Rethinking is difficult. Theological justifications are often only constructed projections, not actual engagements with the text. To justify some teachings, individual Bible texts are quoted that have nothing to do with the alleged subject. Texts are misused to state exactly what the doctrine claims. This is especially true of persistent teachings that are not mentioned in a word in the Bible. For example, that the word “eternal” means something like “endless”.
The eternal contradictions
Time and eternity are two concepts that stand opposite each other. But the term eternity remains vague. Once it is opposite to time, so it should be “timelessness”. On the other hand, eternity is also understood as endlessness, that is, a non-ceasing time. Some describe “eternity” as time, others as something other than time. These are concrete contradictions.
Still others define the Hebrew olam and the Greek aion as an age, but at the same time as an endless eternity. This is not only confusing, but also deliberately misleading:
- You bend translations to make them conform to doctrine.
- You live with contradictions and don’t point them out.
Both points are a recurring problem in many a theological dispute. In the series on “Time and Eternity” there have already been several essays (in the right column). The term has no opposite meanings in the Bible, although there are different shades. In other words, the same basic meaning is adapted to the context, but not in such a way as to create contradictions.
Problematic inconsistency in translations
In most translations the terms “olam” (hb.) and “aion” (gr.) are translated as eternity. However, this is not done consistently. Those who do not have a translation close to the basic text, or who do not study the subject elsewhere, will be misled by these translations. The words are only selectively translated as eternity. Where the endlessness does not fit, one translates differently. This hides the meaning for the Bible reader.
Eternal is not endless, but many do not want to live with that. The castle in the air is too beautiful. Too deep is the expectation that believers have “endless life” and everyone else faces “endless torment” in hell. This is the burden of the terms “eternal” and “eternity”. It is not about the expression of a situation, but it should be about the duration. In particular, believers are said to be “eternally well off” while unbelievers “remain eternally damned.” This is upheld even when otherwise preaching that God is love. Isn’t that incredible?
The translation of the original terms is a reinterpretation and verbalization of these statements, wherein the fictitious endlessness mutates into the gauge of bliss and seriousness. Terms were misused and reinterpreted. The endless eternity becomes the ISO standard of valid theology and a memorial to the divine consequence. Hard theologies not only make hard hearts, but also strange leaps.
Eternity becomes the ISO standard of valid theology and a memorial to divine consistency.
In the context of the Old and New Testaments, the words have a much more sober meaning. In the Old Testament, for example, the term is used for the lifetime of a person. This lifetime is limited, even if you do not know the end. Jesus speaks of the coming eon in the New Testament as the Messianic Age. This is what the prophets had pointed out. Some translations then speak of “eternity” in this context. This, of course, causes problems. Jesus spoke only of the coming age, not of an endlessness. This kingdom was to be established by the Messiah. It was a kingdom of heavenly origin, but it will be established throughout the earth (Dan. 2:44; Dan. 7:27). This was the “kingdom of heaven” that was not meant “in” heaven, but “on” earth.
No spongy endlessness, but concrete situations were meant. While it was not known how long such a period would last, the imprint could be imparted. The idea of an “eternal life” is related to this messianic expectation. It’s about a quality, not a quantity. Jesus promised his disciples an “eonian life” in the “coming eon” (Mark 10:30). “Eternal life” is the life of the age to come. Who would have thought that?
If one formulates this once again in another way: Whoever is promised eternal life has the prospect of a future time, in which he will then participate. It does not mean that you will never die.
Understand the reasoning
Those who argue in favor of an endless eternity will be able to cite only a few texts for this purpose. The idea of an endlessness did not come from the Bible, but was projected into it much later. The entire testimony of Scripture on the use of the terms “olam” and “aion” cannot be defined in a few texts. There is definitely a differentiation in usage. But not – at not a single place – is it about that this term should express an endlessness. That is why proponents of this endless eternity cannot come up with word studies. They only come up with single texts and circular reasoning. When you realize this, it becomes easier to let the Bible speak for you and leave tradition behind.
Example
Temporal and eternal
“The visible is temporal, but the invisible is eternal.”
2Cor 4,18
This sentence is taken from a letter of the apostle Paul. The sentence is quoted with pleasure to “prove” with it the endlessness of the eternity. To do this, the text must be taken out of context and in no case should one go back to the basic text.
Why is such a text quoted? In many doctrines, including the doctrine of an endless eternity, circular reasoning is continually made about biblical statements. One does not examine the words, the verses, the contexts, but infers about texts what one already knows about them in advance. First, there is an eisegesis (insertion), which then leads to a very specific exegesis (interpretation).
One quotes such texts also because there are few texts that allow an endlessness in this biased way. So one does not make a fundamental study about the word and its meaning, but infers from tradition so that the traditional image is maintained. The text just mentioned is also misused for this purpose.
Viewpoint 1: Endlessness is proven here
“The text contrasts temporal and eternal.” The contrast here is supposed to be between “temporal” and “eternal”. This is then to prove that eternity is endless, because time obviously is not. In context, one refers to visible things that are temporal – but passing away – and invisible things that are supposed to be eternal – and probably not passing away.
Position 2: This is not about endlessness
If you look at the text, it does not say endlessness, but a word is translated as “eternal”. In viewpoint 1, one assumes on the face of it that the translation “eternal” is correct, and therefore this becomes circular reasoning. That is not a rationale.
This is a justification:
If you want to trace this passage, you do not have to take away the contrast, because it is in the text. However, one must ask what the contrast should be. Because: “eternal” has to do with “eternity” (Mk 10,30). Or more neutrally, aionios (aeonian) has to do with aion (aeon). In the Bible, not a single occurrence of these words explains that it is about an endlessness. For example, we read: God has already acted before the eons (1Cor 2,7). God made all the eons through the Son (Heb. 1:3). So He is enthroned over all eons (1Tim 1,17), but is not limited to the eons. There are eons before us (heb. olam. Eccl 1:10). The present eon Paul estimates as evil (Gal 1:4). Jesus speaks of the eon to come (Mt 12:32), the coming eon (Luk 18:30). There are several future eons (Eph 2:7) and all eons will be completed once (Heb 9:26).
These and other texts prove that there is not one endless eternity. And essential: there are times before and after the eternities. The words “olam” and “aion” do not encompass everything, but are merely the framework for the purpose of the eons that God made in Christ (Eph 3:11). This resolution is completed, which represents God’s work and purpose. If the eons were “endless”, God would probably never reach the goal. That would be strange, because we read of this goal in 1 Corinthians 15:27-28.
In summary, we could say that the eons are the longest periods of time mentioned in the Bible. They are all characterized by their own features. The characteristics are decisive, not the exact duration. Together, the eons form the temporal framework within which the development of this world and God’s action in it takes place. It is, so to speak, the stage for the history of salvation.
However one may interpret these verses, they do not suggest that the words “olam” and “aion,” with all the derivative words, express anything even close to an endlessness. Those who see this for the first time may experience something like a theological landslide. This is not easy, but it is important if you want to trace the Bible. So what is the contrast in the aforementioned text? What should be said?
If temporal is on one side, what does eternal mean on the other side? It helps to check the word for time in the New Testament. The Greek word pros-kairon (etym. for [eine] time) can be rendered as limited. The Concordant New Testament also translates as “fickle” in Mt 13:21 and Mk 4:17. Hebrews 11:25 renders it as “temporary.” It is about a short time, a temporary opportunity. This is also how it is used in 2 Cor. 4:17-18:
“For the momentary lightness of our tribulation brings about for us an aeonian weightiness of glory that surpasses all and leads to the surpassing, since we do not pay attention to what is glimpsed, but to what is not glimpsed. For what is glimpsed [ist kurz] is temporary; but what is not glimpsed is aeonic.”
2Cor 4,17-18
Put simply, it is about a short tribulation facing a long glory. Short versus long. Not “temporal versus eternal.” The subject is not an argument about the duration of eons, but about a short and currently experienced persecution, but facing a future time that will dwarf everything they are going through.
Is eternity kept alive because of hell?
For hundreds of years people were beaten into church with threats of hell. The thought of a hell is persistent. Whoever discovers that the Bible nowhere speaks of a hell of medieval character, can nevertheless often hardly detach himself from it. This is the case because it is not about a single concept, but about a hodgepodge of views, all of which are not mentioned in a single word in the Bible. The “endless eternity” belongs to it.
Many think like this: If one performs the “service of faith,” God repays this with “eternal life. If, on the other hand, you do not believe, you will be “punished eternally” in hell. Eternity is an essential part of the doctrine of hell. If you examine the Scriptures for these things, you will find that hell does not exist and the supposed “eternity” is a mistranslation.
Those who leave hell behind go through a process of reprogramming. The one idea of hell is linked to countless other issues. It is a theological construct, a house of cards made up of many individual cards. All the issues together have shaped the pressure and spiritual abuse that many people suffer from, often for decades. If you want to stay close to the Bible and leave hell behind, you cannot avoid examining the terms for “eternity” and “everlasting.”
In many a theology, eternity is a “permanent topic”. The idea of an endlessness deals with the “duration”. The Bible, however, is about a new time, with a new imprint. The Bible is not about an endlessness. The idea of an endlessness is only sadness in the long run. The biblical statements, however, are sober, multifaceted, and tell of a future worth exploring.
What did the people of the Bible have in mind?
