign with Christ for
thousands of years (eons/ages) as a special reward from God. Why
cant they? They are given immortality SO THAT THEY CAN live and not
die during the thousands of years with Christ. They, along with
Christ, bring about the consummation of the ages when ALL ENEMIES
are subjected and death itself is abolished. You know NOTHING of
this grand and glorious plan of God.
why then, since they are given this eonian" period of rulership
with Christ, do you insist that their life must END when the eons
end? Your argument is absurd. Suppose I have a small company and I
decide to give all my employees a months vacation in Europe, all
expenses paid. Now suppose in addition to this vacation for ALL
employees, I express a desire to send my top five sales people to
Europe a month earlier to enjoy a prior months vacation as a
SPECIAL REWARD, BEFORE the vacation for all begins. Am I not at
liberty to do this?
then, when the special reward, a prior months vacation for the
special group of high producers only, comes to an end, what
happens? Do they have to go home? No. Do I fire them? No. Do they
DIE? No. Well, what then? Simple. The REST of the employees JOIN
them and they ALL CONTINUE VACATIONING. So even though their
special reward vacation comes to an end, their place of honor does
not; their vacation does not, their employment does not; their
lives do not. This is not rocket science.
if our benevolent employer had the power he might even bestow
immortality on them all, but this is getting beyond the limits of
[Compare 2 Cor 5:1]:
"For we know that if our [believers']
earthly house [physical bodies] of this tabernacle were dissolved
[destroyed] we have a building of God, an house not made with hands
[not made so that it won't last] [but] .eternal in the
the body of a believer becomes immortal, (1 Cor 15:53), then it
becomes eternal ("aionion", 2 Cor 5:1).
Therefore "aionion" = "eternal.
Comment: I already covered this a couple of times now. We are
looking forward to an "eonian" habitation OUT of heaven, on this
earth, with Christ, for the eonian periods of time. This is again
the statement of fact, without limitations. An "immortal" body for
all practicality is also "eternal." There is no argument here over
that. An immortal body is DEATHLESS, and as such will live forever,
eternally. But it will not live "eternally on this earth reigning
with Christ." THAT reward is "eonian" and it then comes to an END.
Our lives dont come to an end, but the period of reigning on the
earth and judging the nations DOES COME TO AN END. Listen
carefully: "Eonian times, eonian rulership, eonian rewards, eonian
judgment" ALL END. However, those elect saints GIVEN eonian
rulership and judgment with Christ DO NOT DIE OR DO NOT CEASE TO
EXIST BECAUSE THEY HAVE IMMORTALITY, not because they are promised
"eternal" life ANYWHERE in Scripture.
have no problem with the fact that "immortality" is practically
"eternal." That is, those with immortality live eternally. But that
is NOT what the words themselves mean. Eternal does not MEAN
immortality anymore than immortality means eternal.
have a little common sense and wisdom regarding this matter. It is
senseless to state that "God is eternal." The very fact OF God is
proof in itself that God IS eternal. We do not speak of "wet rain,"
do we? We do not say: "Its raining WET rain." The very fact OF rain
assumes that it is WET. The writers of Scripture had NO WORD in
their vocabulary which could be defined as "endless time." But they
DID have a word that signified "no death." Immortality means
DEATH=LESS=NESS, not eternal or eternity.
[Compare Heb 9:14]:
much more shall the blood of Christ, Who through the
eternal Spirit .............offered Himself without spot to
context here demands "aionion" = "eternal". There would be
absolutely no reason to translate "Pneumatos aionion" to mean
'Spirit of the age.'
Grammar indicates that aionion is an adjective which modifies
"Pneumatos". There is no genitive case and/or no preposition 'of'
included in the grammar, so that "aionion" could be translated 'of
the age' in the above verse. Since "aionion" also carries NO
definite article in this passage nor satisfies grammatical rules
which would then make it a noun, it therefore cannot be translated
'the age' or 'the ages'.
Comment: You are attempting to build a grammatical straw man. We
dont HAVE to change the adjective "aionion" into the noun "aion."
We simply translate the adjective "aionion" (which means that which
pertains to the aions) into the English adjective "eonian" (which
means that which pertains to the eons), and ALL IS WELL!
Since God the Holy Spirit is not limited to just one age in His
existence, the word "aionion" must be translated eternal because
God is eternal and not temporal or temporary. Note that this is
legitimate because the word "aionion" has a legitimate and most
common usage and translation of "eternal" from ancient times when
the Bible was written.
Comment: That statement is not true. In ancient times "when the
Bible was written," the word "aionion" decidedly WAS NOT COMMONLY
USED OR TRANSLATED AS "ETERNAL." Show me the historical proof of
that statement. Dont you think that if God wanted His word to
contain a statement about "eternal" or "eternity" that He would
have seen to it that one of the languages used, WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE
SUCH A WORD? They did NOT.
other words, if the word "aionios" has always been used to mean
'eternal' by the people that used the language when the Bible was
Comment: Yes, "IF" indeed. Let me assure you that "aionios" did
not mean "eternal" by the people that "used the language when the
Bible was written." If that were true, there would have been no
reason whatsoever for Justinian to call a council in 540 wherein he
labored to add the word "endless" to the Greek "aionios" life. He
knew and conceded that "aionios" was not endless, and so insisted
in the Church inserting the word "endless" before it to signify
"endless life" and "endless punishment."
up to even today, then it is legitimate to conclude that that is
the correct meaning when found in Scripture providing it does not
violate the context which it certainly does not.
Comment: The word "eternal" comes from the Latin "aeternum"
which in the first century meant virtually the same as the word
"seculum," and in fact, Jerome sometimes rendered "aion"
aeternus, and in other places he renders "aion" as
seculum. They were considered virtually synonyms. Here is
the how Latin dictionaries define, seculum"a generation, an
age, the world, the times, the SPIRIT OF THE TIMES, and a period of
a hundred years." (Caps mine).
Trajan, Roman emperor from 98 to 117 AD spoke of
seculum as the time he lived in. Tertullian, born about 160
AD refers to "a mighty shock impending over the entire world, and
the conclusion of the seculum itself." Lactantius, born
about 260 AD speaks of the "learned ones of this seculum."
Eusebius, early Church historian, born about 265 AD gives the
account of a martyrs trail in which Speratus, the martyrs leader,
replied, "The empire of this seculum
[world] I do not
read this from the work, Whence Eternity by Scholar and
Expert in the Greek language, Alexander Thomson, "Long ago in Rome,
periodic games were held, which were called secular games.
Herodian, the historian, writing in Greek about the end of the
second or beginning of the third century, call these eonian games.
In no sense were the games eternal. Eonian did not mean eternal any
more than a seculum meant eternity" (Page 12).
He shall reign over the House of Jacob
eis tous aiOnas
(lit.) into the ages = idiomatic expression = "forever"
Comment: Jesus doesnt reign over ANYONE "forever." That is not a
translation, but an interpretation. If Jesus reigns "forever," then
Paul lied in I Cor. 15:25 where he tells us that Jesus rules ONLY
UNTIL He puts down all enemies. He then TURNS OVER THE KINGDOME TO
HIS GOD AND FATHER. He STOPS reigning. His "eternal" reign COMES TO
AN END, because His reign is "aionion" and not "eternal."
....and of His Kingdom there shall be no end."
not shall be [an] end"
order to make sense in this passage the word "aiOnas" must again be
translated to the most common usage of "forever" or for eternity"
in order to coincide with the parallel phrase which immediately
follows which states "there shall be no end". It makes no sense to
insist that "aiOnas" is always limited to the translation - usage -
of 'of the ages':
He shall reign over the House of Jacob for ages and of His kingdom
there shall be no end???
Either our Lord's kingdom is for ages or it is forever.
Comment: You got that right, but which is it? It is obviously
"for the ages," seeing that the Scriptures clearly state that his
reign lasts ONLY U-N-T-I-L He turns it over to His Father. Only
UNTIL all enemies are subdued. Oh yes, all that is "OF the kingdom"
continues, but Jesus as King of the kingdom ends. Jesus reigns "for
the eons OF the eons," not "for ever AND ever."
[Compare 2 Pet 1:11]:
so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the
"Aionion" is an adjective here! It modifies kingdom. So if the
kingdom of Jesus Christ shall have no end, (Lk 1:33), then it must
"aionion" = "everlasting"
Comment: No, the kingdom does continue; it is endless. However,
Jesus as "King" of this kingdom, is "eonian" and NOT ENDLESS, as we
have clearly seen from I Cor. 15:24-25.
"ton aionios Theos" means "God of the Ages" , (and it does not),
then the word "aionios" must be a noun.
Comment: Your persistent use of a straw man argument is wearing
thin. I know of no one who is insisting that "ton ionios Theos" has
to be translated as "God of the ages," if it doesnt mean eternal.
That is a straw man argument designed to deceive. "Ton ionios
Theos" is translated "the eonian God," and that is what it means
and that is how the Scriptures use it, and it contradicts nothing
except your unscriptural theories.
is not! The word "aionios" is an adjective, the word "aion" which
is not in the above passages is a noun. Examples of the Biblical
use of the noun are as follows:
6) "And God raised us up with the heavenly realms in Christ
7) "in order that in the coming ages He might show the incomparable
riches of His grace, expressed in His kindness to us in Christ
the coming ages" =
tois aiosin tois eperchomeois"
the ages that [are] coming"
"aiosin" = ages
Comment: And is this supposed to somehow magically prove that
"aionios" does not mean "eonian," and cannot be translated, eonian?
I think not. I think you have exhausted your silly straw man
early: Therefore the Hebrew word olam in the
Hebrew Bible, and the Greek word "aionios" in the Septuagint are
indeed translated "forevermore,"
Comment: Some argue that "eon" in the singular means "age," but
in the plural it means "forever" or "eternal." Lets see how the
Greek Septuagint uses both the singular and plural forms in these
Singular: Micah 4:5"ets ton aiona kai epekeina.for the eon and
BEYOND." Well that cant possibly mean forever for eternal, as there
can be nothing "beyond" eternity.
Plural: Dan. 12:3, "eis tous aionas kai eti.for the eons and
LONGER." Once again, there can be nothing "longer" than eternity
Besides, how is it possible to have a plurality of
are just a few scriptures in which "aionios" cannot possibly mean
1. Rom. 16:25"according to the revelation of the mystery,
which was kept secret since the world [Gk:
aionios] began." You have attempted time and again to
set up a straw man by insisting that if "aionios" is "eonian," then
it must be changed to a noun and translated as "of the ages." Well
check this bit of translating genius out. We have the ADJECTIVE
word "aionios" and the KJV translators changed it to a NOUN,
guess what? The word "world" (kosmos) is not found in this
verse, furthermore, neither is the word "began." The Greek reads:
"in times eonian." Do we really believe in "times eternal." What
does "time," let along "timeS" have to do with "eternity?" And as
Paul speaks of the "revelation" of this secret, how could it EVER
be revealed if it was kept secret ETERNALLY? Do you not see a
problema CONTRADICTION in all of this?
II Thes. 2:16"and has given us everlasting consolation and
good hope through grace." "Console" is defined as, "To allay sorrow
or grief of." "Hope" is defined as, "To wish for something with
expectations of its fulfillment." Now then, according to this inane
KJV translation of this verse, just how long are we going to have
our "SORROW AND GRIEF ALLAYED?" How long must we "HOPE" before we
have our hope fulfilled? For ALL ETERNITY? Nonsense.
II Tim. 1:9"according to His own purpose and grace, which was given
us in Christ Jesus before the world began." The word "world" is not
found in the Greek manuscripts, the word "began" is not found in
the Greek manuscripts. Here is what the Greek says: "before TIMES
EONIAN." So where is the consistency with these translators? Could
they not deceive the readers by translating this verse properly? If
"aionios" means "eternal" or "evermore" then HOW, pray tell, can
there be "TIMES" "BEFORF" "ETERNITY?" Give me a break. This is not
translating; this is out and out planned deception! They change an
adjective into a noun, then change the noun to a different word,
then completely leave out the word "times." This total lack of
scholarship and honesty is reprehensible!
Jude 7"Even as Sodom and Gomorha, and the cities about them in like
manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after
strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the
vengeance of eternal fire." The Greek reads: "experiencing the
justice of fire eonian." Well just how long does this
"eonian/aionios fire last? Is it really "eternal" as the Authorized
Version and you, contend?
A. There is NO FIRE burning in Palestine since the days of
Sodom anywhere, let along in the vicinity of these ancient cities.
The best archaeologists can discern, Sodom is located at the bottom
of what is now a sea.
B. Ezekiel 16:55"When your sisters, SODOM and her daughters,
shall RETURN TO THEIR FORMER ESTATE, and Samaria and her daughters
shall return to their former estate, then you [Jerusalem] shall
return to your former estate."
judgment of God against Sodom was decidedly not, ETERNAL. Here is
clear Scriptural evidence and proof that "olam/aion/aionios," etc.,
DO NOT MEAN ETERNAL OR ENDLESS TIME. Give it up, Walter. The
doctrine of "eternal torture" is the most evil doctrine, teaching,
or concept ever invented in the history of the universe. It is the
MOST blasphemous thing that could ever be attributed our Lord and
Father. Give it up!