that the expression in either form is exclusive to Paul, and that such an exclusive

character is emphasized in the context by such added terms as "my gospel"; "through the

gospel whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the

Gentiles"; "through preaching which is committed unto me".

Our first note therefore is that the term "before the world began" or "since the world

began", however we are obliged ultimately to translate the original, belongs exclusively

to the ministry of Paul.

Secondly we note that there is a difference between the phrase found in Rom. 16:,

and those found in II Timothy and Titus. The former speaks of a period "since", the

latter of a period "before" the beginning of the world. We must be careful therefore to

keep these two periods distinct, together with the revelations associated with them.

Ignoring for the time being the preposition pro "before" or the dative case, translated

by the A.V. `since', let us examine the words chronon aionion. It is not a matter of

debate that aionios is an adjective derived from aion the noun, or that chronos is a noun.

If we read in Matt. 25: 19 meta de chronon polun we naturally translate "but after a

long time". If we find the order of the words reversed as in John 5: 6 polun . . . . .

chronon, while the emphasis may be shifted, the translation must remain the same, polun

still remains an adjective, chronon still remains a noun. The word chronos `time' is not

of frequent use in the epistles, occurring only twelve times in the fourteen written by

Paul, and when we turn to Romans, II Timothy and Titus in the hope of observing the

usage of chronos in those three epistles which use the phrase `since' or `before' the world

began, we find but one passage, namely Rom. 7: 1 "the law hath dominion over a man

as long as he liveth", literally `for a long time' eph hoson chronon.

Aionios the adjective, is derived from aion, and must retain whatever essential

meaning pertains to the noun. It is impossible that the noun should be translated `age',

which most certainly had a beginning, and will certainly have an end, and to translate

the adjective `everlasting' or `eternal'.  Keeping to Paul's epistles we find aionion

translated `eternal', `everlasting', and `for ever', except in the three passages before us,

Rom. 16: 25; II Tim. 1: 9; and Titus 1: 2, where we read `since, or before, the world

began'. If chronos is translated `world', then aionios must have been translated `began',

or if chronos has been translated `began' because of its association with time, then

aionios has been translated `world'. In any case the translation is exceedingly wide. The

Revisers were evidently unsatisfied with this rendering for in the three passages they

substitute `times eternal', which though it adheres more to the actual words so translated,

is still too poetic to be of use, for `times' belong to one category and `eternal' to another.

We can speak of `a living death' but only in a figure; we can speak of `times eternal' but

only in a figure. For the purpose of discovering at what point in the outworking of the

purpose of the ages these `times eternal' commence, such a translation is valueless.

There is nothing for it but to adopt either the foreign-sounding phrase `eonian times', or

the cumbersome expression `age-times'. This latter has the advantage of presenting to

the eye the fact that we are still within the bounds of the ages, and not dealing with either

`the world' as in the A.V. or `eternity' as in the R.V.