The Creation of the ‘Olam Ha’ba
in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the [c]world. Hebrews 1:2 NASB
The world – At least they added a footnote. The footnote indicates that the Greek word here is not “cosmos,” the word we would have expected in a translation such as “world” or “universe” (NIV). The word is actually aionas, a word that is usually translated as “age.” A few comments are noteworthy:
In the OT this means first that God always was (Gen. 21:23) and will be (Dt. 5:23), in contrast to us mortals. By the time of Is. 40:28 this comes to mean that God is eternal, the “First and Last,” whose being is “from eternity to eternity” (Ps. 90:2). Eternity is unending time, but in later Judaism it is sometimes set in antithesis to time.[1]
aiṓn as the Time of the World; the End of the aiṓn. In the plural the sense of aiōn is that of a stretch of time. In particular the word is used for the duration of the world. Thus the same term can signify both God’s eternity and the world’s duration (cf. the Parsee word zrvan). The doctrine of creation—an absolute beginning—underlay the distinction in use. aiṓn for time of the world occurs in the NT in the expression “end of the aeon” (Mt. 13:39 etc.). The plural in Heb. 9:26 and 1 Cor. 10:11 (aeons) represents no essential change; it merely indicates that the one aeon is made up of many smaller aeons, though as yet the word is not used for a particular period.[2]
aiṓn as World. From “time of the world” aiṓn easily came to mean the “world” itself (cf. Mt. 13:22; 1 Cor. 7:33) with an equation of cosmos and aeon (1 Cor. 1:20; 2:6; 3:19). The plural can mean “worlds” along the same lines (Heb. 1:2; 11:3).[3]
Consider some of the implications. First, notice that later Judaism set aion in opposition to the abstract idea of time. This is the result of adopting Greek philosophical concepts (as I have demonstrated in my book, God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience). It is not consistent with the Hebrew of the Tanakh. Second, notice that the plural, aionas (which is in this verse) is typically about a duration of temporal experience. It is not about some timeless realm occupied by a First Cause divinity. Notice that the plural is used for “the duration of the world,” obviously a world experienced by human beings. Now pay attention to the final comment from TDNT. By the first century, after the influence of Hellenism, aiṓn was conflated with the idea of world itself. Sasse suggests that the plural “can mean ‘worlds’” in the same conflated way. But if we apply this to the occurrence in Hebrews 1:2, we should translate the verse, “through whom also He made the worlds.” That poses an immediate problem since we do not claim that God made many different universes. The better, and more usual, option is to translate the plural word as “ages.” Sasse notes, “If aiṓn means “duration of the world,” and the plural occurs, the idea is obvious that eternity embraces a succession or recurrence of aeons.”[4]
Why would the NASB and the NIV translate this word as “world,” singular and unusual? The answer is an attempt to reinforce the Trinitarian dogma with selective translation. As Chandler remarks, this is “emblematic of the Trinitarian effort to connect Jesus Christ to the Genesis creation.”[5] With this correction, we see that the author of Hebrews is not suggesting that a pre-incarnate Jesus created the universe as a person of the Trinity, but rather that YHVH appointed this man, the Messiah, as the first fruit of the age to come, and as the first fruit, that age depends entirely on him. In other words, YHVH appointed this man heir and head of this new age, the ‘olam ha’ba.
Chandler points out that the translation “made the world” is also suspect from the perspective of the verb choice. The Greek verb poieo can also mean “established” or the action of judicial and redemptive activity. It can refer to eschatological judgment. All of these legitimate alternatives do not require a Trinitarian view of the text. It appears that the translators have introduced a theological bias barely acknowledged in the footnote.
Paradigms prevail, even when it comes to interpretation of Scripture. If you don’t know your own assumptions, you will import them into your thinking without even realizing it.
Topical Index: world, kosmos, aionas, age, Trinity, creation, Hebrews 1:2
[1] Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (31–32). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Kegan A. Chandler, The God of Jesus in Light of Christian Dogma, p. 299.
Wow! , wow!!, wow!!!
The eons. We live in hope.
Jonathan Sacks says “Judaism believes in covenantal time, the story of the human journey in response to the divine call always with the possibility of repentance and return, always sustained by the vision with which the story began, where human virtue and divine blessedness meeting in the consummation of the covenant that we call redemption. (Greek time) tragedy gives rise to pessimism. Cyclical time (ancient cultures) leads to acceptance. Linear time (Enlightenment) begets optimism. Covenantal time gives birth to hope. Jewish time always faces an open future. The last chapter is not yet written … and we, together with God are it’s co- authors.”
May we all continue with the hope of a Jewish redemption journey to the olam ha’ba.
Thank you, George. I loved the quote.
Mayhaps 20 years ago or so I stumbled upon a commentary on Matthew 24 which uses the word “world” in several verses. When I ran it through my concordance there were at least 3 different definitions. Ainos. Kosmos and Oikemenay. I was astounded, and from that day forth I became a concordance reader. While it changed the way i read the Bible I never for a moment thought that anyone would consciously and deliberately alter scripture to establish doctrine. After all God’s Word states that if anyone alters or changes the Word you will answer for it bigtime. Well I learned different over time, and I’m still learning. One important thing I’ve learned to do is to swallow assumptions. That’s what I’m trying to do by coming here. It’s an eye opener for sure. Thanks Skip.
Well done Skip. Art Katz suggests in “The Spirit of truth” that “The Church has succeeded at being right but failed at being real” He was not a philosopher but did see many things clearly. Thanks agin for helping me see more clearly the lines between theology and philosophy. It helped me discern that philosophically Christianity is largely about being right and behaving properly, while the true Hebraic way of life is about becoming a real human-being who is fully alive. All our lives, this side of the olam-haba are trapped in time. As you clearly and consistently reinforce one must know the definition of terms in the age you are in and the age the Lord spoke into in order to understand what he who exists outside of the space and time continuum is trying to get through to us who are still caught in its clutches.
Mark, I have lived the experience (and had to see it to believe it) that you can have the words all right and the message all wrong.
G.K. Chesterton nails deeply the cognitive disconnect between reason and reality as defined by YHVH in scripture . He suggests contemporary Christianity & its Greek mind fixed on independent reason misses reality ” the man who cannot believe his senses, and the man who cannot believe anything else, are both insane, but their insanity is proved not by any error in their argument, but by the manifest mistake of their whole lives. They both lock themselves up in two boxes, painted inside with the sun and the stars; both unable to get out. To one into the health and happiness of heaven, the other even into the health and happiness of the earth. Their position is quite reasonable; nay infinitely reasonable, just as a three penny bit is infinitely circular. But here is such a thing as a mean infinity, a base and slavish eternity.”
I have noticed that this word is used in terms of personification; as a collective person in which God personally interacts with. I have considered that when I see this usage it appears to be as a corollary to the collective term “body” in reference to the Body of Christ. Thus, I see there is a collective unsaved body called “cosmos” or “world”, usually, with a definition of “earthy” and a saved one. We are considered to belong to either one subgroup or the other, and addressed accordingly, too. Again, the collective (unity) is being given a personal characteristic.
If the physical earth is being referred to I have seen that it is usually translated simply “earth” and used accordingly.
In both the OT and NT the plural form of this word is used for the eternality of YHWH, a long duration of time, or, seemingly, mortals who live in eternity. The following bears this out:
The first use of αἰών, aiōn in the LXX is in Gen 3:22, which is in the singular: “Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” (NASB). The first use of the plural is 2 Chron 6:2. The next use of the plural is LXX Ps 60:5 (eis tous aiōnas, “into the ages”, i.e. “forever”), which corresponds to MT Ps 61:4, a Psalm of David: “Let me dwell in Your tent forever” (NASB). [Numbering of LXX to MT in the Psalms is inconsistent.]
The first use of the plural in the NT is in Luke 1:33, which refers to the Messiah reigning “forever” (again, eis tous aiōnas). The next use is in Rom 1:25 in which Paul refers to the Creator “who is blessed forever, amen”. The same phrase is found in Rom 9:5 (a verse disputed as to its referent). Following that is Rom 11:36 (“to Him be the glory forever”) and the similar 16:27. Heb 11:3 is interesting: “by faith we understand that the worlds [ftnt: ‘ages’] were prepared by the word of God”, which should be seen with Heb 1:2, as it is God who “made the ages” through the Son (Messiah Yeshua). The way I see it, the NASB’s translation of “world” is weaker than “worlds” from a Trinitarian perspective. I’ve always thought it odd.
Later we come to Rev 1:17-18, in which Yeshua describes Himself as “the First and the Last”, “the Living One”, and then, in its most literal rendering “I am living into the ages of the ages” (zōn eimi eis tous aiōnas tōn aiōnōn). How do we harmonize this with the words in this TW?
If the world was the object of redemption, then wasn’t the objective of that salvation to return that world back to eternity? The way I read it, it is a usage that depicts a collective of human beings; specifically, humans in the experience of temporality. I understand that eternity is what the Saviour came to return us to in the resurrection. You ask “ages of ages” of what? Perhaps ages of life specifically for the saved, as opposed to empty time. Perhaps time does not even ‘exist’ (space word) without being framed by the life contained in (containing?) it?
This, in my mind, is YHVH’s version of “y’all mortal humans-in-need-of-eternity”. Christ’s Body, of course, being those that already have been.
Craig, you always build such a solid platform for productive thought by your sound scholarship (missing element for me). I wanted to thank you for that again.
What I was primarily driving at here in my comment was two-fold: the connection of the plural aiōnas with other usages, plus the direct connection of it explicitly with Yeshua as “the First and the Last” to compare with the TW’s By the time of Is. 40:28 this comes to mean that God is eternal, the “First and Last,” whose being is “from eternity to eternity” (Ps. 90:2). If both aiōnas and the title of “First and Last” are applied to Messiah, what does that indicate?
My contention is that the world was the object of redemption, and it was Messiah who will redeem it, as He was the agent of creation in the first place (John 1:1-3; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:2), and He is somehow the same as YHWH in the OT since He claims the same title “the First and the Last”.
Ok, got it. You are extrapolating further than the definition of the term itself, and making a point, too. I caught up.
I saw Skip address this a while back, but am interested in what others have to say about it, as it is still a dangling participle, so to speak, for me, too.
Back to the duck that walks, talks and acts like a duck perhaps being an actual duck? Like I tried to say before, I see you asking if the claims, work and homage are the same for the agency as for the Origin, then, to us at least (limited in sight and experience as we are), perhaps there is no way for us to ‘get beyond’ that apparent sameness (by experience, anyway) with esoteric knowledge that we lack (even though we know it must be there because there are so many unanswered questions)? Skip says appearance is important; more important, perhaps, than gnosis. Perhaps that may apply here?
Craig, doesn’t this discussion reflect exactly what Sacks is all about with his covenantal time vs. linear time? Its not about time at all, it is about relationships. Laurita is closer to it as a return to eternity that exists outside of time. Who wants, who needs a temporal world in an eternal aeon?
George,
I’d read your Sacks quote above, and I do believe I understand it as you originally quoted it above, but I’m having difficulty following you here. On the surface, the way I’m reading your comment here I would agree, but I’ve a feeling I’m missing your intended meaning. Can you clarify?
What we know.
What we suppose.
What we’re finding out.
Until the last 50 years or so, it appeared to man’s knowledge that only
one galaxy existed. Then the number increased to two. Eventually three.
Recently, discoveries have identified over 100 billion galaxies in the observable
universe!!
Makes one start to wonder how massive God’s work will be as Isaiah wrote:
“Behold I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be
remembered, nor will they come to mind.”
Who came up with the notion that aionas has anything to do with eternity? Is this not an anachronism from Hellenistic philosophy? What is the Hebrew idea behind this Greek word?
Here’s some considerations that may help us. I’ve read that this term has to do with something that’s over the horizon and maybe that’s where we get the idea of “eternity” as, when we move forward the horizon also moves in proportion, I know that I got that indication from it. But, here’s some things to consider, olam is a term that indicates something hidden but, in it’s other forms it means a youth and strength. The connection can be made by realizing that a youth is not the culmination of a man, only the potential of what that man may become depending on the choices he makes and strength is the same thing. Strength may be there to exercise but the question that remains is whether it’s exercising results in good or evil. (think Solomon) Finally habah is a term having to do with giving, as “hb” is to give and the H or “hey” at the end denotes that it’s made manifest. So in short, the olam habah seems to indicate that it’s a age (aion in the greek) of being given the fruits of the things we’ve initiated,, or the age of recompense. The “hidden” aspect, or over the horizon, seems to have more to do with the results of our actions than it has to do with the “time” aspect (eternity) but it certainly cannot be ruled out and seems to be part of it, but that’s a different study. Hope this helps someone.
That was exquisite, Robert. I am going to have to copy it until I memorize it.
The thing I keep getting is that time may be not be an ‘absolute’, or, form, as we have been taught it. Einstein began to crack the notion that it could be dependent. The question being, dependent on what? This discussion may be revealing some of the answer to that question? The form of time(/space) continuum perhaps is defined by the function of the choices of those contained with in it, but if that were so, perhaps it may be more accurate to think of it as time being contained within the choices of those particular choosers? We decide how ‘long’ the age is; we decide when Yeshua returns by our choices, too. I think I have my chewing gum (Mentene, of course) for the day!
When I first realized that the scriptures imply that something (real form) doesn’t exist until we “look” at it, I limited that to the thought that, for example, until we built a telescope that enabled us to see farther than we are able to see naturally, that those universes didn’t “technically” exist. What you are expressing here is the extension of that principle. It goes far beyond the “physical” aspect in that its not limited to the forms we perceive with our natural eyes but rather it involves the potential of the forms that will be in the olam Habah.
In light of Chandler’s claim regarding Heb 1:2, that the translation of aiōnas is “emblematic of the Trinitarian effort to connect Jesus Christ to the Genesis creation”, can someone tell me if he engages 1 Cor 8:6? I’ve heard Anthony Buzzard claim this is merely the Shema, but he stops short of the entire verse. Specifically, Buzzard quotes this portion only: yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist; and one Lord, Jesus Christ…. If we complete the final section it reads, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and through whom we exist. These are in parallel, illustrating that all things are from the Father, yet all things are through the Son. I’d say this “connects Jesus Christ to the Genesis creation”, in view of the complete context (vs. 4-6). What does Chandler say?
Craig: In my Bible software for dia (Strong 1223) the following are listed for meaning: through, by reason of, because of, on account of. Clearly most translations choose “through” (or by) making Jesus the instrument/agent of the creation action. Are the other options like by reason of/because of or on account of not possible here grammatically?
HSB,
Sorry, those options are not viable. When a preposition such as dia is used, the overall meaning is determined by the case of what follows. Here, what follows in both instances is a genitive, which means ‘going through’ either spatially (through an object), as a marker of time (“throughout”, “during”), instrumentality (something is accomplished or effected by an instrument of some sort, which could be, e.g., circumstances), or as a marker of personal agency. The latter is the only real option. The ones you suggest require an accusative case.
thanks Craig… so clearly instrumentality/agency is involved in this case associated with “all things”
Yes, but the context doesn’t support instrumentality as far as I can see.
Let me add: I appreciate that you asked the question–not as if I’m some sort of authority on the Greek, as I’m still learning. In any case, it’s too easy and tempting to just look at Strong’s and try to import just any definition into a verse to make it say what you may want.
so give me your best shot at a translation for “by/through whom are all things”, perhaps with an option of two that are possible but in your opinion less likely.
The entire verse is verbless, but the verb is found in v. 5—to be/exist. I’d render it one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist[/live]. Stylistically, it could be changed to: …and we exist through Him. Alternatively, perhaps it could be one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and by whom we exist[/live].
HSB,
I always try to fully think my comments when I write them, but there are times, upon reflection, that I think I could have phrased something a bit differently. This is one of those times. When I wrote above @ January 16, 2018 6:24 pm “…to make it say what you may want”, the you was meant generically and not specifically you. I usually use “one” instead of “you” in this kind of case, even though many find that overly formal and/or obsolete.
Craig,
As I currently have Chandler’s book I will respond to your request regarding,
1Co 8:6 ” yet to us is one God, the Father, of whom are the all things, and we to Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are the all things, and we through Him;”
(note that all the formatting was lost in copying over)
Page 431
“The Father’s role is that of Creator – while the Lord Jesus Christ is the one through whom are all things, that is, his role is that of an intermediary between God and the world. This echoes Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.””
Page 297 – 298
“John MacArthur writes that Jesus “spoke the world into being at creation . . .”. Of course, the Bible nowhere exhibits such a scene. Far from presenting the Son as speaking at any time before his birth, the New Testament offers a picture of a Son who has only recently come onto the scene:
God, after he spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the world (Hebrews 1:1-2 NASB).
Here a period of time in which the Son was not active in the divine revelation is described, despite the various Christological theories regarding the pre-birth activity of Jesus . . . But God, according to Hebrews 1, explicitly did not speak to the fathers through his Son until these last days, that is, until the recent days of Christ’s ministry and the founding of the Church. It should be impossible to say it was actually the Son speaking to Abraham in Genesis 14 . . . God, by himself, is always the creative source: “I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by myself and spreading out the earth all alone” Isaiah 44:24). Indeed, God’s language describing his own solidarity is emphatic:
I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides me there is no God . . . there is no other, the one forming light and creating darkness (Isaiah 45:5-7a) . . . God does not say “there is no other besides us,” . . . It is thus reasonably understood to be the Father only; . . . Do we not all have one Father? Has not one God created us?” Mal 2:10) . . . Has not my hand made made all these things?” (Is 66:2) . . . “Your hands made me and formed me” (Ps 119:73)”
Daniel,
Thanks for taking the time and effort to post this. That really helps.
One thing to consider in this verse is what “gods’ and “lords” means in verse 5, since verse 6 is juxtaposed with verse 5. We know what “gods” means, of course, and according to sources I’ve found “lords” was a term used in the ancient papyri for gods in the mystery cults.
Part of the issue here depends on just what “all things” refers to. The context doesn’t delimit it, but it’s not exactly explicit either. However, I don’t think we can limit it to merely the time of Yeshua and forward. Also, when the Greek article is used, as it is here, it connotes “all things” in a collective manner.
Another important aspect is that the second part of the clause (containing “Lord, Jesus Christ”) is in direct parallel with the first (with “God, the Father”), the only difference being the prepositions.
John MacArthur is wrong (again!). I’m fortunate living here in San Antonio, TX, as we have a fairly good Christian station, and I do sometimes listen to MacArthur. At times he has good insights, however I disagree with him on more than a few occasions.
I’ll forgo commenting on Chandler’s words on the rest (though in exegeting Heb 1:1-2, verse 3 should be included as well).
Craig,
I just want to make sure I didn’t accidentally misrepresent John MacArthur to you. He wrote that Jesus, “spoke the world into being at creation . . .”
Then it was Chandler who wrote, “Of course, the Bible nowhere exhibits such a scene . . . “
I say this because I am assuming that you too believe a pre-incarnate Jesus spoke the world into being. Or am I wrong? (If I confused you or anyone else, please forgive my poor reproduction of the original. I could not copy and paste out of a hard copy book.)
No, I understood you. If we read John 1 in its context, we find that it’s the Word whom all things came through; and it never states that “the Word” ‘spoke’ creation. I don’t think that trying to read Gen 1 through John 1 in such a literalistic fashion is the right way to harmonize the two. Plus, even if this were argued, it’s anachronistic to say it was Jesus at the creation event. In a Christian interpretation, “the Word” has always existed, but Jesus began His existence ca. 2BC to 1AD (+ or -), as Word-made-flesh. If MacArthur would have qualified it by “preexistent Jesus” (which sounds like an oxymoron), that’d been a bit better.
Much of my quotes are taking from hard copies, so I can understand and appreciate the labor involved.
Craig’s nice little survey of the Greek word, aion should illustrate that the average Bible reader is either completely confused, or unaware, as to what it really means. It is generally understood to mean, as per the KJV, “ever” (73x) and its adjective form, “ETERNAL” (42x) or “everlasting” (25x), but the KJV also translates them, “age”, (2x) “WORLD”, (43x) “never”, (7x) “evermore” (4x) and “course” (1x). Many other translations are not much better in clarity or consistency.
So how can the same word mean both “eternal” and “world” in the sense of the “Earth”? It can’t. The only way that “aion” can have a consistent meaning in the KJV is that “world” is not to be understood as the “earth” but must be understood as a period of time. I believe this was commonly understood for the AD 1611 readers, but maybe not so much today.
But if eternal is correct, how can there be a plurality of eternals? There can’t be. This is why the translations make themselves inconsistent.
Heb 1:2 NASB edited “in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the ETERNITIES.”
The last word in the NASB is actually, “world” but they deliberately used world instead of eternal because eternal is more difficult to make sense of, especially in the plural. And they are even less accurate than the KJV. At least it correctly keeps the word in the plural as “worlds”. But one way or the other, they both must explain a plurality of worlds or justify their incorrect use of the singular. All this, or just use the simple and obvious translation of “ages” as they did next.
Heb. 9:26 NASB “Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; [kosmos] but now once at the consummation of the ages [aion pl.] He has been manifested . . .”
Funny thing. This time the NASB DOES properly translate the plural form of aion to the English “ages”. Otherwise they would have used “world” to translate two completely different Greek words in the same verse. (So why didn’t they use “ages” in Heb 1:2 and be consistent?) Actually, I’m surprised they used the plural. Are they admitting that God works through a series of ages and that they come to a consummation? (Have you ever been taught about this series of ages?)
NASB 1 Corinthians 10:11 Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages [aion pl] have come.
Once again the NASB got this right. The “ages” are not worlds or eternities and they all come to an end, (whereas the KJV has the ends of the world.) But nevertheless, they go back into inconsistency.
NASB Eph 3:21 to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever [aion sing.] and ever [aion plural]. Amen.
This time, instead of having ages, they translate, “forever and ever”. (Apparently, forever is not long enough so God adds another ever.) But this is not the Greek. It reads, “for the age (singular) of the ages (plural)”. But, pray tell, what does that mean?
Strange as it sounds, it is not that unusual. We are familiar with, Lord of Lords, King of Kings and Holy of Holies. In each case the former is the superior of the latter. And so, thus also with a series of ages. Let me speculate on them. Perhaps there was one age before man was created, one up until the “fall”, one until the Flood, one until Jesus’ first coming, this present evil age, the Millennium and then its consummation. And so, this “age of the ages” would be the Millennium which is superior to all the rest.
Much else also turns on an aion not being an eternity. Might we dare speculate that God’s wrath does not last for ever and ever (note Ps 136) but only for a thousand-year eon after which, or during which, sinners have an opportunity to repent?
Daniel: I find your comments very interesting and helpful. I am aware that the Jewish religious authorities understood human history as six thousand years tracking the creation week of six days. The aions/ages were grouped in cohorts of 2000 years, namely 2000y “before the Law”, 2000y “under the Law”, the 2000y “days of Messiah”, then the final Sabbath of 1000 years (i.e. Millennium). Your suggestion of the increasing superiority of the later aions fits in. Yeshua came in the fulness of time and introduced the “days of Messiah” /last days mentioned in Acts. A shift of gears occurred 2000 years ago. We are just about due for the next “shift” into the Kingdom age on earth. Maranatha!
I’ll go with that, HSB. Thank you both.
So many words, so much discussion about time. I haven’t read anyone say a word about God’s eternal covenant. Why? Can God screw up and have to say “oops”? I don’t think so. We have no idea of what eternal means. That is our reality so we have to trust that God “knows” what He is doing, don’t we? Where has God’s eternal covenant been in all this discussion? I don’t know. Does anybody? How is that for a conundrum to finish it with!
I haven’t said anything about an eternal covenant because, outside of God Himself, there is no such Greek idea of infinity expressed in the Hebrew Scriptures. And I agree with your statement that we have no idea of what eternal means. Hebrews don’t deal in unfathomable abstracts.
Like marriage, all covenants last from their beginning to their end, and that might mean from one long eon to another but none of them are forever (and ever). God doesn’t make mistakes but He does change His operations from eon to eon. (Get ready.)
I followed a Jewish Moreh(?) Jewish scholar for bit. He and his wife are researching the old documents, the Dead Sea scrolls, and search for erasures, added words, changes in the documents, LXX, Vulgate, comparing overlays. He has shown that there are changes from the scrolls that were entered into what is followed today and was put into our Bibles of today. Skip knows Uriel and understands the discoveries. Today’s blog IS correct. The book of Hebrews has changes. Uriel has a web site (link removed)