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
Bibles the Greek word: "aion" is translated as "forever," and "aionios" is
translated, "everlasting," or "eternal."
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, everlasting."
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.
(Ray Smith) will make "Comments" to your
unscriptural assertions using blue type:
WORD STUDY ON
'AIONIOS' LIFE MEANS ETERNAL
Consider 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
Comment: Your opening
statement is not reputable scholarship—it 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 word’s 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
The 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"
Mr. Bauer’s 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:
The New 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 ages."
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."
Elliot’s Commentary on
the Whole Bible (Matt. 25:46(. Everlasting punishment--life
eternal. The two adjectives represent the same Greek word,
aionios—it 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. 16:25).
Hasting’s 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, everlasting—nonetheless "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. 370):
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" eternity.)
The large 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
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
Dr. Marvin 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
I have 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 God’s 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
In Dr. Farrar’s 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 Greek—aionios could still mean only
‘belonging to eternity’ and not ‘lasting through it."
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."
Dr. Edward Plumptre, an
eschatologist, "I fail to find, as is used by the Greek Fathers, any
instance in which the idea of time duration is
Time 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
Oldhausen, German Lutheran theologian, "The Bible has no expression
for endlessness. All the Biblical terms imply or denote long
Professor 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 revelation."
This 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".
You couldn’t get me to read
all of these pagan authors at the end of the barrel of a 57 Magnum.
However, consider the following:
Dr. Mangey, a translator of
the writings of Philo, says, "Philo did not use aionios to express
The 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 Herod’s temple stood
[since Herod’s temple was not even standing at the time Josephus wrote, it
too proves that Josephus did not mean ‘eternity’ when he wrote
Saint Gregory of Nyssa speaks
of anionios diastema, "an eonian interval." How many
intervals do you know of that are "endless" or "eternal?"
Saint Chrysostum, in his
homily on Eph. 2:1-3, says that, "Satan’s kingdom is aeonian; that
is, it will cease with the present world."
Saint Justin Martyr, in the
Apol. (p. 57), used the word aionios repeadedly: aionion
kolasin…all 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."
GREEK WORD AI?N -- AI?NIOS, TRANSLATED Everlasting -- Eternal
HOLY BIBLE, SHOWN TO DENOTE LIMITED DURATION
JOHN WESLEY HANSON, A.M.
Editor of THE NEW COVENANT
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSALIST PUBLISHING HOUSE 1875
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 truth.
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 caricature."
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.
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.
DURATION AND MODERN CONCEPTIONS
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 observes:
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
It is a
vital question How was the word used in the Greek literature with which
the Seventy were familiar, that is, theGreek Classics?
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."
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
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 time.)
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.
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 endless duration.
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 to it.
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?
employs the noun as his predecessors did. I give an illustration*-
"Leading a life (ai?na) involved in troubles."
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 ai?nion.
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
"I will make a covenant of
peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with
olam = [Grk] aionios[Septuagint];
and I will give blessings to
them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in the midst of them
[Heb] olam = [Grk] aionios
God's 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
Therefore the Hebrew word "olam" in the Hebrew bible
and the Greek word "aionios" in the Septuagint are indeed translated
Comment: 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
A true 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 collateral.
RAINBOW 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 earth."
This covenant has no requirements on our part, but is
it truly everlasting—endless?
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 realm.
ABRAHAMIC 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,
This 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 "Abraham’s 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."
THE 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.
How long did "EVERLASTING STATUTES"
Is the "everlasting statute" regulating the "day
of atonement," still in force? "And this shall be an EVERLASTING
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."
So 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).
So 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
The "EVERLASTING [olam]
priesthood" of Exodus 40:15. And just how long did this "everlasting
"If 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,
And 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 ENDED.
I 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
"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: ‘olam’—Strong’s
Oh 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
[2 Cor 4:18]:s
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.
II 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 NO END.
The next great event in prophecy is
not eternity, but rather the END of this eon and the BEGINNING of
the next—the 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 God’s 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.
Here in this passage the contrast is
between the temporal and the eternal
Comment: No, it is contrasting what is
"seen" now and what is "not seen," now, but is yet
the material and the
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
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!
We 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
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
Paul 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 ‘momentary’—it 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
Therefore the Greek word "aionios"
must mean eternal or everlasting.
Comment: Nonsense, it means
eonians—pertaining 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
"But now is made manifest, and by the
Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of
tou ...aioniou ...............Theou
the ...everlasting ..........God
made known to all nations for the
obedience of faith."
An 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
Answer: YES and it does agree in
gender, number and case! =
tou .............aion- iou .........The -
def article..stem .ending....stem
article .......adjective .........noun
masculine .singular ...........genitive
If 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 "tou…aion-iou…Theou"—"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!
You 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 thing—one 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 man’s lifetime (Deut. 15:17), and you try to turn it into
It 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 correctly?
With 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 don’t.
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. 20:5).
Now 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
God’s 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. 6:15).
So "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
wouldn’t 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 noun:
either before the noun as in the
passage on the previous page:
tou aioniou Theou
after the noun which would then look
tou Theou tou aioniou
Note that the adjective aioniou is
immediately preceded by the definite article tou in this second
possibility of the attributive case.
In 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
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
The second case for adjectives is the
predicative case. The above phrase in the predicative case would
look like -
1) this: "tou Theou
(Notice: no definite article before
This indicates the predicative
2) or this:"aioniou tou
The 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 conclusively prove.
(not 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.
We all know that the word "age" has no
adjective form, and that’s 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
[1 Tim 1:17 - predicative
"Now to the King of the ages
..de Basilei ...ton
Comment: Interesting that you should
correct this King James translation of I Tim. 1:17. But a shame that
you didn’t finish and correct the whole verse. So you admit that
"tps…de Basilei…ton…aionon" 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 interlinear:
"…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 genitive.
[2 Cor 13:11 - predicative case]:
"the God ....of .Love."
"ton Theou tes agapes "
[not in the Bible - predicative case]:
The god ...of the ages
tou .theou tou ....aioniou
[Ro 16:26 - the attributive
The everlasting God
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 eonian God."
If 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 other
Comment: Walter, you got your facts
concerning the Jehovah’s Witnesses and The Concordant people all
mixed up. First of all, the Concordant Literal New Testament is not
associated with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Second, the New World
Translation (which is the Jehovah’s 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 Jehovah’s Witnesses).
"kolasin aionio " =
They 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 JW’s 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
The 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"
The 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
[2 Thes 1:8]: "olEthron aiOnion"
destruction ‘eonian’ is falsely claimed to be for an eon, age.
Destruction not eternal but limited to an age.
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 Jesus."
Yes, to the utter chagrin of many a
holier-than-thou Christian theologian, there will be MANY SAVED in
the Day of the Lord Jesus!
"Zoen aionio "
Life 'eonian' = if false claimed to be
for an eon, age.
Life not eternal but limited to an
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 judgment.
And 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 Lord’s 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
So 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
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.
In 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 huh?
God therefore must simply be a god who
is not eternal and limited to an 'eonian' - an eon, an
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
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
Comment: Maybe you too, would do well,
to start using the word "Scriptures" when you want to make reference
to the words God’s Spirit preserved for us, rather than the word
"For perhaps He [Jesus Christ]
therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldst receive Him forever."
The 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 won’t 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, let’s 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,
"Nor by the blood of
goats and calves, but by His own blood, entered once for all into
the holies, having obtained eternal.....redemption for
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 didn’t 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
DOESN’T 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. That’s
it! Beyond these, we must trust God in faith regarding what eternity
holds for us.
Now 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
Scriptures—they neither say nor insinuate any such thing.
This 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 and Paul.
If the statement said that God is the
"God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ONLY,"
then it would be a statement of limitation, but we don’t find any
such words of limitation in the verses in question. It doesn’t 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
And so this verse doesn’t 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. God’s 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 God’s word and promote the pagan
doctrine of eternal torture.
[Compare 1 Ti 6:16]:
"Who [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. Amen.
In 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 meaning.
Comment: For once, I can agree with
"Athanasia" is translated even by the
New World translators and the Concordant Bible translators as
Comment: That too is correct.
Virtually all bibles on earth translate it
Therefore the word "aionio " must be
translated "everlasting" in order to make any
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
If 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
"Who 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."
Once 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." Don’t 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 limitations—words 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? Let’s 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 [Webster’s ‘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. 15:25-26).
If God is immortal then His honour and
power is likewise immortal - everlasting.
"Immortal honour" is a bit of a stretch, Walter, seeing that
inanimate things don’t 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
"That whosoever believeth
in Him [Jesus Christ] ..............should not perish but have eternal life."
me apoletai..........................Zoen aionion."
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 age?????
So 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 the Bible.
Comment: No, what kind of silly
unscriptural argument "is that?" It is almost blasphemy to take a
grand and marvelous reward, of God’s, 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.
Don’t demean it!
[Compare 1 Cor 15:53]:
"For this corruptible must put on
incorruption, and this mortal must put on "immortality"
If 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
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 can’t 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.
So 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 month’s
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 month’s
vacation as a SPECIAL REWARD, BEFORE the vacation for all begins. Am
I not at liberty to do this?
Now then, when the special reward, a
prior month’s 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.
Now if our benevolent employer had the
power he might even bestow immortality on them all, but this is
getting beyond the limits of our analogy.
[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
If the body of a believer becomes
immortal, (1 Cor 15:53), then it becomes eternal ("aionion", 2 Cor
Therefore "aionion" =
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 don’t 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
I 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.
Let’s 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: "It’s
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
[Compare Heb 9:14]:
"How much more shall the blood of
Christ, Who through the
eternal Spirit .............offered Himself without spot to
The 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 don’t 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. Don’t 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.
In other words, if the word "aionios"
has always been used to mean 'eternal' by the people that used the
language when the Bible was written
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."
on 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
We 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).
"And He shall reign over the House of
eis tous aiOnas
(lit.) into the ages = idiomatic
expression = "forever"
Comment: Jesus doesn’t 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."
........................................(lit.) not shall be [an]
In 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':
'And 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
[Compare 2 Pet 1:11]:
"For so an entrance shall be
ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom."
"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 be 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.
If "ton aionios Theos" means "God of
the Ages" , (and it does not), then the word "aionios" must be a
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 doesn’t 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
It 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
(v. 6) "And God raised us up with the
heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,
(v. 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 Jesus."
"in the coming ages" =
"en tois aiosin tois eperchomeois"
"in the ages that [are]
"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 theory.
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." Let’s see how the Greek Septuagint uses both the singular
and plural forms in these two verses"
Singular: Micah 4:5—"ets ton aiona kai
epekeina….for the eon and BEYOND." Well that can’t possibly mean
forever for eternal, as there can be nothing "beyond"
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 "eternities?"
Here are just a few scriptures in
which "aionios" cannot possibly mean ETERNAL:
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, "world."
Well 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
problem—a CONTRADICTION in all of this?
2. 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.
3. 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!
4. 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?
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.
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
The 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!