is to come (Eph. i. 21). "That in the ages
(aeons) to come He might shew," etc.

From this noun, then, conies the adjective _aionios_ (aionios)--aeonian
which may be defined "age long" or "belonging to the ages," etc. Any
Greek scholar will assert unhesitatingly that of itself it does not
mean endless or everlasting. Sometimes, as when applied to God, it may
be thus translated but only because the meaning is inherent in the noun
to which it is applied. The word _aionios_ of itself would not
positively prove the endlessness of God. This adjective when applied
to any thing or any state of being cannot of itself be used to prove
its endlessness.

It is worth notice too that in the Septuagint Greek Bible, the version
usually quoted in the Gospels and Epistles, this word _aionios_ is
frequently applied to things that have ended, _e. g._, the gift of the
land of Canaan, the priesthood of Aaron, the kingdom of David, the
temple at Jerusalem, the daily offerings, etc. When the noun always
means a finite period and the adjective is applied both to that which
is ended and to that which is endless it would surely be poor
scholarship if the Revisers allowed the word "everlasting" to remain as
its translation, or if students of theology should argue from it the
endlessness of anything. To which we may add that there are Greek
adjectives and phrases which _do definitely mean_ "endless" and which
are never used in the Bible of men's fate in the Hereafter.

Be it observed that all this does not prove that the punishment of the
future ages _may not_ be everlasting. It only proves that Scripture
nowhere asserts unmistakably that _it must be so_. It simply asserts
that it is aeonian.

The thoughtful advocates of Everlasting Torment are of course aware of
all this. But they honestly feel that in spite of the indefiniteness
of the adjective, our Lord has fixed His meaning beyond question in the
one passage that has become so famous as the great proof text in this
controversy, "These shall go away into _aeonian_ punishment, but the
righteous into _aeonian_ life" (Matt. xxv. 46). Very reasonably they
say, "If the word asserts everlastingness in the one case it must also
in the other." The answer is that the word _of itself_ cannot assert
everlastingness in either case. If this word were our only proof of
everlasting life then everlasting life would be a doubtful matter. But
the everlastingness of that life like the everlast