 |  |
There is no doubt whatever but that the word aiġn means "an age," and therefore to
interpret it as "forever" is not a translation, but a human comment, which may be wrong.
If the Translators had rendered the word "age-times" instead of "times eternal"; "this
age" instead of "this world"; "unto the ages" instead of "for ever," it would have been
consistent, and would have allowed each passage to speak for itself, instead of saying just
what traditional prejudice would make it say.
The mistranslation of the word aiġn is but another of the many evidences of man's
foolish pride. Man looks forward into the future, or backward into the past. Age upon
age stretch away on either side, and seeing no end, and being unable to conceive of one,
he calls the space which exceeds his tiny perspective--eternity! Whereas to Him who
sitteth in the heavens it is but one link in the vast chain of the ages wherein He deals with
men, angels, and the universe. We may learn the meaning of the Greek word aiġn by
finding out the Hebrew equivalent. The Septuagint Version uses the word aiġn to
translate the Hebrew word olam. Through the careful study of another labourer in the
Word we are enabled to give the following list of passages where the Hebrew word olam
occurs. First we consider the words me olam, as translated in the A.V.:--
USED OF GOD.
|
USED OF MAN.
"Ever of old" (Psa. 25: 6).
|
"Of old" (Gen. 6: 4).
"From everlasting" (Psa. 41: 13).
|
"In old time" (Josh. 24: 2).
"From everlasting" (Psa. 90: 2).
|
"Of old" (I Sam. 27: 8).
"From everlasting" (Psa. 93: 2).
|
"Of old" (Psa. 119: 52).
"From everlasting" (Psa. 103: 17).
|
"Long time" (Isa. 42: 14).
"From everlasting" (Isa. 43: 16).
|
"Since the beginning of the world"
|
(Isa. 64: 4).
These are but a few of the passages, but they are enough to help us to see the fitness of
the remark that "there is a startling inconsistency here." When applied to God it is
always "for ever," or "everlasting," but when applied to man it is never so rendered.
Why? Because in no case will the sense bear it. Man and his history do not stretch back
to a dateless past eternity. No nation, no prophet has been "from everlasting." If a
translator would be guilty of tampering with the prerogatives of God should he render
me olam "from everlasting" when referring to the past of man, why should he be labelled
a heretic because he questions, equally, the propriety of using the word olam to mean
eternity when applied to the future of man? The case of the past is by the nature of things
impossible; the future lies before us, and man has ventured his own opinion, tacked it on
to the Word of God, and usurping the solemn authority of that holy Word has swayed the
minds, influenced the faith, and stifled the consciences of thousands. How many have
been embittered by that dread whisper "non-eternity"? How many of God's most faithful
witnesses have been hounded down by these modern shibboleth-mongers?
Let us look at some of the uses of the word olam: "If the servant shall say. . . . I will
not go out free. . . . he shall serve him for ever" (Exod. 21: 5, 6). Of the same class of
Hebrew servant we read in Lev. 25: 40, "He shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee"
(when his service ends and he is free to go out not merely alone, but with his wife and