A Christian Objection to “Does God Predestine People To Hell”: A Response to Alex, Part X

Things Fall Apart

Alex moves into part 3 of my original series of articles, here. I will cite the beginning of my original article while skipping the beginning of Alex’s, uh… “argument,” for it is full of unfounded claims and more moral grandstanding. He asks a few questions that I answered in the original series of articles, and while that worked for The Rich Man and Lazarus (because I already kind of wanted to talk about that again,) I don’t feel like reciting myself over and over again.

I will cite myself, here, in my next point, in reply to the argument that ‘man chooses hell’–

“Worse still, what is this argument really saying? That it is more just for man to work themselves into an eternal hell than to be given a temporary experience of evil, that they may learn love by the end. Man would rather fail of his own accord than recognize God’s sovereignty!”

This is one of my favorite points that I’ve brought up. I cite it because I want to share just how painful Alex’s reply is:

“Honestly man, you poke at Calvinists a lot yet you’re one yourself. Moreover, this is fluff and an argument by derision. It is a sort of ad hominem towards the people that disagree with you as well. I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to do here. Especially, since you continue the word study on “unseen” in the following section after this. I understand that you will eventually probably be talking about predestination and God’s sovereignty but it seems kind of out of place where you placed this whole conversation. It would be more appropriate later. It distracts from your “unseen” conversation that you’re continuing from your last part.”

Look, believe it or not, I’ve really enjoyed going through this whole reply. I was looking for a bit more of a structured thesis and refutation, and I really like Alex’s informal writing style. A lot of what he calls “pride” and “disingenuous exposition” is, in truth, a passion for the topic at hand. Despite his claims, I truly have no ill-will toward him or any other (yes, even John Piper, though I also believe that God left a few screws loose in the guy’s head.) But there’s this ever-increasing incapability on Alex’s side to present a proper argument (no, not in an “informality” sense, but in a logistical, claim –> evidence –> evidence –> evidence –> conclusion.) I was looking forward to a response to the third article (and the fifth article) in particular, as they really begin asking the difficult questions, and I wanted to hear an unabashed eternal torment believer’s structured, argumentative response to the claim. Instead, Alex says,

“If you are being honest with yourself and your audience (which you are not,) then you would admit that the point of my original paper was not truly to present an argument to prove my side. Rather, it was point out the flaws on your part.”

This is not how arguments work. If you are arguing against something, then you have a sensible alternative. If you’re arguing just to mindlessly argue, then you are what those in my Baltimore hometown would call “a dick.” A refutation, by definition, requires a foundation by which you should be refuting from. If you are just “refuting to refute,” then you are wasting my time. The only reason I’ve gone ahead and written these articles is, again, because the arguments Alex makes here are not exclusive to Alex, and will be beneficial to arm any honest truth-seeker against these arguments.

Anyway, if Alex had done his research, here, I would not mind the ‘logical fallacy’ claims about me that he makes (most of which I’ve graciously hidden from you.) Part of his claims are necessary for a refutation, and, like I said before, I believe an element of that in almost any refutation is inescapable. But to see responses like the “Calvinist” one above is exactly why I did not want to label myself into some ‘theological’ category. Alex doesn’t want to reply to the question I asked, but took offense to it, and as such felt a desire to “clap back” by dismissing it as ‘fluff’ instead of honestly considering it and giving a well-constructed answer.

Acts 2:27-31 – David in Hell? (Fifth and Sixth Use of “Unseen”)

Anyway! Enough of that mushy shit. Let’s get back to the fun stuff. I want to cite the King James Version of Acts 2:27-31 again, because I could use a laugh:

For David speaketh concerning him, ‘I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:

Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.’

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

God, it’s so funny! David’s chilling in “comfort hell,” I guess! Anyway, I pointed out that, aside from the “speaketh” nonsense, this passage looks like a bunch of gobbledygook. Upon studying each word in the passage, it is evident that the KJV translators did not faithfully translate each word according to its every use, but interpreted the passage as they went along.

The only real response Alex gives:

“Now, the whole thing with the “rest in hope” is synonymous to your “tenting in expectation.” It concerns me even more because it is obvious that you do not know what “hope” means as used in the KJV.”

In an article during my Romans series, I displayed the difference between ‘hope’ and ‘expectation,’ which you can read about below. The word ‘hope,’ which revolves around a worry as to whether something may or may not occur, does not compare to the true translation of the word, ‘expectation,’ which denotes a certainty of future events. ‘Hope’ goes right along with the skimpy notion that humans have, that ‘freedom is love,’ while ‘expectation’ goes right along with the true notion that God has, that ‘out of Him, and through Him, and into Him is all’ (Rom. 11:36.)

Romans 5:1-2 – Conciliation, Proclaimed (Conciliation Series, Part I)

Unfortunately, all Alex did in reply to this was screenshot a few different words from the blue letter bible and just blindly assumed that the blue letter bible was true and factual on a few different words. As I said before, the blue letter bible is not my god, and I don’t have a reason to presume that man’s interpretation of a word should supersede the etymology and contextual use of said word.

“As per David being in hell, please refer to my part 2 rebuttal where I briefly discuss what hell is as I understand it. It really does away with the whole of your argument(s).”

Oh, wow! Alex truly believes that David is in a “comfort” hell! So David is in Abraham’s bosom, eh? I wonder how many textual critics would disagree with your assertion. I find it much easier to believe the elements of the text, which, when properly translated, would indicate that David’s soul is simply unseen.

Man, I wonder how much shorter this essay would be if I only dealt with arguments with evidence? Alex’s next point can be found in the next paragraph:

“You stated, ‘Clearly, the soul, the combination of body and flesh, is subjected to the unseen. This is not, then, some location for disembodied spirits, as is commonly taught with “hades” in Greek mythology, or in Baptist/Calvinist churches.’

My question to you is that if God chose to use the Greek word “hades” in the New Testament manuscripts, and that word meant to the culture at the time this sort of “hell” as I understand it as confirmed by the Greek speaking Early Church Fathers (you know the ones I mentioned in an earlier part who were the students of the Apostles themselves all of which held the same doctrine and teaching. You know those who taught hell as I understand it).”

First of all, that wasn’t a question, Alex… I just– I just need another shot of whiskey. Hang on.

*Please stand by*

Second, I will remind the reader that there is, simply, no reason to study the writings of men 2 decades after the completion of the scriptures and take their word as fact, when the scriptures are right there, and can be studied themselves. There are many people over the course of the last 2,000 years who agree and disagree with the notion of eternal torment. Many Greek scholars and influential thinkers alike disagree with the notion:

List of those of who reject traditional hellism

(Alex noted here that I could have just said, “Alex, you miswrote, here. What was your question?” While that is true, it’s so much more fun to find any excuse to drink whiskey!)

Alex replied to this yet again with a plethora of straw-mans, saying,

“Alright, let the train of logical fallacies begin. Earlier you had spoken about Textual Critics and whether or not they would agree with me. You rely on modern man who is 2,000 years out of reach of Jesus yet you take issue with men who were the direct disciples of the students of Christ? Makes no sense. Next, you said there are many people who agree and disagree with the notion of eternal torment. Yes, I agree. However, I cited what the earliest people who were the direct disciples of the Apostles taught. In other words, it is kind of hard for them to lie about it. Who in the right mind will teach hell is eternal if the Apostles taught differently? It makes no sense. Therefore, the earliest understanding of hell as taught by the students of the Authors of the New Testament books is a place of eternal torment. Whether you call that Gehenna, Hades or Tartaroo.”

I guess the sarcasm of my “textual critics” remark whooshed over Alex’s head. So, to clarify: when I say, “I wonder how many textual critics would agree with your assertion,” it was designed to highlight the fact that, for all his reliance on sources apart from the Bible, he sure seemed to jump radically far away from “the majority” and their interpretation of the passage! He may have done a good thing by leaving the groupthink, there, but it’s quite the stretch to jump so far outside of the scope of scripture and its declarations in the Old Testament (particularly Psalms, many of which we’ve already covered,) in an attempt to force your own view into the text.

Next, I do not rely on “modern men,” and I don’t know where Alex got that idea. As I’ve said before, the “modern men” I quote are concluding things I’ve either already concluded on my own, or are stating something easily provable in the Greek language.

And, finally, I don’t care if we’re talking about someone who arrived one day after the completion of the scriptures. We could be reading something Barnabas or Timothy wrote, for all I care; their words can be valuable, but I’m not going to take his word over Paul’s, whose writing is inspired by God. If the “earliest descendants of the apostles” are teaching about eternal torment, and the Bible is not teaching about eternal torment, then we would do wise to stick to the inspired text, and not the incorrect men.

At the end of the day, the only way to study whether the scriptures teach it or not is by looking at the oldest and most accurate source material you can find. Of course, it is entirely and wholly up to God as to the wisdom He prefers to impart with His original language (and whom He would like to share it with,) but in the meantime, every believer here is aware that this “majority rules” game is certainly no path to enlightenment.

I will ask you, Alex: does playing this game as an excuse to remain ignorant to any method or consistent form of textual criticism that will beget answers instead of blind interpretations glorify God? Did He write it, using distinct verbiage, or did He ask you to fill in the blanks with “synonyms?” Did He clean these words, like silver refined in a kiln, fine gold refined seven times (Ps. 12:6?)  Where were you when He founded the earth? Tell if you know with understanding (Job 38:3-5.)

Revelation (Final Uses of “Unseen”)

It is at this point in the study that I’ve really begun to check out.  Most of this response to the study on Revelation is the same. For the next three pages, Alex argues that context and grammatical considerations are simply more fluff and semantics. Could a couple of instances be worded slightly better? Sure. But they should not be the centerpiece of his argument. When I got to Revelation 6 and wrote of the four horsemen, Alex had very few tangible remarks to make, and then asked a bunch of questions that he would have had the answers to if he had read the bulk of my brief study on the four horsemen.

The next argument that I believe I can cover here without being too trite is when Alex finds something in the middle of my brief Revelation 20 study. I stress “middle,” because we had been considering the structure of Revelation in order to consider Revelation’s place, and the line that he does reference is not the focal point of the argument at hand, but at least it’s something different than the same ‘logical fallacy’ claim from the first 25 pages. He writes,

“Now, I call into question your entire reasoning because your premise was that God is too loving for a hell as I know it. But I assume He’s not loving enough for, ‘At the beginning of chapter 20, after Christ was unveiled and slaughtered His remaining enemies on earth (using birds – yes, birds, and this is literal – Rev. 19:21,)’ Where is the love here? Isn’t He the same God who stated to love your enemies as yourselves? I’m just curious because this is one gaping hole in your entire argument.”

While I believe Alex’s argument in particular is grasping at straws, I can’t help but answer the question for anyone honestly considering this. I must preface that, for the next page, I will be expounding upon a few preliminary (but scripturally provable and cited) facts that will lead me to answer his objection.

“Love” does not mean that God likes “sin.” Alex has been steadily revealing throughout his study that he believes God is not the Author of sin, but he created Satan perfect, and then Satan decided to sin, thus falling away from God. In that, Satan became defective, and God has had to fight him ever since, eternally trying to win the love of a mostly-lost creation. In this, God did not successfully and flawlessly create the universe, but made a universe that defected after a short period of time, that He has not been able to resolve. This is not a flawless El that Alex is bringing to you.

My El, in contrast, is flawless in His deeds (Deut. 32:4,) and gets shit done. My El tells me that “My counsel shall stand, and all My desire I shall do” (Is. 46:10.) My El is not dwelling in the temples made by hands, nor is He requiring anything, because He Himself gives life and breath and all (Acts 17:24-25.) And, most of all, my El is not threatening you for His respect, but establishing a peace with you, first and foremost, on the basis of Christ’s blood (Rom. 3:24.) If you seek a complete exoneration, and an explanation from the Creator of the universe, seek Paul’s evangel in the oldest Greek manuscript. Study Romans.

There is a time, however, only drawing nearer, where this window to grasp the righteousness of God in Paul’s evangel is closing (Rom. 1:16-17, 1 Thess. 5:1-3.) At this time, when the fulness of Christ’s body is firmly departed from the planet, the great dragon (Satan) will, at the same time, be cast out of heaven, and Old Testament prophecy will resume. Specifically: the prophecy that had been progressing in Daniel 9:25-27. This prophecy is summarized as “The Seventy Heptads,” and break down 70 7-year periods of time in which God works directly through Israel before establishing them at His promised location, kicking off the millennial kingdom.

God splits this ‘Seventy Heptads’ into three periods: ‘Seven Heptads,’ ‘Sixty-Two Heptads,’ and ‘One Heptad split into two halves.’ The first ‘Sixty-Nine Heptads’ have already occurred. There is only one heptad remaining, and it is fulfilled in the final 7-year period of Revelation.

During this time period, war will be declared on the earth. The secret administration of Paul’s evangel of peace, which is currently in effect, will end. God’s indignation upon the earth will then commence. This indignation is deserved, as proven in Rom. 1:18-32 and 3:9-20.

This seven-year period of Revelation is going to be short and sweet. It will not last longer than seven years, and will be directly followed by a thousand-year kingdom. These final seven years are not solely used to blindly reign terror on the earth, but carry an exact means to an end. There is a purpose and a goal, and then it is over.

Keeping the extremely short period of time that the bulk of Revelation’s calamities are in view (which, yes, ends with birds feasting on flesh of unjust men,) God is most certainly still loving these people because:

a)    He has already broken down, to us who are perceiving His evangel, the broader function of “vessels of indignation” before, in Romans 9. And

b)    These people are undoubtedly a part of the all that Paul has in view in Rom. 5:18, 1 Cor. 15:22, 2 Cor. 5:14, 18-19, Eph. 1:9-11, Phil. 2:9-11, Col. 1:15-20, 1 Tim. 2:4-6, 4:9-11, 6:13, and Titus 2:11, when speaking of the death, justification, conciliation, vivification, reconciliation, and, as such, salvation, of all. They are not being exempted from the love of God, but are fulfilling the role God laid out for them in His divine purpose to unveil Himself.

For some reason, the temporary warfare which leads to the ultimate reconciliation of God’s enemies is somehow worse to Alex than the eternal separation of God from His enemies, as well as their eternal burning at His discretion. Why? I don’t know. And, frankly, I no longer care to know. This understanding, that suffering is a temporary, educational means to an end, is opposite of Alex’s god. Alex’s god would not punish with death with a view to teach us. Alex’s god would punish and then, while you are somehow dead, enforce a new living experience where, after having your flesh torn apart by birds, you then begin to burn. And burn. And keep burning. Have you ever burnt your finger on a lighter, or stove? Yeah, it’s like that. But on your entire body. At all times. Melting your flesh. Forever. This is supposed to be the bittersweet alternative?

Such a concept is not merciful, which is why my God expresses such a disgust with it (Jer. 19:4-6, 32:34-35.) My God is merciful, and uses our mortality as a tool with an aim to teach and correct, not stay mad and punish forever. Alex’s god didn’t just hang his son on a cross in a last ditch attempt to save “some” people from the sin he couldn’t see coming. My God gave His Son, and His Son went willingly, to express through His death that there is a divine purpose to the worst tragedies we fathom, even if we don’t understand them. My God knew that the sinful murder of His Son at the hands of the religiously pious would be the very same act that enabled all the blessings in Paul’s evangel to flow forth (Rom. 3:24-26, 4:25, 5:9.) My God integrated sin and plans on removing it for everyone’s sake by the end of the story, as they learn love (1 Cor. 15:26, 54-56.)

Alex, by the way, says that his god did see the sin coming, which would mean that he did know that Satan would become defective, which would mean that the all-knowing God either planned for it, or set into motion a chain of events beforehand that would, ultimately, only save some. This quite literally makes God a failure, for being unable to save all, and for losing the vast majority of His creatures.

And again, in contrast to his god, who gave everyone free will (apparently with the knowledge that sin would inevitably take over the world in a short amount of time, and enacted a plan where he died so that only some live,) my God knew what He was doing from the start, and claimed the worst of us first, to highlight His unabashed love for us all. Such a God as great as the One that claimed the likes of me does, indeed, love His creation, bountifully, and unconditionally. He will achieve all He desires, and He didn’t need “synonyms” to do it.

Last Bit On ‘Eons’

We’ve got one more point from Alex to cover in his ‘part three study,’ and I will cover it here. In my original series of articles, I cited the KJV, Rev. 20:10–

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

And then wrote:

“Look, if this were true, then God is no better than his worst enemy. Satan has no mercy on humanity, and has not from the beginning (1 John 3:8.) If this is Satan’s character, why would God treat His enemies the same way?? Especially with Christ, the Image of God, talking so much about turning the other cheek (Matt. 5:38-39,) and Paul talking about treating your enemies with kindness and love (Rom. 12:17-21??) Last I checked, God’s heart does not change. The idea that it suddenly should with Satan is, again, disingenuous reasoning on man’s part. “Forever and ever” is simply a mistranslation, here…”

To which Alex replies,

“Thank you for proving one of my earlier points. You really shot yourself in the foot here. Satan does not have the power to eternally torment. God does. The thing you’re forgetting about God is that He is Just. He is merciful too. It is because He is JUST, that hell as I know it exists. It is because He is merciful, that He wishes to save anyone and everyone from it. Yet, it is because we have free will that He does not force us to be saved. Therefore, those who go to hell do so on their own accord. Now, to be quite fair with the section you quoted… neither the KJV nor the CLV give the understanding that mankind will be tormented forever. It says Satan and the beast and the false prophet are tormented forever. Now I won’t argue with you on the meaning of “eons of the eons” because that means “forever.” Again, there are synonyms out there. It seems to me you have an issue demonstrating that a different wording means something different and not the same.”

As Alex still has yet to prove that “eternal torment” exists in any capacity, this critique is shallow. This verse does not state that “hell exists,” but that Satan is cast into a “lake of fire,” which is the first time in all of Scripture that we are reading of such a place. For Satan, it is a torturous punishment, because Satan is not said to ‘die,’ here.

Alex must forget that popular theologians teach that Satan is in hell, waiting for anyone to head on down there (particularly: The Baptists! Did he miss that during the fire and brimstone preaching last Sunday?) Yet here, in Revelation, we read that this “lake of fire” is a place of punishment for Satan! Wouldn’t this mean that he wasn’t in such a place beforehand?? Alex does say that he doesn’t agree with them, here, but in that case: say that, and actually explain your view, Alex, instead of mindlessly critiquing others who don’t know you or your position! And don’t fart on the guy that is clearly combating the majority view!

With that said, this verse seems to shine a light on another horrific doctrine, being the word “eternal.” Now, looking back, I understand that I did not go into a great amount of depth or detail to prove the word ‘eon,’ but I am finding that, when disproving eternal torment, it is not only necessary to disprove the term ‘hell,’ but also to disprove the term ‘eternal’ as is commonly used by translators on a whim today.

I find this to be a good thing and a bad thing for my original study. It is a good thing to those who already recognize that the concordant method of translation, which seeks to remove as much human inference as it can, that they could read the articles I’d linked in my original study and find comfort and solace in a word that is translated concordantly as opposed to interpretively. It is a bad thing to my opponents, for I did not cite the proof that this word should be consistently translated “eon,” but just linked a few other articles that already pre-supposed its truth.

Anyway, let me take a brief moment and pass the baton over to another believer, named Chris, who, with another believer named Andrew P., has gone into many different uses of the Hebrew form of the word aion, being olam. He has written a short article that goes into a handful of Old Testament passages to show the inconsistent reasoning that one must conduct in order to translate this word as “eternal” as opposed to “eon.” I will also be uploading this article separately at a later date, and I fervently ask Chris or Andrew, if possible, to continue sharing any writings that I am allowed to upload here, that I would be more than willing to upload, whether he is in agreement or disagreement with me on whatever topic he chooses to write about.

I will preface the following pages with the statement that Alex seems to believe that, because the word “eon” is used in front of “God,” that it must inherently mean “eternal.” This is a complete assumption. Whereas all living creatures, at one point or another, face death, God transcends the eons, which is why He is called the “eonian God” (Rom. 16:25.) It is completely okay to call Him this, and is a good title to demonstrate that God owns the eons themselves. Such an argument is hardly possible, as it is used as an excuse to cherry pick some uses of the word to mean “eternal” (wherever it may deem fit for the eternal torment believer to make it mean ‘eternal.’) We deal with a pattern of sound words, not a disorganized jumble of two-faced words.

Alright, take it away, guys!

“The following is an analysis of some of the key places that ‘aionios’ and ‘aion’ are used in the Old Testament. Because of this, we will utilize the Septuagint, as the Old Testament was written primarily in Hebrew.

For those who are unaware, the Septuagint (LXX) was a Koine Greek translation of the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament, produced in the third and second centuries BC. In second Temple Jewish and early Christian communities, the LXX was, by far, the most commonly used version of the Hebrew Bible, and most OT quotations from the NT and other early Christian writings are taken directly from it. For this reason, the LXX is, by far, the most valuable tool for examining how Greek words were used by the ancient Jewish and Christian communities, and extrapolating this usage to the New Testament.

According to the translators of the LXX, the direct Hebrew equivalent of the Greek words ‘aion’ and ‘aionios’ is ‘olam.’ This point is not debatable (any more than it is debatable that ‘hola’ is the equivalent to ‘hello.’) Therefore, whenever we see ‘olam’ in a passage in the Old Testament, we know that it carries the same meaning as ‘aion’ or ‘aionios’ (the Hebrew language is much more limited, so it can function as both a noun and an adjective; it is translated ‘eternal’ or ‘everlasting’ when it functions as an adjective, and as ‘forever’ when it functions as an adverb, just like in Greek or English.)

Because of this, if we can demonstrate that the Hebrews thought of ‘olam’ in a limited sense, and the NT authors used the same word in this way, then ‘aionios’ cannot mean ‘eternal’ (again, since the words were translated as such.) Either it means eternal/everlasting/forever, or it doesn’t. So, in this study, it will be shown that neither ‘olam’ or ‘aionios’ can mean forever, since ‘olam’ was used in the original writing, and ‘aionios’ was the direct equivalent in Greek. In other words, the conclusion directly follows from the premises, which will be proven below.

Genesis 13:14-15 –

After Lot separated from him, God said to Abram, ‘Open your eyes, look around. Look north, south, east, and west. Everything you see – the whole land spread out before you – I will give to you and your children forever.

Genesis 48:4 –

And said to me, ‘I am going to make you fruitful and increase your numbers. I will make you a community of peoples, and I will give this land as an everlasting possession to your descendants after you.’

In addition to this, it is referred to as an ‘olam’ covenant five separate times in Genesis 17. However, the Abrahamic covenant and the Israelite possession of the land did not last ‘eternally’ or ‘perpetually,’ as they were removed from the land several times over, even throughout the Old Testament period. Neither will it remain forever, since the land of Israel itself will only last until the end of the Messianic age, when this earth passes away and is replaced by a new earth (Is. 65:17, Rev. 21:1.)

Exodus 27:21 –

In the tabernacle of meeting, outside the veil which is before the Testimony, Aaron and his sons shall tend it from evening until morning before the Lord. It shall be a statute forever to their generations on behalf of the children of Israel.

In countless other places, the Levitical priesthood is said to be ‘olam’ (Ex. 27:21, 28:43, 29:9, 28, 30:21, 40:15, Lev. 16:34, 24:3, 8-9, Num. 18:23, 19:10, 21, 25:13), and certain statutes related to the system of sacrifice and offering are described as ‘olam’ (Lev. 3:17, 6:18, 22, 7:34-36, 10:9, 15, 17:7, 23:14, 21, 41, Num. 10:8, 15:15, 18:8, 11, 19). However, once again, we know that none of these last ‘forever,’ as the law will pass away at the new heavens and new earth.

Levitius 25:46–

And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever.

Obviously, this cannot refer to an infinitely long period of time, but only however long the servant’s life will last. Other examples of this can be found in Ex. 21:6 and Deut. 15:17.

1 Sam. 1:22–

But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned, and then I will bring him, that he may appear before Yahweh, and there abide forever.

However, ‘forever’ is explicitly stated to be ‘as long as he lives,’ just a few verses later, in 1 Sam. 1:28!

1 Chron. 28:4–

Yet Yahweh, the God of Israel, has chosen me from among all my father’s family to be king over Israel forever.

Once again, David’s rule can obviously only last as long as David’s lifespan (in addition to the fact that we know eventually, all reign, including Christ’s, will be delivered up to God, per 1 Cor. 15:24-28.)

2 Sam. 12:10–

Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.

In stark contrast to this, God promises in 1 Kings 2:33 that David’s house will have ‘olam’ peace, and Solomon’s reign was one of unprecedented peace. And yet, this was followed again by an era of hostility. This only makes sense if ‘olam’ refers to an indefinitely long, but not infinite, period of time.

1 Kings 8:13–

I have indeed built a magnificent temple for you, a place for you to dwell forever.

2 Kings 21:7, 2 Chron. 6:2, 7:16, 30:8, and 33:4 also state that the first Temple built by Solomon will be the ‘olam/aionios’ home of Yahweh – although it was later deserted by God, and destroyed in 587 BC by Nebuchadnezzar.

2 Kings 5:27–

The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed forever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow.

This states that the Gehazi and his descendents will be leprous ‘for olam,’ meaning as long as his line remains in existence. And I doubt that even Christians who believe in eternal torment would believe that Gehazi will still be leprous in hell!

Ezra 3:11 –

He is good, for His mercy endures forever toward Israel.

However, God is currently hardening Israel and is not showing mercy to the vast majority of Israel until the ‘fullness of the Gentiles’ comes in (Rom. 11:7-10, 25.) And, not only that, but even if one argued that He has never ceased being merciful toward Israel, we know that the nation of Israel will not last into eternity. So even in that sense, ‘olam’ cannot mean ‘forever.’

Job 41:4–

Will he make a covenant with thee, That thou shouldest take him as a servant forever?

This is speaking of the sea beast Leviathan, and it should be obvious that ‘olam’ cannot mean ‘forever’ here (for multiple obvious reasons.)

The Psalms uses the word ‘olam’ far more than any other book of the Old Testament. Therefore, I have compiled a list of numerous examples instead of actually typing out the verses (which would take way too long)–

Preservation of life of the righteous – 12:7, 15:5, 21:4, 37:27, 55:22, 61:7, 112:6, 121:8 (yet the righteous, including David himself, did eventually die!)

Individuals worshiping God – 5:11, 30:12, 52:9, 75:9, 86:12, 89:1, 115:18 (yet David repeatedly writes that, once one dies, they can no longer worship God – Ps. 6:4-5, 30:8-10, 88:9-12, 115:17)

Blessing of the righteous – 28:9, 45:2 (yet the righteous, including David himself, did indeed experience adversity, and eventually died)

The prosperity of the ungodly – 73:12 (yet the ungodly are, immediately afterward, said to be ruined and destroyed! Ps. 73:18-19!)

The earth – 78:69, 104:5 (yet this earth will be destroyed – Is. 65:17, 2 Pet. 3:10, Rev. 21:1)

The keeping of the Mosaic law – 119:44, 93, 98, 111-112, 142, 144, 152, 160 (yet the Law will pass away after the current heavens and earth pass away – Matt. 5:18, cf. Rev. 21:1)

Mount Zion – 125:1-2 (yet this earth, including Mount Zion, will be destroyed – Is. 65:17, 2 Pet. 3:10.)

From these, we can clearly see that it is indisputable, in the Psalms, that ‘olam’ cannot mean ‘eternal’ or ‘forever.’

Ecclesiastes 1:4–

One generation passes, and another generation comes: but the earth abides forever.

Again, we know that the earth will not abide forever, as Isaiah, Revelation, and 2 Peter make abundantly clear.

Isaiah 32:14–

The fortress will be abandoned, the noisy city deserted; citadel and watchtower will become a wasteland forever, the delight of donkeys, a pasture for flocks.

However, in the very next verse, it qualities this phrase by saying ‘until the spirit is poured on us from on high.’ The words ‘forever’ and ‘until’ simply do not mix.

Isaiah 34:10–

Night and day it shall not be quenched; its smoke shall go up forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it forever.

Here, Isaiah speaks of the destruction of Edom, and it should be obvious that the smoke is no longer going up; this is clearly hyperbolic language referring to the extent of the destruction – not to an everlasting period.

Jeremiah 17:4–

You shall loosen your hand from your heritage that I gave to you, and I will make you serve your enemies in a land that you do not know, for in my anger a fire is kindled that shall burn forever.

Here, Jeremiah writes that the ‘fire of Yahweh’ will burn ‘olam’ against Israel, even though God later says that His anger will cease (30:24) and that He would again show ‘olam’ mercy and love to Israel (31:3, 33:11.) This is a common theme throughout the book of Jeremiah: we are repeatedly told that Israel will be an ‘olam’ desolation and reproach (18:16, 20:11, 23:40, 25:9,) and yet the duration of their punishment is also explicitly stated to be only seventy years, even just a few verses later (25:11-12, 29:10.)

Jeremiah 51:26–

No rock will be taken from you for a cornerstone, nor any stone for a foundation, for you will be desolate forever, declares Yahweh.

Jeremiah states here (and elsewhere, 51:39, 57, 62) that Babylon will be an ‘olam’ desolation, although it again flourished under Hellenic rule just two centuries later, and there was a major Jewish contingent there, even during the time of Christ.

Ezekiel 35:5–

Because you maintained an eternal hatred, and have shed the blood of the children of Israel by the force of the sword in the time of their calamity.

This verse speaks of the rivalry between Israel and Edom. Edom did not always exist, and like all nations, will eventually cease to exist, so its hatred cannot be ‘eternal’ (either past or future.)

Ezekiel 46:14–

And thou shalt prepare a meat offering for it every morning, the sixth part of an ephah, and the third part of a hin of oil, to temper with the fine flour; a meat offering continually by an eternal ordinance unto Yahweh.

Ezekiel speaks of an offering made at the Messianic age, but there will no longer be a temple after the Messianic age (Rev. 21:22,) and so in this case ‘olam’ can refer to a period no longer than the 1000 years of that age (Rev. 20:4-6.)

And, finally, here’s my favorite: Jonah 2:6–

To the roots of the mountains I sank down; the earth beneath barred me in forever. But you, Yahweh, my God, brought my life up from the pit.

Does anyone truly believe that Jona was in the belly of the whale forever, when Scripture explicitly states that he was there for three days and three nights in Jonah 1:17? Need I say more?

Finally, I would like to address the argument by some that, because the word ‘olam’ is applied to God throughout the Old Testament, and God is everlasting, that the word ‘olam’ must then mean ‘everlasting’ in each and every instance.

First: ‘olam’ is used variously to describe:

-       God Himself (Gen. 21:33, Ps. 9:7, 93:2, 102:12, Is. 40:28, Lam. 5:19, Dan. 4:34)

-       God’s name (Ex. 3:15, 1 Chron. 17:24, Ps. 72:19, 135:13, Is. 63:12, 16)

-       God’s reign as King (Ps. 29:10, 92:8, 146:10, Jer. 10:10)

-       God’s mercy (1 Chron. 16:34, 41, 2 Chron. 5:13, 7:3, 6, 20:21, Ps. 89:2, 28, 100:5, 106:1, 107:1, 118:1-4, 29, 136, 138:8, Is. 54:8, Jer. 33:11)

-       And various other attributes of God (Deut. 32:40, 33:27, Ps. 33:11, 104:31, 119:89, Is. 26:4, 40:8, Hab. 3:6)

The argument that, because God is described as ‘olam’ that this word must always mean ‘everlasting,’ is very obviously fallacious. It has been shown now that ‘olam’ refers to a period of time; the existence of God, being eternal, always stretches indefinitely into the future, and so can rightly be described as ‘olam.’ Furthermore, if we took this word to always mean an ‘everlasting period of time,’ this would create a contradiction in the 102+ examples of ‘olam’ not meaning everlasting.

Another clue to this puzzle is found in the many instances where God is described as not only ‘olam,’ but ‘le olam wa’ed’ – ‘for olam and further.’ See the following examples:

Yahweh shall reign ‘for olam and further’ – Ex. 15:18

Blessed be Yahweh, God of Israel, from the ‘olam’ to the ‘olam’ – 1 Chron. 16:36

Blessed are You, Yahweh, God of Israel, our Father, from the ‘olam to the olam’ – 1 Chron. 29:10

Bless Yahweh, your God, from the ‘olam to the olam’ – Neh. 9:5

Yahweh is King for ‘olam and further’ – Ps. 10:16

Even from ‘olam to olam,’ You are God. – Ps. 90:2

I will bless Your name for ‘olam and further’… and I will praise Your name for ‘olam and further.’ – Ps. 145:1-2

It should be obvious that, if there are multiple ‘olams,’ such that God can be ‘from olam to olam,’ and if it is possible to say ‘for olam and further,’ then the ‘olam’ itself cannot refer to an ‘everlasting period,’ even when used in reference to God.

But then – how can God and His attributes be described as ‘olam,’ if He exists for longer than the ‘olam?’ Well, if we recognize that ‘olam’ refers to the current period of time in which one is living, a set period of time stretching into the past and future, then God’s characterization as ‘olam’ means that He operates and works in the current ‘olam.’ He is not a distant and unapproachable God, but exists as our helper in this present ‘olam.’

The ‘eonian’ God.

The answer to the question, ‘Does God exist for the “olam?”’ is, ‘Yes, He is our “olam” God.’ But He does not exist only for the ‘olam’ – He exists for ‘olam and further,’ from the ‘olam to the olam.’

The argument against ‘the eonian God’ is equivalent to the idea that, because Yahweh is characterized as ‘Lord of all the earth’ (Josh. 3:11-13,) that He would not be the ‘Lord’ of anything else. That He is the ‘Lord of all the earth’ does not contradict that He is also the God of everything else – much how the fact that He is the ‘eonian God’ does not contradict that He is, by nature, eternal.

To end – although we have focused on the Old Testament (in order to illuminate the meaning of the word in the New Testament,) I would like to focus on one of my favorite examples of this word in the Greek Scriptures. In Luke 1:32-33, we are told of Jesus, that ‘He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over Jacob’s descendants ‘forever.’

However, in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, Paul writes the following:

Then the end will come, when [Christ] hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. For He must be reigning UNTIL He should be placing all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy is being abolished: death. For He subjects all under His feet. Now, whenever He may be saying that ‘all is subject,’ it is evident that it is outside of Him Who subjects all to Him. Now, whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all.)

How could Christ ‘reign forever,’ but also only reign ‘until He has placed all His enemies under His feet’ and ‘hand over the kingdom to God the Father?’ Hopefully, you can apprehend the answer to that by now…

I believe wholeheartedly that any honest student of Scripture should be able to dwell on the wonderful article written by Chris and Andrew P. above and reflect on such a translation as “eternal.” To note that we are dealing with a length of time and not an unending, never-beginning-never-ending time, is very influential in our understanding of its use.

Look. I am in complete agreement with Christianity as to the horror of the Adversary. No one on this bloody earth can look at it with a straight face and go, “Yeah! This is perfect!” (Well, I guess Preterists can, but that’s another story for another day.) There’s the very human side of me that loathes the Adversary. I would go so far as to say that I wish to see him writhing in torment. I want to watch this Adversary beg, plead, and cry out as my Lord did. I want to see it suffer for every lie it inflicted on my family, my friends, on me, on Alex, on all. I want to see it pay for the disruption of the world, and, I swear, I will delight in every moment of ache that this demon has to deal with.

With that said – I cannot deny the saving power of my Lord, for He saved me. As Alex can tell, I’m very pedantic, anal-retentive, and, for all intents and purposes, I’m just plain annoying, most days. I’m like that little shithead from The Polar Express (shut up, little guy! No one cares what kind of train this is.) But if He can save me, and, moreover, if He can save Saul into Paul, then He is most certainly capable of saving all.

This includes the stupid demon that I loathe, for, when we honestly consider the KJV’s Rev. 20:10, we find it in grave error. “For ever and ever?” What is the “and ever” in relation to? I could understand if we were to translate the term in relation to its Hebrew counterpart, “for the eon and further,” but “for ever and ever” would deny the reconciliation of the universe that God has in view in passages such as Col. 1:15-20 and Phil. 2:9-11. Scripture is harmonious, so this does not work.

And the Adversary who is deceiving them was cast into the lake of fire and sulphur, where the wild beast and where the false prophet are also. And they shall be tormented day and night for the eons of the eons.

(to be concluded)

- GerudoKing