Romans – God’s Timeline XXXIII: Tying up Loose Ends in Hebrews

 

The Eonian God

To briefly pause the “Hebrew” considerations, there is only one passage where “eonian” is applied to God, in Romans 16:26–

Now to Him Who is able to establish you in accord with my evangel, and the heralding of Christ Jesus in accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian, yet manifested now and through prophetic scriptures, according to the injunction of the eonian God being made known to all nations for faith-obedience -- to the only, and wise God, through Christ Jesus, be glory for the eons of the eons. Amen!

Now, I quoted the entire valediction of Romans here because I want to note the three other uses of aion and its adjectival form. In the first use of “eonian,” the term is undeniably rooted in time, given the context, as we covered back in article 8. And we have considered the glory of God through Christ Jesus specifically to be for the eons of the eons, which would undeniably be for a specific period of time, given Christ gives up the kingdom at the conclusion of these eons to end His reign (cf. 1 Cor. 15:22-28.)

Knowing this, let me ask you: if times eonian is clearly time related, and eons of the eons is clearly time related, then how on earth is the same word suddenly not time related??

For the same exact reason that people translated “eonian spirit” as eternal spirit, that’s why! Yet the same refutation would apply! This is not a limitation on “God,” as this comedian claimed, but an affirmation that this God lasts through the eons. It should be evident to anyone reading the Bible that God made time. He dictates the end from the beginning. It is clear that this One is not subject to time from the get-go! Paul should not have to clarify, after ~2,000 pages of Holy Writ, that God is eternal. If you missed this fact from the entirety of the prior passages, then boy, do I have a few English classes for you!

It must be asked: how does “eonian God” fit contextually at the end of Romans? We will study it in more depth when we get there, of course, but for now, let us appreciate the context for the passage itself. The secret of the evangel which is in view has no application outside the eons. What’s the point of proclaiming an evangel concerning God’s Son if all now know the evangel concerning God’s Son?

Right.

Hence the God Who is unveiling the secret of the evangel is revealed to us here in such a relation to the eons. At the consummation, this aspect of God will be readily identifiable, but in a historical sense, as the eons will then be past.

This title, then, is deeply intimate, for few to even know and appreciate today. By faith, we are apprehending the eons (Heb. 11:3.) This adjusts us to a declaration of God. Why should we be adjusted to a declaration of God if not to learn about Him? In learning about Him now, before the consummation, we can appreciate this eonian aspect. He is the God of all the eons – of all time – and ceases to be the eonian God when the eons are past (not that He Himself changes, Mr. Strawman, but that the eons change from “happening” to “happened.”) We have a vital relation to Him in the context of Paul’s evangel, in which believers enjoy the eonian blessings of this eonian God.

Final Two Uses of ‘Eonian’ in Hebrews

There are two more uses of ‘eonian’ in Hebrews. The first is in Hebrews 9:15. To briefly review, here is the entire passage:

Now Christ, coming along a Chief Priest of the impending good things through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not of this creation; not even through the blood of he-goats and calves, but through His own blood, entered once for all time into the holy places, finding eonian redemption.

For if the blood of he-goats and of bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the contaminated, is hallowing to the cleanness of the flesh, how much rather shall the blood of Christ, Who, through the eonian spirit offers Himself flawless to God, be cleansing your conscience from dead works to be offering divine service to the living and true God?

And therefore He is the Mediator of a new covenant, so that at a death occurring for the deliverance of the transgressions of those under the first covenant, those who are called may be obtaining the promise of the eonian enjoyment of the allotment.

It cannot be impressed upon us enough that these passages are for Israel, not for us today. The sacrifices in reference are those of Levitical law. Christ is being represented as the Chief Priest as typed in the law. The cleansing resulting from the cross is for Israel, as opposed to our justification through Paul’s evangel. The new covenant is promised to God’s chosen people, Israel, per Jeremiah. The allotment in view is the land promised to Israel. The promise of the enjoyment of their allotment is entirely contingent on keeping the precepts of Israel.

This is an eonian enjoyment because this eon, and the following eon, concern this promise in Israel and its fulfillment for the Hebrew. This is yet another example of the term not meaning eternal, for the promise most certainly had a beginning, and concludes with the consummation of the kingdom.

The final use of “eonian” in Hebrews appears in 13:20-21–

Now may the God of peace, Who is leading up our Lord Jesus, the great Shepherd of the sheep, from among the dead by the blood of the eonian covenant, be adapting you to every good work to do His will, doing in us what is well pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to Whom be glory for the eons of the eons. Amen!

There’s that figure again – the Shepherd of the sheep (see part 30.) The eonian covenant in view is the same covenant referred to in Is. 61:8, being the “new” covenant referred to throughout Hebrews, which was promised in the Old Testament.

First, it must be noted that, like the “enjoyment of the allotment,” the eonian covenant cannot possibly mean “eternal,” given the wealth of evidence concerning the well-established timeline in this study. The eonian covenant exists as a promise at present, but is not true as to fact. The Jewish religious institutions which dominate modern day Israel are not “from God.” They may be set about by God as a contrast to His coming kingdom, much like sin is a necessary foil to righteousness, but by no means can the present government in Israel be called “God’s kingdom,” or “God’s government.” This would be pious and wrong; any rational individual not inundated by nationalist propaganda will be able to recognize that the poor state of Israel’s government and their altogether ignorance toward God is overwhelming proof that theirs is not the realized “kingdom of the heavens” which Jesus prophesied.

This did not begin with the recent restoration of the nation of Israel in 1948. Even when they had their plot of land under Roman jurisdiction, Jesus called out this false narrative from the Pharisees in his day through the five-fold parable I discussed in this discussion with my biggest fan. Since this figure in Luke 16 ends with another topical use of “eonian,” let’s consider it.

To quote myself on this parable in Luke 16:1-9,

“It is extremely easy, I think, to make the connection that the unjust stewards represent corrupt Israelite traditions (Matt. 23:23, Mark 7:1-13, Luke 11:39, etc.) Just as the unjust stewards discounted their lord’s claims so that they could gain wealth for themselves apart from him, so also the pharisees discounted the law’s righteous claims so that they could establish their own righteousness apart from God (Rom. 10:2-4.) And what’s even worse is witnessing that the unjust steward is commended by the unjust lord! This correlation between the pharisees and a false lord is not an unfamiliar one. Jesus spent plenty of time during His ministry highlighting that the pharisees’ father is not God, but Satan (John 8:15-55 is the written example of this.)”

Sure enough, Jesus ends the breakdown of this fourth figure thus:

And am I saying to you, Make for yourselves friends with the mammon of injustice, that, whenever it may be defaulting, they should be receiving you into the eonian tabernacles? He who is faithful in the least is faithful in much also, and he who is unjust in the least is unjust in much also.

I italicized the “I” there because it is emphatic in Greek. It emphasizes a contrast between the unjust lord and Jesus Himself. Jesus is asking a rhetorical question. Think about this practically: would Jesus tell you to deify wealth unjustly, make that a critical aspect of your character, and expect to be sheltered in the coming kingdom? It’s truly this simple. Would such a line of thought make any sort of sense?

Indeed, it does not, and this is the message that Jesus was conveying to the Pharisees, who were focused on buying and selling in the temple (Luke 16:14, John 2:13-14.) One would not receive a tabernacle in the coming kingdom of which they were allotted if they were busy serving a completely different lord (Luke 16:13.) Only faith toward God through Jesus suffices for the Hebrews’ place in the coming kingdom, and this faith, unlike our place in Christ, requires good works to prove it.

The Parable of the Shoes

As we wrap up this portion of the study, I’d like to review by highlighting the lynch pin to all of these passages in Hebrews. We have considered six different uses of “eonian” in Hebrews, and five of those six are clearly not “eternal” in light of the clear story beats given throughout Israel’s history.

Here, think about it like this. Let me give you a parable. A certain linguist sought to share his native language across many countries in need of it. To do so, he needed durable shoes for his journey.

Two cobblers brought their work before him. The first gave him shoes made of iron, heavy and unbending. “These will last forever!” the cobbler boasted. “You could keep these shoes for the rest of your journey and further.”

The second cobbler gave him shoes of strong leather. “These shoes are adaptable, and will comfort your feet throughout your travels.”

The linguist pondered both, but the apparent durability of the iron shoes enticed him, and he wore them instead.

Of course, as he traveled, he began to realize many issues with the iron shoes. They would clank against each other, rattling his ankles. They would weigh his feet down, making his legwork more tiresome. And, worse still, the shoes could only be worn on flat plains or paths, without much rock or debris. It took him much longer to circle around mountains and valleys, causing him much grief on his intended path.

Eventually, the linguist became fed up with his situation. “Enough of this!” he cried, and heaved the shoes into the nearest body of water. He pulled the leather shoes out of his knapsack and tried them on instead.

What a relief! The leather shoes were soft enough to mold to the foot, and so alleviated his aches, yet remained durable enough for him to traverse almost any land and trial. They fit the traveler – not solely the road.

This is not a subtle parable, but I’m not trying to be subtle. Here is the key. We have a thought puzzle: What does this word mean? And we have two solutions set before us: eternal (the iron shoes) or through the eons (the leather shoes.) We consider every single use of this word, and find that “eternal” only fits a handful of times. In contrast, “through the eons” is an easily adaptable definition, which impresses itself to any object presented for it so far, while also remaining true to its noun alternative. With such a durable answer, which is founded on facts from the text, why shouldn’t we acknowledge and be edified through it? Why should we let tradition bog us down when the text is clarifying things that tradition has obscured? Why should we turn off our brain when God so clearly desires for it to be on?

- GerudoKing