I received the following question.
You speak of eternal life in your writings. Shouldn’t everlasting life be used instead of eternal? In my understanding God alone is eternal. We will be given everlasting life, not eternal life. Eternal being time past and future time. Everlasting being limited to future time.
When I write, I sometimes use the familiar term that is found so often in the King James Version of our English Bibles, especially in the book of John (3:15, 4:36, 5:39, 6:54&68, 10:28, 12:25, 17:22&23) and Paul’s letters (20 occurrences, if Hebrews is included.) The term “everlasting,” while much more common in the Old Testament, is less common in the New (for example, John 3:16&36, 4:14, 5:24, 6:27,40,&47, and 12:50, one less than “eternal,” and only 9 occurrences in Paul, 11 less than “eternal.”) I merely chose “eternal” as the more common, New Testament term.
The truth is that both “eternal” and “everlasting” are translations of the same Greek word, aionios, so whatever their definition in English, their definition in Greek is the same. Unfortunately, neither “eternal” nor “everlasting” is a great translation for the word aionios. The word is the adjectival form of the Greek noun aion.
“Aion” is the word translated “ever” in the phrase “for ever.” This is a very bad translation, however, since “ever” is an adverb, and thus is a totally inadequate word to use in translating a noun. Basically, this turns a prepositional phrase, “for the eon,” into an infinitive phrase, “for ever.” It is dishonest to alter language thus. Moreover, when the noun aion is used alone without the “for,” it is translated “world.” Since “world” and “ever” obviously are not the same thing, it is dishonest translation to make a totally different translation of the word aion depending on if “for” is before it or not.
Many today try to correct this dishonest translation of aion by translating it “age.” This is a noun, and can work in both “for the age” (where it is a prepositional phrase) and “age” alone, so it is a better translation. However, the logic here is that an eon covers a certain period of time, so it must mean a period of time. By this reasoning, a “Presidency” covers a period of four years, so the word “Presidency” must mean a period of four years. Did I go to high school for a “Presidency?” No, certainly not! For, though a “Presidency” is a period of four years, it is also much more than that. In the same way, an eon is much more than just a period of time.
Ultimately, the word aion in Greek (and the word olam in Hebrew) both mean the same thing. They have the basic idea of that which flows, especially that which flows out or flows down. Thus, the adjective aionios or “eonian” has the meaning of “out-flowing.” So eonian life is life that flows or flows out, out-flowing life.
We can see that the idea of “everlasting” might be derived from this. We know that our life now is not out-flowing. When we are born, our life is gushing out. Very quickly we grow and develop and mature, and life is working in a mighty stream. As we get older, however, life begins to wind down. Sometime in your 20s you start to realize that “older” doesn’t mean “better” anymore like it used to. Instead, “older” starts to mean “harder,” to mean another ache or pain, to mean another thing that you can’t do like you used to. It doesn’t happen all at once, of course, and so slowly that we barely notice it at first, but eventually this life we are living starts to slow down. The flow that seemed so powerful and consuming at first starts to slow down and decrease, finally reaching a crawl, then little more than a trickle, and finally comes to a stop altogether. The flow of our lives ends, and we are dead.
This is not the way it is with eonian life. Eonian life does not just start out with a rush, but it continues that way. It does not start to slow down or decrease. It does not start to flow less rapidly. Instead, eonian life flows on for ever.
Yet it would be a mistake to suppose that this is all there is to out-flowing life. I look at my life now, and I ask myself, “Would I really want to live forever with conditions the way they are now?” And my answer has to be no. With all the sorrow, all the heartache, all the unfairness, all the pain that exists in this world, I just would not want to live for ever. Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying I would like to die tomorrow! In fact, if I could increase my lifespan, I would gladly do it. If I could live twice my normal lifespan…spend 20 years in my 30s, 20 years in my 40s, and so forth…I would be most happy and eager to do it! Even three or four times my lifespan I could handle. But to live for ever in this life? No, I don’t think I’d want to do it. Eventually, as the centuries and the millenia roll on, the sorrows and cares of this world would get to the point where they would drive all the joy out of living, and it would be nothing more than a burden. No, living for ever in this condition of things is just not appealing.
Yet that is not the way it is with outflowing life. Outflowing life is not just a life for ever, but a life you would WANT to live for ever. Its flow does not just cover time, but also includes every good thing from the hand of God that would make a life for ever worth living. The bottom line is that eonian life is a life that you would want to live for ever.
Finally, we need to realize that God, in His basic nature, is a “flow-er.” Not a “flower,” but “FLOWer.” That is, He flows out to the world. We see His first flowing acts in creation. Yet all throughout history, whenever God dealt with men, He was flowing out to them: with His power, with His word, with His leadership and guidance, through His Spirit and His Son. Yet ultimately, His flows in the past were always limited. Yet there is a time to come in the future when God will flow out to the world in such an overwhelming way that it can be called, above all other flows that God has ever made, THE flow of God. This time is what we more commonly know as the Kingdom or the government of God. At that time, God will flow down to the world in such a mighty stream that the governments of the world and every man will be overwhelmed by it. Thus, this time period above all others can be called “THE eon.” And eonian life likewise will have its beginning in the eon. It will flow from God, even as God flows to the world in His Kingdom. That is also the meaning of aionios or “eonian” life.
So ultimately my answer is that I was not too careful with my terms, mostly because I don’t think either English term is that great a representation. You are probably right about the English definitions, but if you tried to carry this idea into the Bible and use them to interpret the verses where “eternal” appears versus those where “everlasting” appears, you would find that such an attempt would be utterly futile. Our Bible translations make no such distinction…at least, not those I am familiar with.
Precepts 
27 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 19, 2011 at 11:32 am
Charlotte
Thank you so much for posting this! It was very helpful for my A Level philosophy. It’s very detailed and informative, and it has given me lots of new ideas! Thank you very much xx
July 7, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Precepts
Charlotte,
You are most welcome. I am happy to help you with your assignments. My site always gets more traffic during the school year, I have noticed. 🙂
The Greek word aion and the Hebrew word olam are words that I don’t believe have been completely understood by most who have studied them. No less a scholar than A. T. Robertson pointed out that aion has not only to do with the duration of a time, but also with the nature or quality of that time. The modern suggestion of “age” as a translation of this word ignores this part of the word altogether.
I am not suggesting that “flow” is a proper translation for aion, but only that that is the basic idea behind the word. Olam is similar. The Hebrews seem most often to have used this word to describe their idea of the time when all God’s promises to them would come true, and God would flow out to men on earth in many and miraculous ways. The New Testament calls this “the kingdom of God,” but also uses aion in place of olam.
Have a great summer!
Nathan
September 17, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Betty Hartman
Thank you. I found exactly what I was looking for in your article. I appreciate your scholarship. I was noticing those two words in my Bible study this morning and thought I would use my concordance and make a study of them. I have the Greek, but not the Hebrew, so you saved me a lot of work. And you gave me some food for thought. And prayer. God Bless You!!!
November 7, 2012 at 7:33 pm
Precepts
Betty Hartman,
I appreciate your kind words. Thank you! I am happy to help you in your studies.
Actually, since my article only really talked about the Greek word aionion, I don’t know how I saved you work with the Hebrew. 🙂 I can give you a few brief words here about the Hebrew, however. My comments all regard the King James Version of the English.
The main word for “everlasting” in Hebrew is the word olam. This word is used interchangeably with aion in Psalm 45:6, which is quoted in Hebrews 1:8. It is the usual word for “everlasting” in the Old Testament. The same things I said about aionion would apply to olam: the basic idea is of the quality of a thing, not how long it lasts. Don’t get confused by the Aramaic word alam in Ezekiel 4 and Daniel 2-7. That is just the Aramaic equivalent to olam (since those chapters are written in Aramaic rather than Hebrew.)
The Hebrew word ‘ad is also translated as “everlasting” twice in the Old Testament: in Isaiah 9:6 and Habakkuk 3:6. This word seems to be the word in Hebrew that indicates the longest duration of any word, so perhaps “everlasting” is a good translation.
The Hebrew word qedem is translated “everlasting” once in Habakkuk 1:12. This word usually means “east,” but it can mean “anciently” in certain cases.
The Old Testament only uses the word “eternal” twice. Once it is a translation of qedem, the other of olam. It uses “eternity” once as a translation of ‘ad.
So basically, I would say the same thing is true in the Old Testament of “eternal” and “everlasting” as in the New Testament. They are translations of the same word (or words.) There is no difference between them. The difference is just put in by the translators.
Keep studying the Word!
Nathan
November 11, 2013 at 4:15 am
rebekah wiesel
yes, indeedy!
very lovely!
December 6, 2013 at 8:01 pm
Precepts
rebekah wiesel,
Glad you enjoyed the article.
Keep studying the Word!
Nathan
November 26, 2013 at 12:09 am
George
I have been researching these important words(concepts) aion and olam for some time. Your intuitive translation of “flow” is a stimulating one. After years of investigation I can confidently reject
“everlasting/eternal/forever” as an honest translation. Yet the alternate idea of a period of time, although more honest is not satisfactory. But after exhausting greek/hebrew word studies I was still puzzled and I moved to a historical investigation asking “What was the scribe thinking when using the word aionis and what were the scribes’ linguistic, cultural, religious infuences at the time. There was a consistency of usage in the canon, and there was a consistency of a different usage of aion in the Nag Hammadi collection of writings. The aions were different levels of beings, and gnostic christians were a very large group. Jesus of Gallille spoke the common language of his home, a specific dialect of Aramaic. What was the Aramaic word for aion when the scribe translated from greek? .. Could you elaborate the idea of “everflowing” to the negative, of those who will not receive life aionion. Looking forward to your reply.
December 20, 2013 at 8:26 pm
Precepts
George,
I am glad to hear that the interpretation of “flow” is helping you come to grips with these two important words. Of course, I am not suggesting that “flow” would be a proper translation in every occurrence (or even in many occurrences,) but that that is the basic idea behind the word that always governs its usage. The closest the King James translators got to this idea is when they translated aion by “course” in Ephesians 2:2 (the “course” of this world.)
This basic idea of “flow” helps clear up many difficult passages. For example, the “everlasting hills” of Genesis 49:26 and Habakkuk 3:6 would seem to be quite a puzzle, since we know that all of this world (including the hills) will be burned with fire and changed into the new heavens and the new earth, which would seem to indicate that none of our hills are “everlasting.” Yet when we consider the crops that often flow out of hills in that part of the world, not to mention the wine and the milk, we can see that the hills of Israel, at least in the times when they were blessed by God, were ever-flowing with bounty.
Then there is the call to the “everlasting doors” to be lifted up in Psalm 24:7 and 9. What is the point of an “everlasting door”? And how is it “lifted up”? Does it open upwards life a garage door instead of sideways? But when we consider the doors of the temple, and just how many people would have constantly been flowing in and out of the temple every day it was open and in service, we can see that the doors of the temple were constantly flowing with people. They were truly ever-flowing doors. I have seen doors that have ceased to flow. They are often at the back of rooms, they have boxes or equipment piled in front of them, and there is just no way to use them anymore. These doors no longer flow. Yet the doors of the temple did constantly. But though prophets, priests, kings, and famous men had passed through those doors down through the years, how much were those doors lifted up, how much were they exalted, when the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, the King of glory, came to His temple and passed through them? They were lifted up then indeed.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
I think the idea of the gnostics was that they were trying to use these different levels of beings as sources of truth. My understanding of gnosticism is that it was a mystery religion all about getting obscure truth from some source that other people do not have access to. These sources of truth were often angels or other supernatural beings. I believe that they were referred to as “aions” because they were thought to be sources of truth, so truth would flow out from them to their gnostic followers. They were flow-ers of truth.
I am not very familiar with the Aramaic language, and so cannot say what the Aramaic word for aion (or better for olam) might have been. If it is in the Bible, we would have to look for it in those few chapters that are written in Aramaic. I cannot say that I have ever bothered to study this out, however. Since I think that the New Testament Greek Bible is what was inspired, I figure that God did the translating, and so it was done correctly (what Christ would have said had He been speaking in Greek in the first place, rather than in Aramaic.) Therefore, I assume the words we have are inspired, and don’t worry about what Christ’s original statement in Aramaic might have been.
Life eonian (or aionion) has to do not only with duration of time, but also with quality of time. I would expect, then, that those who do not receive aionion life would not continue to flow on and on perpetually. I also believe that they would not receive from the hand of God every good thing that would make life “forever” worth living, so that even if they did somehow manage to continue on and on forever, this life would not be a joy or blessing to them, as aionion life will be.
I pray this helps. Keep studying the Word!
Nathan
December 30, 2013 at 10:34 pm
George
Nathan, Thank you for your detailed reply, it is rare for me to find other christians who want to explore these things with any depth. I have put “ever-flowing” through some critcal applications; root meaning,
sentence context , cultural context, context relative to superior cataclysms, which I will briefly relate. But first, In my opinion when many words have to be used to translate one archaic word this indicates
interpolations. This word aion/Grk is the translated word for olam/Hbr., translated by bilingual Jews of the 2/3 century BCE. These Hebrew scholars translated olam to aion consistently. But from the
1 cent. CE to date translations of the word aion continues to multiply so although aion is the word in question its origin is olam. Strongs primitive root sense of olam is “to veil from sight”. The importance
of the original Hebrew pictograph of a horizon (the later Aramaic ideagraph quph) can help to understand fundamental thoughts of these ancient storytellers, these pictographs were concrete symbols
for expressions several thousand years ago from a nomadic people and examiniation of these is most important for a cultural context. The quph (the horizon) is visible but as you go towards or away from it remains out of reach equidistant, not attainable. The first use of olam in Genesis is a quote of Elohim a caution to prevent man (after the cataclysm of mans choosing to know good and evil) from eating of the tree of life and man then lives lolam, or man would live in a state of perfective aspect (no more ongoing habitual actions,a single point, no divisions). The sequence of the pictographs expressing olam are;
eye / shepherds staff / wind blown water. The eye is sight, the staff tool of protection/guide the wind blown water is Elohims’ activity? (Excuse my interpolations still in process). So although ever-flowing is stimulating it results in multiple translations of the one word.I am leaning toward olam having less to do with time and more to do with state. Covenants, signs, this world; the past, present and future these can, be states of being. Although we can be in the world in a covenant even be a sign or touch a sign we cannot be in the future or past that is the limitation from Elohim we are always equidistant in sequence and veiled from our sight.
January 11, 2014 at 10:07 pm
Precepts
George,
It sounds like you have been doing some serious work indeed on this word!
I know that the primitive root of “olam” had to do with that which is veiled from sight or unseen. However, if one were to try to supply “unseen” in a translation of any one of the occurrences of this word (or of aion) I do not think any helpful results would follow. I would relate this to the idea of “flow” in that a spring (a flow) comes from an unseen source, bursting as it does from the ground.
I agree that there is something more of state than of time in these two words. I have used the analogy of a family farm beside a stream or river. It is true that the stream has always been flowing there. It flowed in the father’s days, the grandfather’s days, the great-grandfather’s days, and so on. It will flow in the son’s days, in the grandson’s days, in the great-grandson’s days, and so on. Yet if you asked that farmer what the stream meant to him, he would not say just that it is always flowing. That stream means life to the farmer. It is what he waters his crops with, where his animals drink, where his family gets their water. It is where they wash the clothes, and where they wash themselves. The children play in it and splash it on each other. That stream means life to the farmer, not just eternality. So it is with life for the olam/aion. It is not just a life that continues perpetually, for that could soon wear thin. It is a life that flows with every good thing from the hand of God that would make life forever worth living.
I agree that a word like “outflow” cannot always be used as a sufficient translation for olam or aion. Yes, it would result in needing to use multiple words to translate it. But is not this often the case in translation? How often do we end up with a one word/one translation case? Ultimately, I think a translation of “flow” for the noun and “ever-flowing” for the adjective would express more of the truth in a lot of passages than the translation that has actually been given.
I am not sure how you are going to get a translation out of Adam living equidistant in sequence and veiled from our sight after he ate of the tree of life. For Adam to live for the olam after the fall (by eating of the tree of life) would have meant a life always continuing, but with no redemption possible (since the wages of sin, death, had not been paid.) In this case, the olam character was in time and health, for the tree of life could heal even the detrimental effects of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam’s life would have flowed on in perfect health, for the tree of life was able to provide this. This was unthinkable in a fallen being, however, for his heart would have been ever wrong.
Keep studying the Word!
Nathan
January 9, 2015 at 5:13 am
David Almine
Nathan and Goerge,
Pax!
i just want to let you know that i really appreate your deeply humane conversation, learning both from the topic and the way you handle it. Nathan is indulging yet humble, Goarge is solicitous yet bold, but both are prudent. may the FLOWer bless you with His ever-flowing wisdom.
David
February 13, 2015 at 7:54 pm
Precepts
David Almine,
Pax to you as well, my friend.
Thank you for your kind words. I do believe humility is important whenever we deal with God’s Word, as we are dealing with something far greater than we are, and so must be ready to accept greater light at any time in order to come to a better understanding. This may require taking back what we have formerly said and admitting we were wrong. We had better remain humble if we hope to be able to do this.
I do believe the topic is an important one, and that there is much more truth to be gleaned from these words “olam” and “aion” than the translations in modern English versions of the Bible would provide us with. For example, I believe that one of the names the Bible authors give to the future kingdom of God is “the flow,” since that is a time when God will be flowing out and flowing down to this world in a greater way than He ever has yet. When Solomon speaks of the fact that “Whatever God does, it is forever (for the olam)” in Ecclesiastes 3:14, what truth are we to get out of this? For we can surely think of many things that God has done that have only lasted for a period of time, such as the old covenant. Yet if we realize that the “olam” here means the kingdom of God, we can understand that everything that God does is for the purpose of leading up to that great, future goal. This brings much truth out of the verse, whereas “forever” only leaves us in confusion.
Thank you again for your kind words.
Keep studying the Word!
Nathan
February 16, 2015 at 8:11 pm
George
To take a little digression, yet still concerning eternal/flowing/age, David and Nathan; why isn’t there a prevailing dispute among the educated translators regarding what seem to me to be highly dubious translations from AV to NIV. This aeon example is not an isolated one. The precept of Jesus about prayer “holy is your name” is an adjective with added copula when the Grk is clearly an imperative aorist verb (clumsy in English ) but shouldn’t it be truer to the instruction of Jesus.
The core of my church tradition was shaken when I started to read Greek and Hebrew. Have either of you had any trepidation being at worst labeled heretic at least mislead?
April 10, 2015 at 6:54 pm
Precepts
George,
You are quite correct. There are certainly highly dubious translations in all the versions. There is no doubt about that. Eternal/world/age/ever for aion and aionios is only one of them.
As for your specific example, I am not sure how else exactly one could translate this than how it is translated. The two versions you mention both use “hallowed,” not “holy,” and “to hallow” would be the verb form of “holy.” “Holy” is an adjective, and would be inappropriate to translate the verb. Adding the linking verb is necessary to express the meaning, as it often is when translating from Greek.
The verb is aorist imperative, but importantly it is also passive. The Lord is not necessarily telling the Father to hallow His name (though He will be the One to hallow it), but expressing His conviction and desire that His name should be and will be hallowed. It should be the desire of the disciples that it be hallowed as well, and they should live out that desire by hallowing it in their own lives. The aorist is perhaps used to express the fact that there will be one great event (the start of His kingdom) that will cause the hallowing of that name.
That said, I would think that a better translation than “hallowed” could be suggested, since that word (along with “holy”) is highly infused with traditional thought and thus usually fails to express the idea behind the Greek hagiazo, in whatever form it appears. “Set apart and exalted above every other reputation be your reputation” would be a more accurate paraphrase of the meaning. We do not really have a single word for “set apart in an exalted way” other than “hallow.”
You are exactly right that when one really gets behind the translation to what the Greek and Hebrew says, it becomes clear that sometimes translations were made in order to preserve orthodoxy. The Bible as It was written can be entirely unorthodox and heretical at times.
Of course it can be intimidating to consider making such heretical beliefs known, since it is inevitable that your motivations will not be understood by those who have never looked into the Greek and Hebrew, and who probably would never care to, yet who are ignorantly certain that their beliefs are completely correct. Until God’s kingdom comes and truth is on the throne on earth, there will always be a price to pay when choosing to stand on it. The question we have to ask ourselves is if we are willing to pay the price. The reason many more Bible translation experts do not bring these things forward is probably because they have decided personally that the answer is “no.” They are like those who work on decoding the human genome. It is doubtful that there is anyone that intelligent who has looked at the human genome for very long who has not realized that this code clearly had an Encoder. Yet their salaries are paid by a humanistic government, and so they keep their realizations quiet. The same is often true with translators. A translation that no one buys because it is heretical, even if it is right, will not pay for their living.
I have been labeled a heretic or at least misled. It is never pleasant. I comfort myself with the words of the apostle Paul, “After the Way which they call a sect (heresy), so worship I the God of my fathers.”
Keep studying!
Nathan
April 11, 2015 at 10:28 pm
bbrogeo
Yes, I should have been careful in my last response holy/hallowed. Perhaps I should take after you, been quite a while since I heard from you. Regarding the aorist tense it has to do with state not time yes? and the passive aorist imperative 3 of them after a vocative is a greeting of grand proportion to God “Father of us in the heavens, holyized is the name of you, coming-going the kingdom of you, being generated the will of you as in heaven so on earth. This was the precept from Jesus of how the disciples were to pray and as you said not telling God what to do.This structure also has the cultural influence of a time when salutations where verbose and explanatory and more so to those of higher stature as opposed to our age of “Hi”.
Separation in the Greek αγιον and separation in the Hebrew kadosh there is a meta theme throughout the bible of the activity of separation from the beginning the creative act of Elohim separating light from dark, water from water, land from water out of the chaos. We are told to separate 1/7 of our life to cease what we do for most of it and be wholly attentive to God. Separations throughout from sin and the world even to the last – goats from sheep, evil and good, death and life.
Enjoy your comments find them instructive and stimulating. I would like to email you something for your opinion if possible.
May 15, 2015 at 7:25 pm
Precepts
bbrogeo (George?),
My many ministries do not allow me the time to answer comments as quickly as I might like if my time was unlimited, so you will have to bear with me when it comes to response time. I try to keep it around a month, but it does not always work out that way.
I would agree that the aorist imperative has to do with state, not time. At any rate, it would be useless to command someone to do something in the past. You are taking it as a statement of current reality, not of future reality? No doubt God’s name is hallowed. I would think of John 12:28, “Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.” There would be an obvious connection between hallowing and glorifying. This would leave it open for Christ either to declare that His name is currently hallowed, or that it will in the future be hallowed.
Why the thought of “coming-going”? The prevailing thought throughout the gospels seems to be that the kingdom is yet future, as when it is said of Joseph of Arimathea, “who himself was also waiting for the kingdom of God.” Luke 23:51. This fits with the prevailing thought of the gospel period. Coming, not going, also seems to be the prevailing sense of the word erchomai. This would lead me to choose the idea of “be” in a looking forward sense, rather than “is” in a present sense, though either might fit the Greek.
I am interested why you chose “generated” for the next verb. I would typically think of ginomai as having to do with coming to pass, becoming, or coming into existence. The verb gennao is the verb in the “generate” family. This is important when it comes to monogenes, which since it is derived from mono-ginomai means “becoming only,” that is, “unique,” rather than “only begotten,” which would be its meaning if it came from mono-gennao. Isaac was unique, not only begotten. Christ is the unique Son, not begotten.
You look at this entire portion as a salutation? Very interesting. But there are some very important truths in it, no matter whether it was intended as a salutation or not.
What you say of separations is true, but I would point out that the greatest separation of all is the one in mind here: the separation of God far above everyone and everything else in His creation. He is separate and far above all created beings. This makes all the more gracious and amazing the fact that He wishes to stoop and enter into relationship with these created beings.
Feel free to e-mail me something for my opinion. Again, just be patient with me when it comes to commenting on it! 🙂
Keep studying the Word.
Nathan
May 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm
bbrogeo
Yes, the name is george, Thanks for your replies and whenever they come they are welcome and well received. I hope I didn’t come across as being tedious the remark about response time was meant in humor and I know my humor is clumsy at best.
As to the future of the aorist, as I understand it, no future no past no present it is simply descriptive of being(ness). But of course the context of every word influences the nuances of its particular meaning, the syntax and general mood can lean to a future or past or present description or be void of time altogether. As in the prayer, following the three imperative statements (timeless) regarding the holiness, kingship and will of God is “as in heaven so on the land”. This cap “as in heaven so on the land” (singular heaven) Jesus is holy, kingship unquestionable, his will is reality. This reality exists also on the earth what is there that God does not control? Any answer other than “there is nothing that God doesn’t control” leads to dualism. Acknowledging this reality is foremost in the prayer and in the request for rescue from evil. The first item of business after this surrender is a humble request for sustenance, then a conditional forgiveness for our part a present tense forgiveness, then another humble request “no be you leading us into trial but be you rescuing us from the evil”.
Lucifer in the realm of heaven requested to test Job and God granted this angels’ request and when the trials were over Job said “With the hearing of my ear I had heard of you, But now my eye sees you” and there was a complete surrender. “Happy are the clean in heart they will see God”
The prayer in brief outline is > a statement of relationship – request for provision – condition for purity – request for deliverance. Other than our present tense need to forgive, all the other action words are void of time. The extreme outline is > forgive now and God is accomplishing all the rest.
And isn’t forgiveness the capstone of the good news?
I can’t remember what translator it was who said that the aorist is a default verb in Greek and that its importance is overstated and that the rarer present/future/past tenses should be especially noted. Perhaps the most important action word of the prayer is our forgiveness now of any debtors we have in this world while we are living all the rest is a given.
Will write more response to your latest post later.
george
June 19, 2015 at 8:10 pm
Precepts
George,
I see what you mean that your comment about timing was meant to be humorous. I agree with you that it was rather clumsy. I am no comedian myself. 🙂
I would wonder about translating as “land” when the contrast is with “heaven.” It would seem consistent either to translate as “as in the sky, so on the land;” or else as “as in heaven, so on earth.” The contrast would demand that consistency. I would lean toward the latter.
I suppose you are wading into deep waters when you start discussing God’s control of everything! I would certainly not view as true any kind of dualistic picture of God as not being the ultimate source of everything. Yet I would point out the picture often given in the New Testament of “principalities and powers” or archai and exousiai, as found in verses like Ephesians 3:10, 6:12, Colossians 1:16 and 2:15. The idea of the archons seems to be that they have power as primary rulers, whereas exousias have authority granted to them by those (archons or sovereignties) above them. The Bible seems to present the picture of God as the ultimate Archon, the source of all power and authority, but yet as One Who delegates authority to many exousia authorities under Him. These authorities are freely given with no strings attached, and even when, as Adam did, these authorities fall away from God, the authority given (in Adam’s case over the earth and all on it) is not rescinded. The same is certainly true of Satan, who clearly has authority, and yet who is not working it out at all as God would desire him to do. Therefore in this context it is certainly possible for all God’s people to pray that the day will come soon when He will take the authority He so long ago delegated to beings now wicked, and would either take it back to Himself and keep it, or else delegate it to others more worthy of it than those who currently hold it. I do not think this is dualism, but I do think it leaves room open for any honest and right-hearted follower of God to pray, “Thy kingdom come.”
If God is to rescue from the evil, this also implies that God does not control the evil, at least as far as its (his) current actions are concerned, does it not?
That said, I get your point that the statements being aorist imperatives are void of time, at least inherently. Yet there seems to me to be plenty of evidence that would lead to the conclusion that the kingdom is not yet here, nor is His will yet being done on earth and in heaven equally and in all cases. This is not to say that this will not yet at some time take place. Yet the idea that the kingdom is an ever-present reality would make nonsense of many Biblical passages that speak of it as a yet-future reality. Moreover, the idea that every horrendous event of wicked and rebellious men and of spiritual forces of wickedness is actually an outworking of God’s will being done would make His will a malodorous thing. I would still argue, on the context of the whole Bible, that the Lord’s words express a certain yet future reality, not an ever-present one.
It is a noteworthy fact that actually seeing God was a life-changing experience for many of the men of the Bible. Not only Job, but also Isaiah in Isaiah 6, Daniel in Daniel 10 (I assume the hierophant to be a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ), Peter in Luke 5, or John in Revelation 1, were “undone,” as Isaiah said, when they saw God in His glory. These great men of the Bible were thus greatly affected by the experience of an encounter with God. As you say, it led to complete surrender, as well as an awe at God’s overwhelming presence and a strong sense of their own sinfulness and unworthiness. This kind of attitude still marks those who have had a true experience with God today.
I do not mean to pick at nits, but I would say the capstone of the good news is the ability to enter back into right relatedness with God. Of course, forgiveness is the only means of getting there, but the goal would still seem to me to be the capstone, and that is not the forgiveness for forgiveness’ sake, but the reality of a united relationship with God as the glorious outgrowth of that forgiveness.
I would agree that God’s coming kingdom, His will ultimately being done, etc. are all givens. That does not mean they are ever-present, however. It would be hard to say that the default verb, whenever used, pointed only to an ever-present reality. This is certainly not the case in the majority of its uses.
The forgiveness of debtors is the only part of the prayer that the one praying is to perform himself. All the rest is dependent on God. Yet surely God’s actions as outlined in the prayer are more important than ours? If our actions were more important in our prayers than God’s, then why bother praying? Why not just accomplish things ourselves? If the most important verb in Christ’s model prayer for His disciples is the only one they were to do themselves, then God’s actions would seem to be minimized.
I will await your promised further response.
I am very much enjoying our discussion. I do not mean to be contrary by some of my comments when I express a different viewpoint. I am just enjoying discussing these things with a knowledgeable person, and want to share my thoughts. Thanks for writing. Keep studying the Word.
Nathan
July 11, 2015 at 4:19 pm
george
Hello Nathan, this is crossroad so to avoid misunderstanding I will ask you as you frankly as I can. Do you adhere to the extra biblical writing of the “Hypostasis of the Archons” or the inferences of similar extra biblical writing?
As to evil and the idea that it is outside the creating and controlling of God. In our finite condition mankind has come up with many inventions to try and reconcile a singular source of good and evil, with ease we can say “good comes from God” but the difficulty arrives when asking “where does evil come from certainly God cannot be the source of evil at the same time?”
I realize that what follows could be considered another “invention” and I would encourage the reader to discard it if they feel it so. These thoughts about evil and good are in my own words but I feel I must attribute any substance to my teacher George McDonald.
Evil would have remained a potential in Adam and Eve, had it not been uncovered. Even in innocence carrying that potential unexposed would have kept evil alive. At the consent of God the potential became active so that evil could be destroyed. If mankind existed in an impenetrable bubble of protection then an infinite depth of relationship couldn’t be because the potential for evil would always be there kept alive limiting the relationship. Exposure of sin challenges one to choose the moral good. When a choice for moral good is made, evil is then destroyed and no longer a potential threat kept alive in stasis. After morally right choices are made an infinite intimate relationship with God is possible. God is interested in making individuals, characters, beings not history or drama. The other evils that are not moral pale in comparison and they are beneficial consequences meant to get our attention. Just as a bothersome pain or skin lesion can be an indication of a serious disease in our body, evil consequences get our attention and expose the truly destructive evil that can fatally pollute our soul.
As to translation I am working on a paper that has to do with that topic and I am still forming ideas and will respond to the question about translating “land, heaven” at a later time.
May God continue blessing you!
george
August 14, 2015 at 7:04 pm
Precepts
George,
I have never read the “Hypostatis of the Archons,” and even if I had I certainly would not adhere to it. Doing so sounds to me like it would be flying directly in the face of what Paul so carefully teaches in the book of Colossians. There, he urges all who believe in Christ and therefore are “in Him” to look to Him as the source for all salvation, all wisdom, all knowledge, all guidance, all truth, and really for everything. He was apparently fighting against a religious sect that looked to various sources such as archons, exousiai, and so forth for wisdom and guidance. This resulted in believers taking their eyes off Christ and putting them instead on angelic or human interlopers. Paul warns against this most strongly.
This therefore would define my attitude towards every extra Biblical writing. The only value such writings can have for me is if they are writing about Scripture and helping to expound it. Otherwise, they are simply the deceptions and conceits of men.
In using the word “archons,” I was simply looking for a word to represent the Greek archai, which is one of the names for rulers. God has His Own archai, and those who are “in Christ” today may someday be among them. For the believer today, however, we are to look to no archai but Christ Himself. Alas, many Christians fail to heed this instruction!
What you say about evil (though I would tend to term it “wickedness” to distinguish from the common translation of the Hebrew ra’a by “evil,” which really more basically means “calamity”) is interesting and probably carries a good deal of truth, yet it does not really explain whether God actually causes the wickedness to happen or not. I would insist He does not, “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.” James 1:13. My philosophy, perhaps simpler than yours, is that God, being love, desires love from any creature He creates. Love, however, requires choice. God therefore gave His created beings the choice to love Him or not to love Him. Not loving Him is itself a great wickedness, and so wickedness had to be a choice He gave His creatures. Giving a choice, God also gave it truly, not only in pretense. When He gave His creatures a choice, therefore, He had to allow them, if they chose wickedness, to proceed in that wickedness in order for the choice He gave them to have any meaning. Sadly, many of His creatures, including our first parents, chose wickedness rather than righteousness, and thus we see a world permeated by wickedness and tragedy.
Does this mean wickedness has its source outside God? In a way yes, and in a way no. Really, wickedness IS the rejection of God. It is then the opposite of God, just as dark is the opposite of light. It is actions with God left out, or a heart with God left out, a vacuum of God, utterly dark and ultimately self-destructive. Therefore it comes out of God in the sense that it is the result of driving Him out. Its “source” is rejection of Him. It would not exist if He did not, and therefore in a way its “source” is Him, but just Him in exclusion.
But then, I am a firm believer in free will, so I suppose my statements would contain any number of heresies to one who insists on predestination and election.
Feel free to share your paper on translation with me whenever you like.
May God continue to bless you as well, my friend. Keep studying the Word!
Nathan
July 15, 2015 at 5:31 pm
james
Spiritually, the Holy Spirit gives an understanding that supercedes man’s finite comprehension. Our sentimentalities develope prejudice than hinder our abilities to see, hear, and comprehend the real Truth of the Kingdom of GOD, that is purposely ordered in such a way that only those who are qualified by the indwelling Holy Spirit will receive such in FAITH.
Eternity is outside of this current pressure of time that all of this cosmos is subject to. Beings in that dimension of eternity can be either Eternal i.e. the Trinity, ( without beginning or end ) and created, such as angels who have a beginning in that Eternal realm, but no end. For mankind, when we accept the propitiation of Christ, Christ birthes a Spirit of Himself within our being and we become a vested citizen of that Spiritual dimension of Eternity, now possessing Eternal Life without end, here, there, and beyond, forevermore. And because we are Born again of Christ, we will one day enter that dimension of Eternity in triumph over that Sin Nature and in Victory over death and Hell. But, until then, we are merely in the shadow of death and become heirs of Everlasting Life ( meaning that abundant level of Life influenced by GOD’s principle provisions of HIS Holiness ) that begins for each of us the moment we become Born again, whereby we can now inherit the Kingdom of GOD within as we experience quickening through sanctification unto becoming a good tree capable of producing Spiritual Fruit and developing the Characteristics of Christ. While this Everlasting Life does have its beginning and start here; being granted, and influenced by GOD while we are yet in our flesh, it will be of Everlasting benefit to participants both now, and on into our future citizenship in that celestial dimension of Eternity evermore. Our right to inherit the Kingdom of GOD within and its Spiritual prosperity that is possible is exactly what that thief is come to steal, kill, and dstroy. Incidently, we gain our possession of Eternal Life in the death of Christ and we gain our right to inherit Everlasting Life in the resurrection of Jesus.
July 17, 2015 at 10:35 pm
bbrogeo
If our motive is to be recognized as a learned and knowledgeable person it would be better to confess to being a conceited dabbler willing to lose all professed knowledge to gain one glimpse of insight from God the Holy spirit. To the ancients these glimpses were considered essential to everyone, but in the present time and at times in the past these activities are repressed. The “visions, word of God, ecstatic trance, dreams, visitations” are repressed by a lack of expectation and aggressive quenching of the holy (special) interventions. The powers that be have seen to it that we treat any desire for these interventions as suspect, irreligious and futile. Keep to the safe and sane with its’ continuous monotone of parroting of democratic acceptable norms.
I find common belief with you James in much of what you wrote. I would ask for some clarification on your generalization “sentimentalities”. I would be reluctant to ever say “we gain a right” to inherit the kingdom of God or everlasting life.
I know you were writing to Nathan, so feel free to put me on ignore.
george
August 21, 2015 at 6:57 pm
Precepts
james,
Thank you for your comments on everlasting versus eternal.
I find your arguments somewhat unclear. Some of them I could take one way and agree with you, or take another way and disagree. This makes it difficult for me to know how to answer you.
I would agree that we cannot understand the things of God without the help of the Spirit of God. That is why it is important to establish a relationship with God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ before we ever embark on the quest to discover Biblical truth. Yet once we have done that, it is our job to seek the truth as best we can, trusting Him to aid us, as long as the place we are seeking it is the Word of God. One time I was accused while arguing a point that I was “trying to understand God’s truth using man’s faulty reasoning.” This argument was obviously meant to shut down the discussion, since the man I was discussing with was sick of talking about it. Of course, I could easily have accused him right back with the same accusation, and where would that have gotten us? Since we cannot observe the Holy Spirit coming or going, as Christ says in John 3, all we can do is test our arguments against the Word of God. That is the only way we can test if our understanding is of the Spirit or not.
Faith is important, but we must define what faith is. I define true, Biblical faith as taking God at His word and responding accordingly.
You seem to define eternity as a dimension outside of time. Yet my understanding of the word “eternity” is that it is a word that relates to time, and “dimension” is a word that relates to space. Confounding the two says little. Moreover if to be “eternal” is to be without beginning or end, as you say, how can “eternity,” a related word, be a dimension?
I do not see anywhere in the Bible that anyone is promised the hope of becoming a vested citizen of a Spiritual dimension of Eternity. This is the second time you have used the word “Spiritual,” but you have not defined what that word means. My studies of Scripture have led me to the conclusion that “spiritual” means “that which comes directly from God, and does not come about by natural means.” The manna in the wilderness was spiritual bread that came straight from God, rather than by the usual process by which we get bread. The water from the rock was spiritual water because water does not normally come from rocks, and so this water came directly from God. The body I currently have is natural because I received it by the normal process of birth, but my resurrection body will be spiritual because I will receive it directly from God, and not from normal human gestation. Therefore, I would call the current dimension (or three dimensions?) that we live in “spiritual,” since all of space comes from God. Yet what you mean by a “Spiritual dimension of Eternity” is very unclear.
I praise God in Christ that we will someday have victory over sin, death, and hell.
You define everlasting life as being “that abundant level of Life influenced by GOD’s principle provisions of HIS Holiness.” I think you are very close to the truth here, as I do think we receive abundant life from God the moment we believe the record God gave of His Son and He places us “in Christ.” However the word “everlasting” is an English word having to do with duration, not with quality. That is why I would move away from it as a translation.
You have not really paid attention to what I said in the article above, when I pointed out that the words translated “everlasting” and “eternal” in the New Testament are the same word in Greek. If you pondered this, you might be able to improve your thinking on this matter. The real issue from the Biblical standpoint is not what either English word “eternal” or “everlasting” means, but rather what the Greek word aionios means. I personally do not believe that either everlasting or eternal is a good translation of the meaning of this word. But in light of the fact that the Holy Spirit made no distinction between these two, I do not think any attempts to distinguish between “eternal life” and “everlasting life” are at all valuable. My personal feeling from studying the King James Version of the Bible is that the translators took these two words as being synonyms. The only other conclusion I could come to is that they were being purposefully deceptive, but I doubt that was the case. I think we were meant to realize that these two are the same thing. Yet I wish they had not done what they did, for much confusion has resulted from their desire to translate with some variety.
Keep studying the Word!
Nathan
August 21, 2015 at 12:52 pm
bbrogeo
Nathan,
Well said! My hypersensitivity to the use of certain words was unfounded but I nevertheless am glad to be able to ask you about the references. It is difficult not being face to face to get a sense of the whole person. But this digital medium does afford a potential to communicate with people that one can relate to. I find it rare in my circles to be able to talk with brothers or sisters in depth about biblical concepts.
As to knowing the origins of evil it is non-essential, the Moravians said, “In the essentials unity, non-essentials liberty and in all things charity “So with that in mind…
The James 1;13 scripture is an apparent conundrum when put next to
Math6;13 Jesus teaches the disciples to pray…..” lead us not into temptation” (peirosmon/noun-root-peira (G4008/ other side, to pierce)
James1;13 “let no man say when he is tempted (peirazomenos/verb,present tense) I am tempted(peirazomai/pass.verb) of God; for God cannot be tempted (apeirastos/neg+adjective) …neither tempteth (peirazei/pres.verb) any man.
All the same root peira G4008 (other side, to pierce)
There are two very different Greek words translated as “evil” in these verses from Matthew and James and these words give context and a sense of the meaning of “temptation”
Matthew – deliver us from ponerou (root G3993/ toiling for daily subsistence)
James – God cannot be tempted with kakon (G2556/ worthless)
The meaning of the old English word “Evil” changed significantly ~ 18 century. Previously it meant “what is bad; sin, wickedness, anything that causes injury, morally or physically and especially of a sickness or disease, and also extreme moral wickedness. The latter meaning has been dominant since 18c.
So when we read in Isaiah 45;7 the prophetic words “I form light, and create darkness; I make peace and create evil (Septuagint kako) I the Lord do all these things” with our modern day meaning of evil (“extreme moral wickedness”) we face a corrupting duplicitous God. But if we see the broader original meaning > any misfortune out of our control, there again is our loving and just God.
James and Matthew become much clearer if we stick to the root of original words
“Let no man say when he is pierced I am pierced by God, for God cannot be pierced with worthless things neither does he pierce anyone”
[The Jews in translating the Hebrew bible into Greek for other Jews used kako in Is.45.7, this same word is in James1:13.]
And lead us not into a piercing but deliver us from strife (toiling for our daily subsistence). Matt6:13
{further obliterating the original, now contemporary translations interpolate “the evil one”}
James 1.14 makes it clear where extreme moral wickedness originates from, humans who first lust then sin. It is not God who gives us lust and sin. There is no sin in God and he cannot be tried through lust to sin.
Can there even be lust for the one who possesses all?
As to your request for the research paper I will send it to you when it is a complete rough draft for your critique but that will be a while.
George, God is good, yes? Let’s immerse ourselves in that goodness, rest in Him, trusting all to His loving kindness and justice.
September 25, 2015 at 6:07 pm
Precepts
George,
I do not blame you for being sensitive to the use of strange words. Of course, when you meet someone on the Internet, just about any belief is possible, and there is probably someone on the Internet who holds it! I would never claim to not be “weird” in some of my beliefs, but I hope and pray my weirdness is Biblical (which is always the goal). It is also, as you say, an opportunity to communicate with people you can relate to when you may perhaps be unable to find such people in your immediate local acquaintances.
By the way, I just picked “B. Brother George” out of your screen name. I suppose it just took me thinking about it. My unthinking sense was to get “Roger O.” out of rogeo, which didn’t make sense with “George.” Of course, there are too many possibilities for me to get the first “B”.
Certainly the origins of evil are debatable, and we have both “said our piece,” so to speak. I suppose if we were speaking “live” the conversation might go on, but we are limited by however fast we can type, and then waiting for an answer, which makes it perhaps not worth pursuing further at this point. It reminds me of the time I tried to argue the meaning of an untranslatable word (the Greek particle “an“) with someone. That was an exercise in frustration! I tried to get him to see that I was saying what most lexicons say whereas he was going with the odd interpretation of two teachers whom I thought were wrong (one of whom was Young, to give him credit), but he never gave up on it, and accused me of not respecting scholarship. Ah, well.
I would agree that the base idea of the word from which “temptation” comes is to pierce. This is always the purpose of a test, to “pierce” to the bottom of the matter and see whether the one being tested has learned his lessons or not. Some of the occasions when “tempt” or “temptation” appear in the New Testament translating this word, it would appear to me that “trial” or “try” or “test” would be better translations. The real difference in English between “temptation” and “testing” is that one generally tests a person hoping he will succeed, whereas one tempts a person hoping he will fail. The word in the New Testament seems to clearly take on the idea of one or the other of these depending on the context. The translators seem to take the line of “temptation” more often than perhaps is reasonable from the contexts.
The meaning of kakos and ponerou is indeed enlightening in these two cases.
I would point out that the Lord, while He may never solicit us to commit bad things, might lead us into situations where other might solicit us to bad things, so perhaps the conflict is not so puzzling if we look at His “leading” into temptation not being the same as Him actually doing the tempting.
As you say, I do not think our wicked desires that lead us to be tempted and often to sin are from God, for He does not sin Himself, and would not solicit others to do so. Therefore this at least does not originate in God, though the desires themselves may be twisted from legitimate desires God put into us in the beginning.
You ask a good question about God and lust. I would say that as soon as God gives up a certain amount of control to another being’s free will, there is room for Him to have a strong desire, for He will strongly desire to see that autonomous being use the control he has been given in a way to glorify God. God’s desires in this regard are not always fulfilled by wicked, rebellious beings. I Thessalonians 4:3. For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality. The word “will” here is “desire” (thelema), not the same as lust (strong desire, epithumia), but I think much in the same line. Christ “lusted” to eat the Passover with His disciples before His suffering (Luke 22:15), and that lust was fulfilled. God desires our abstinence from sexual immortality. I would like to say that He always gets His wish, but I am afraid that, unless I count the number of true believers as being much smaller than I think it really is, it is clear that His desire is only fulfilled some of the time.
Yes, God is good! I do believe we can trust Him more than we can possibly know. As you say, trusting in His goodness and loving-kindness and justice is the best thing for us to do.
Nathan
November 27, 2020 at 4:44 pm
Garry Laser
To be eternal indicates an unchanging present tense presence – which only God is. No need to consider the realm of time when considering the word eternal- the only reason we are given to understand that God is the Alpha and the Omega is that we think in concepts of time – everything has a beginning with us. It is for that reason that we are given the words for ever and evermore and everlasting. They all indicate a beginning and a continuation to completion without an end determined upon its beginning or a continuation within the presence of Him who is always present tense presence – eternal. Everlasting refers to a relational situation from out of Him who alone is eternal and it suggests a beginning of such a relationship.
December 18, 2020 at 9:18 pm
Precepts
Garry Laser,
Thanks for writing, and for your comments.
There is a lot of truth in what you say. For we human, created beings, everything must have a beginning, though we hope for a life without an end. Yet God is beyond and above all this. Everything else in our experience had a beginning, and is dependent on that beginning. Yet God is not that way. He was there in the beginning, and the beginning happened because of Him; He did not happen because of the beginning. Thus God truly is eternal, and beyond just everlasting. All beginnings, all endings, everything that lasts, all is because of Him.
Yet that said, the point of my article was not just to philosophize about everlasting versus eternal, but to deal with their use in Scripture. I believe that God wrote the Bible through human instruments, yet He wrote it originally in Hebrew, a smattering of Aramaic, and Greek. Our English Bibles are translations of that original writing (with the exception of a few copy errors), and those translations are made by members of Adam’s race, and not by God. As such, we must look to the original as the authoritative word, and not the translations.
An examination of the originals will show us that in the New Testament, both “everlasting” and “eternal” are translations of the same Greek word, aionios. In the Old Testament, “everlasting” translates olam, whereas “eternal” occurs only twice; once as a translation of a word that usually translates as “east” but can also mean something along the lines of “long ago,” and the other time translating olam. So generally, in the original of our Bibles there was absolutely no difference between what we have translated as “everlasting” and as “eternal.” They come from the same word.
For that matter, while it does seem to me that the words olam and aionios can have an element of that which is ongoing, like everlasting or even like eternal, I do not think either of these ideas is inherent in these words, as an examination of all uses of these words will reveal. Things that are neither eternal nor everlasting are sometimes referred to by these words, and the significance does not seem in these cases to have to do with time at all.
That last paragraph reflects my opinion based on my studies, but regardless of my opinion the facts are clear: everlasting and eternal are translated from the same word(s), and therefore are the same as they are used in the Bible. It would be a mistake to read into any passage containing these words any difference between the two, as this difference is just a creation of the translators and not of the original. Whether or not philosophically or in English there is a difference, in the Bible usage of these words there is not.
Nathan