The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1886-09-04
EVERLASTING AND ETERNAL.

Greek word dionios, but the late revis-
ion has only the latter term, while ever
lasting is retained in the Old Tesla
ment The reason for this difference
we know not, and can only conjecture.
We suspect that eternal was regarded
as the stronger of the two words, and
as giving corresponding support to the
doctrine of eternal punishment, con-
sistency being of little account in
matter of such vast Importance.
No doubt eternal will generally be
thought a stronger word than everlast-
ing, the latter being often used in a
limited sense, while this is not SO obvi-
ously true of the former. Besides, the
word eternal will very naturally be asso-
ciated in the mind with eternity, and
be interpreted by that word. But ever
lasting has no such advantage. Ever
lasting means lasting ever; and so con-
strued, the word expresses continuity
quite as naturally as it does perpetuity.
1t denotes everlasting rather than for
everlasting. But we must not forget
that the original is the same, whether
we use one of these words or the other.
If one Of them is stronger word than
the other, one of them must be defec-
tive rendering, either by its strength or
weakness.
1t is highly probable that the revisers
may claim that the original word had
changed, and has stronger meaning
in the New Testament than in the Old /;
that in the Old it is often used in a
limited sense, but seldom if ever is it
so employed in the New. 1t would
serve their purpose wonderfully if they
could prove this. There was indeed a
time when this word aionios took on q
stronger meaning than it ever had be-
fore; but this was not between the Old
Testament and the New. 1t was con-
siderably later than the time of Christ /;
and the change was effected, not by
those whose native tongue was Greek,
such as Clemens Of Alexandria, Origen,
etc. but by those who knew almost
nothing of that language, namely, Au-
gustine, Cyprian, and other African
fathers.
All other considerations aside, we
ought to be able to judge from the
Bible itself, whether eternal is a cor
rect rendering, and to be preferred to
everlasting. If eternal is better word.
it should have been used in the Old
Testament as we'll as in the New; in
which case we should have had the
eternal possession of the land of Canaan,
the eternal priesthood, the eternal COW
enaut, the eternal statutes, the servant
serving his master eternally, the bars
of the earth about Jonah eternally, etc.
When we claim that the rendering of
aionios should be the same in both parts
of the Bible, We assume what we never
saw denied, tfise this Greek word is a
proper rendering of the Hebrew olom.
From usage and habit, eternal seems to
us better in the New than in the Old
Testament, yet it is not correct in
either. There is no better way to de-
termine the meaning of words than to
examine their derivations. If aionios
has the meaning of eternal, the noun
aion should have the meaning of eter-
nifty. We have seen this definition
given to it, and plausibly argued, thus:
1t is composed of aii always, and no
being. 1t therefore means Railways be-
ing" that is, eternity.
Not too fast. always being" is not
always continuing to be-" any more
than everlasting is foreverlesting. A
man Railways working" may not icon
tinue always to work. Then if we
look at the usage of aion, this meaning
of eternity will be set aside at once.
We read of this aion and that which is
to come, of the end of the di0n, of the
ATOMS, in the plural, and the aion of the
ATOMS, etc. Substitute eternity, and the
language becomes nonsense. There
fore the adjective aionios, derived from
aion, does not mean eternal.
The noun dion is sometimes rendered
world. If it has this meaning, then
aionios must mean worldly, or world
lasting. This does not help the doc
trine of eternal punishment. We re-
member seeing translation of the New
Testament, in which aion was trans
lated Secul,tna, the Latin for age, true
rendering, SO far as the sense is con-
cerned. This rendering was adopted
evidently to obtain suitable rendering
for dionios, which the author translated
secular, which, as taking its sense from
Sec,tIatna, is correct. The only trouble is,
that, as an English word, secular has no
such meaning.
World, as the translation of oion, is
Objectionable, not only as giving a
wrong meaning to aionioS, but it would
make nonsense in most places where
di0n is used END of the world" is
good English, though not good Script
ure. So this world and that which is
to come" But how is it, when we read
of the ends of the worlds, world of
of worlds. and Mnrlds of worlds. as ex-