Romans – God’s Timeline XIII: The Priesthood, and wrapping up Eon 4

 

Will the Priesthood Last “Forever”?

We will now consider one of the most fascinating proofs that “for the eon” cannot possibly mean “eternal.” There are six different uses of the phrase “for the eon” in Hebrews, and all six have to do with the Hebrew priesthood. We will be taking a look at each of them.

Let’s get this out of the way, first and foremost, before we begin. Five of the six uses of this phrase are translated “for ever” by the King James Version. Yet such a translation which would indicate that the “priesthood” would last “forever” have no proper grasp of the priesthood of the Old Testament.

The priesthood was never designed to mediate between man and God forever. It was a symbol of distance and separation between God and man. Prior to Adam eating the fruit in Eden, no distance or separation was needed. It became so when Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law (notably titled the high priest of Midian,) realized that Moses’ method of gathering all the Israelites and hearing their disputes and enforcing a judgment was exhaustive, both for himself and for the nation (Ex. 18:13-23.) The priesthood was established to deal with mediations between God and man, during the turbulent growing pains of Israel’s history (Ex. 28-29.) This will indeed require its own study, when we get to it in the Pentateuch.

The mediatorial role of the priesthood paused during specific intervals of time – namely, during the Babylonian exile, as well as the period between the first Jewish-Roman war and now. The most notable periods of time in which the priesthood are absent, however, are at the beginning of human history, and on the new earth. In Eden, Adam and Eve had many conversations with Elohim. Indeed, throughout the entirety of the second eon, there are some notable conversations between God and man (Cain in Gen. 4:9-15, Noah in 6:13-21.) As irreverence multiplied across the face of the earth, the purpose of a Mediator was aptly demonstrated, notably in God’s decision to keep the first murderer, Cain, alive, and show the fallout through his lineage.

The lack of the priesthood on the new earth is also evident. We read, earlier in this series, the first verse of Revelation 21. Let us press on to verses 2-4–

And I perceived the holy city, new Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I hear a loud voice out of the throne saying, “Lo! the tabernacle of God is with mankind, and He will be tabernacling with them, and they will be His peoples, and God Himself will be with them. And He will be brushing away every tear from their eyes. And death will be no more, nor mourning, nor clamor, nor misery; they will be no more, for the former things passed away.”

The student of the Old Testament will be able to verify that the tabernacle in the wilderness, as well as Solomon’s and Zerubbabel’s temples, were the official “dwelling place” of God prior to Christ’s descent. With the renting of the temple curtain, the ascent of the Christ, the general failure of the Pentecostal administration, and the establishment of Paul’s evangel, God’s “dwelling place” today is not in a temple made by hands (Acts 17:24.) He dwells instead in the member of the body of Christ, now (Rom. 8:11, 1 Cor. 3:16, 2 Cor. 6:16-18.)

Such a concept will not last forever, however, for the body of Christ is soon to be snatched away. The third “temple,” being the Christ, will be restored in the coming eon, the living Mediator between God and man. And later, on the new earth, there will be no temple, but God openly tabernacling with mankind. He will be with them. No priestly mediation will be necessary, thus abolishing the priesthood, as a priest is only necessary where sin is present and obstructive (Heb. 5:1.)

As such, we could not say that any priesthood lasts “forever,” for God gives a greater alternative than a priest on the new earth. We further cannot claim that the phrases “for the eon” in relation to the priesthood could refer to this eon, as we will observe. God rent the temple curtain, effectively ceasing private affairs through a priesthood for the time being. When we view these verses with these incontrovertible facts in mind, we once again find prolific error in the King James’ “forever” nonsense.

“Eon,” Singular: For the Eon

Let us now observe all six uses of the phrase “for the eon” in Hebrews, starting in Heb. 5:6–

Christ also does not glorify Himself by ‘becoming’ a chief priest, but He Who speaks to Him, “My Son are You! I, today, have begotten You,” according as in a different place also He is saying, “You are a priest for the eon according to the order of Melchizedek…”

And again, in 6:20 (noting that the impending eon is still the object, the goal, per 6:5, and noting that the rewards for the faithful within the allotment of the promises for Israel are in view, per 6:11-15)–

 We may have a strong consolation, [we] who are fleeing for refuge to lay hold of the expectation lying before us, which we have as an anchor of the soul, both secure and confirmed, and entering into the interior beyond the curtain, where the Forerunner, Jesus, entered for our sakes, becoming Chief Priest according to the order of Melchizedek for the eon.

And again, in 7:17 and 21–

For He is attesting that “You are a priest for the eon according to the order of Melchizedek.”…

And, in as much as it was not apart from the swearing of an oath, (for these, indeed, are priests, having become so apart from the swearing of an oath, yet that One with the searing of an oath by Him Who is saying to Him, “The Lord sears and will not be regretting it, ‘You are a priest for the eon according to the order of Melchizedek.’”)

Aaaand twice more in 7:24 and 7:28–

And these indeed, are more than one, having become priests because death prevents them from abiding; yet that One, because of His remaining for the eon, has an inviolate priesthood…

For the law is appointing men chief priests who have infirmity, yet the word sworn in in the oath which is after the law, appoints the Son, perfected, for the eon.

We could spend time discussing the contrast between the order of Melchizedek and the Levitical priesthood, but that’s quite a complicated subject and doesn’t contribute toward the larger “timeline” discussion. What we do see in these passages is a repeated, direct affirmation that Christ is a part of the order of Melchizedek, for the eon. This deals with Christ as the successful Mediator, under law, with Israel and the nations (as the priesthood is a national office.) As such, we may fairly defer each one of these uses of “for the eon” to the impending or coming kingdom eon, when the priesthood will once again become necessary.

Thus we have a fuller grasp of the priesthood in the context of the eonian times. If the priesthood were “forever,” as the six passages above state in the King James Version, then we must be implying that sin will always exist, and thus a mediator will always be necessary. This cannot be so, for Paul not only told us back in Romans 5:18-19 that all of humanity shall be justified, which will remove the pock marks of sin, but later tells us in the farthest reaching prophecy, in 1 Cor. 15:22-28, that death will be the last enemy abolished (1 Cor. 15:26.) This, with the independent remarks of John in Rev. 21:2-4, should be enough, once again, to establish the infirm nature of every other translation.

*   *   *

There are a few more uses of the phrase “for the eon” which directly relate to the fourth eon. This next one appears in 2 Cor. 9:9–

Now God is able to lavish every grace on you, that, having every contentment in everything always, you may be superabounding in every good work, according as it is written, ‘He scatters, He gives to the drudges, His righteousness remains for the eon.’

Righteousness is not a characteristic of this eon, but the following. Paul liberally draws upon Ps. 112:9, a chapter which directly concerns Christ’s bountiful blessings toward the citizens of His coming kingdom. I will note that I’m not standing too prominently on that, and if you told me that there were merit for this use of “for the eon” referring to this eon, due to Paul’s repurposing of the passage, I could nod my head and accept that.

Let’s briefly observe 1 Peter 1:25, who speaks to the dispersion–

…love one another out of a true heart earnestly, having been regenerated, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God, living and permanent, because “All flesh is grass, and all its glory is as the flower of grass. Withered is the grass, and the flower falls off… Yet the declaration of the Lord is remaining for the eon.” Now this is the declaration which is being brought to you in the evangel.

This is another passage which has been translated “forever” in the KJV, and many who reason out of their hearts will say, “Oh, doesn’t the word of God last forever, though? Why would it vanish?” But when we view the passage in its context, we cannot say that the passage speaks of a permanence. We witness Peter, one of the rulers of the coming kingdom, who expect it and continually teach of it, who compares the temporary, wilting nature of the flesh’s glory with the lasting fulfillments of the Lord. The evangel in view is the evangel of the kingdom. Keep in mind that most passages concerning this evangel of the kingdom are fulfilled through the 1,000 years of the fourth eon. Thus as long as the kingdom is structured as it is in the fourth eon, the declaration of the Lord remains. By noting that it is not “forever,” there is no concession that the word of God is not beautiful, or even failing, but that it will soon pass by, having been fulfilled.

This phrase is further exposed in the latter portion of the New Testament. Let’s look again at the passage 1 John 2:17–

Be not loving the world, neither that which is in the world. If ever anyone is loving the world, the love of the Father is not in him, for everything that is in the world, the desire of the flesh, and the desire of the eyes, and the ostentation of living, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world is passing by, and its desire, yet he who is doing the will of God is remaining for the eon.

Note the similar verbiage – “remaining for the eon.” This cannot refer to the immediate eon, for, once again, those who have withstood the world’s desires and instead have enacted the will of God, are currently dead. Only in the “former resurrection” of Rev. 20:6 will not be seeing death for the eon (Rev. 20:4-6.)

And again, we may look at 2 John 1:2–

The elder, to the chosen lady and her children, whom I am loving in truth, and not I only, but all also who know the truth, because of the truth which is remaining in us, and will be with us for the eon.

Once again, this must be for the eon, that is, the fourth eon, as the truth which both Peter and John observed is for the coming kingdom. It cannot be “forever,” for Peter and John died, and are not able to “remain” in truth for the eon if they’re dead.

Let us consider the final use of “for the eon” in Jude 1:13–

These are the reefs in your love feasts, carousing with you fearlessly, shepherding themselves; waterless clouds carried aside by winds; trees that are sear, unfruitful, twice dying, uprooted; wild billows of the sea, frothing forth their own shame; straying stars, for whom the gloom of darkness has been kept for an eon.

Those who “shepherd themselves” are the false leaders of Israel. They “die twice,” both in the current eon and as their judgment penalty on the day of judgment, at the end of the fourth eon. The period of time of their death over the course of the fourth eon is the “gloom of darkness” in view, which will aptly contrast the righteous nature of the coming kingdom. Once again, we have no reason to call this “forever,” as they can’t “die twice” and yet have darkness be kept over them “for ever,” especially in light of Paul’s prophetic statement in Rom. 5:18-19.

“Eon,” Singular: the Conclusion of the Eon

There is only one use of the phrase “the conclusion of the eon” which refers to the fourth eon. We may briefly consider it now, as we had considered during the Romans overview. Observe Matt. 28:20–

Jesus speaks to them, saying, “Given to Me was all authority in heaven and on the earth. Going, then, disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to be keeping all, whatever I direct you. And lo! I am with you all the days till the conclusion of the eon! Amen!”

This passage has been one of the most controversial in Christendom, being usurped so as to be taken in reference to the now, as the King James and most other versions will translate this as “the end of the world,” and will use that as an excuse to steal the evangel of the kingdom from Israel and further dismiss Paul’s evangel in Rom. 3:21-4:25. They call it the “Great Commission,” and yet every other reference to this commission from Jesus (Mark 16:15-18, Luke 24:46-49, Acts 1:4-8,) indicate that they are fulfilled in the past already, in Acts (2:4, 38, 5:16, 8:7, 9:40, 10:46, 16:18, 19:6, 12, 20:9-10, 28:3-5.)

Where does that leave us? For, shortly after Jesus says this, He leaves the disciples while they go on discipling. You may initially argue that He remained with them “in spirit,” which is true. Nevertheless, Jesus does not solely say “I am with you all the days of your life,” but till the conclusion of the eon. I stress once more that the disciples are dead now, and cannot be alive until the “end of the world,” as the KJV would claim it, but more aligned with the terminology, until the conclusion of this eon. The only logical conclusion is that He would be referring to the coming eon, in which those who are resurrected will live for the entire duration (Rev. 20:4-6.)

Assuredly, no one would tell me that “eternity” fits here? Even the KJV schmanslators knew this by imposing “world” into the term. The word “till” is a cap, ending the durational length “all the days.” Furthermore, eternity doesn’t conclude. I know, I know, I can’t believe it’s not butter.

Thus we have now considered each use of the word aion (save one) in relation to the current time and the impending time. We have seen no intimation that the word means “forever,” and have seen that the context repeatedly rejects this insinuation. I hope that these considerations have enabled you to question the so-called authority of the churches which refuse a simple pattern of sound words. Seriously: everything we have considered so far has been a sensible reading of the text. No “insane” rendering, and I’m confident that any interpretive error is on my end, and not on God’s ability to use this word aion as a length of time.

To quote A.E. Knoch, “If aion sometimes means a limited and sometimes an unlimited time, then we need a pope, or a church, or human tradition to tell us what it means in each case, and divine inspiration vanishes, and is replaced by corrupt human mentality” (U.R. Vol. 27, p. 175.) The hypocrisy of those who detain the word aion in this “forever” state, when every context we’ve considered so far blatantly denies it, is exposed by the simplest of studies on each use. We aren’t in the 1600s anymore, guys. This information is readily available on the internet, and all who actively shun studies such as these are revealing their ignorance to God’s word on this matter. Let all who love the truth begin to apprehend the eons, by which we are adjusted to a declaration of God (Heb. 11:3.)

In the next article, I will begin to show every use of aion in its plural form.

- GerudoKing