2

And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me.” ‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭32:40

I have read the entire chapter of Jeremiah 32 to see the greater context. Yet, I am still puzzled of whether or not this refers to the New Covenant in Christ.

Hebrews chapter 8 gives us some OT quotations & information regarding the New Covenant vs the Old Covenant. However, nowhere in Hebrews 8, let alone all of Hebrews is Jeremiah 32:40 even mentioned.

I’ve heard of pastors in their books make mention of Jeremiah 32:40 as the primary prophecy text concerning the New Covenant in Christ. Yet, this passage seems to be speaking historically of Ethnic Israel.

I have 3 questions regarding the interpretation of this verse:

1.) Is Jeremiah 32:40 a typological prophecy of the New Covenant for both Jews & Gentiles?

2.) Is Jeremiah 32:40 even about the New Covenant in Christ at all?

3.) If Jeremiah 32:40 isn’t about the New Covenant in Christ, what is the reason God gives for using the term “everlasting covenant”?‬

I really want to understand the meaning of this text.

2
  • Are you able to define what "more detail" you want other than a detailed explanation of covenant theory?
    – Dottard
    Apr 3, 2023 at 20:44
  • @Dottard I will be able to respond asap, outside work has gotten in the way.
    – Cork88
    Apr 4, 2023 at 21:23

7 Answers 7

4
+100

1. There is nothing unique about a covenant being eternal or everlasting.

  • The Noahide Covenant is eternal (Gen 9:16)
  • The Abrahamic Covenant is eternal (Gen 17:9, 13, 19)
  • The Old Israelite Covenant is eternal (1 Chron 16:17, Jer 50:5, Ps 105:8)
  • The Levitical Covenant is eternal (Lev 24:8, Num 25:10-13, Ps 106:30)
  • The Davidic Covenant is eternal (2 Sam 23:5, 1 Kings 9:5, 2 Chron 13:5, Eze 37:25, 26)

2. Analysis of Jeremiah 32

Jeremiah 32 can be divided into several distinct sections:

  • V1-15 - Jeremiah buys a field
  • V16-25 - Jeremiah wonders aloud to the LORD as to why he had to buy the field
  • V26-35 - The LORD answers Jeremiah's question - why Judah must go into captivity
  • V36-44 - A prophecy about Jerusalem and Judah to be restored after the Babylonian captivity.

3. Everlasting Covenant

In V40 God promises to make an everlasting covenant with the people restored to Jerusalem with the following promises

  • V37a - The Jews would be gathered back to Jerusalem
  • V37b - the restored people will live in safety
  • V38 - They will be My people, and I will be their God.
  • V39a - they will have "one heart" and one way
  • V39b - they will always fear me
  • V40 - God would never turn away from doing good for the people and the people would never turn away from God
  • V43 - The fields, now desolate, would be bought ... in the land of Benjamin and around Jerusalem for silver and gold when the people are restored

That is, V36-44 are a series of promises about God resstoring the old promised land to the Jews as per the Abrahamic covenant in Gen 12, 15, 17. However, the above promises go further and promise perfect obedience because of the "new/one heart" of the people.

4. Which Covenant?

It is immediately obvious that:

  • The Abrahamic covenant is alluded to because of the promise to restore the promised land
  • The Old Israelite covenant is also alluded to because it says that "They will be My people, and I will be their God.". Such a statement occurs often under the old Israelite covenant in places like: Ex 6:7, Lev 26:9-12, Deut 29:9-13, 2 Sam 7:24, 1 Chron 11:2, Ps 50:7, 95:7, 100:3, Isa 40:1, Jer 7:23, 11:1-4, 24:7, 30:9, 22, 31:1, 33, 32:38-40, Eze 11:20, 34:30, 31, 36:26-28, 37:23, 24, Hos 1:9, 4:6, Joel 2:26, 27, Zech 8:8.
  • The Old Israelite covenant is also referenced in the promise to give a new/one heart Deut 6:5, 10:12, 16, 11:18, Ps 40:8, Jer 24:7, 31:33, 34, 32:38-40, Eze 11:19, 18:31, 36:26) and NOT mere regulations (1 Sam 15:22, Ps 40:6-8, 51:16, 17, Prov 15:8, 21:3, Isa 1:10-17, Jer 6:3-6, 20, Hos 6:6, Micah 6:6-8.
  • The "New Covenant" is also referenced because it is based on the concept of the new heart or "one heart" (single-minded service to God) as described in Heb 8:7-13, 10:16, 17, exactly as it should have been under the Old Covenant (compare Deut 6:5, Jer 24:7, 31:33, 34, 32:38-40, 36, 26-28). Significantly, when Heb 8:10, 10:16, “I will write my law on their hearts” quotes Jer 31:33, the word used for “law” is “Torah”. This further reinforces the idea that it was the Torah and its Israelite Covenant that is to be kept.

Indeed, the stated purpose of the New Covenant was the same as the old Israelite covenant. Compare:

  • Ex 19:5, 6 - Now if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, you will be My treasured possession out of all the nations—for the whole earth is Mine. And unto Me you shall be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you are to speak to the Israelites.”
  • 1 Peter 2:9, 12 - But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, to proclaim the virtues of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light ... Conduct yourselves with such honor among the Gentiles that, though they slander you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day He visits us.

Thus, there appears to be a deliberate blurring the boundaries between the new and old covenants here in Jer 32.

4
  • 1
    +1 Jeremiah dwelled extensively on the New Covenant.
    – Perry Webb
    Jan 17, 2022 at 10:07
  • 1
    @Dottard What do you mean by: “ there appears to be a deliberate blurring the boundaries between the new and old covenants here in Jer 32.” ???
    – Cork88
    Jan 17, 2022 at 16:49
  • 1
    @Cork88 - the boundaries are blurred because there is no significant different between the two - both are based on the moral law (as distinct from the Levitical covenant based on the Levitical law) and both are a matter of the heart and not works.
    – Dottard
    Apr 2, 2023 at 9:37
  • 1
    I believe @Dottard 's answer meets the requirement for the bounty. Ultimately the question cannot be answered objectively. Christians will often answer "yes" and Jews will answer "no." And sometimes one finds someone, regardless of personal faith, who is intellectually honest enough to admit that the text itself does not give a clear answer. Apr 5, 2023 at 20:18
1

To understand why Jeremiah 32:40 addresses the New Covenant, and not the Old Covenant, and why scholars recognize this, it is helpful to consider precisely what each of these covenants really is.

The New Covenant

The "New Covenant" has other names: the "everlasting covenant," "perpetual covenant," and "covenant of peace" are referenced in the Bible, and the "Noahic Covenant" and the "Abrahamic Covenant" also refer to this covenant.

The only covenant which God makes with us is called the New Covenant. It is God's "everlasting covenant" or "perpetual covenant."

The "everlasting covenant"

God speaks of His "everlasting covenant" with the following entities:

  • Noah (Genesis 9:16)
  • Abraham (Genesis 17:7,13,19)
  • The children of Israel (Leviticus 24:8; cf. 1 Chronicles 16:17)
  • David (2 Samuel 23:5)
  • Jerusalem (Ezekiel 16:60)

The "perpetual covenant" is mentioned in both Exodus and in Jeremiah (see Exodus 31:16 and Jeremiah 50:5).

God speaks of this covenant as His covenant.

And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. (Exodus 2:24, KJV)

And God's covenant is as everlasting as He is, for He does not change.

For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. (Malachi 3:6, KJV)

The New Covenant is the only covenant of salvation offered to us, and it applies to people of all ages, both of the Old Testament times and of our present time.

The "Old" Covenant

The "Old Covenant," on the other hand, is not God's covenant--it is the one we tried to make with God, but failed, and broke it.

In the KJV, the only verse of the Bible in which both the words "old" and "covenant" appear in the same verse, is Hebrews 8:13.

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13, KJV)

Jeremiah Contrasts the Two Covenants

In Jeremiah, the language used indicates this is also the New Covenant. Just the chapter before the verse in question, Jeremiah expressly mentions the New Covenant.

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: (Jeremiah 31:31, KJV)

This is followed by distinguishing between this "new covenant" and the other one.

32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31:32-34, KJV)

In God's "new" covenant, He promises to write His law in our hearts, to be our God, and to forgive and forget our sins. This is God's everlasting covenant--the only covenant by which we are saved.

The Broken Covenant

What, then, was this broken covenant?

The text tells us who broke it--and it was not God, it was us.

7And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him. 8And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD. (Exodus 19:7-8, KJV)

The people made a promise to God that they did not keep. Indeed, in human strength alone, it is impossible to keep such a promise. This "old covenant" is sometimes also called the Sinaitic covenant, because it was at Mount Sinai where the people made this promise.

Jeremiah 32:40

Whose covenant is this?

And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. (Jeremiah 32:40, KJV)

This speaks clearly of the "everlasting covenant," which is God's covenant with us, and the language of the verse shows that this aligns with His "new" covenant.

Conclusion

There are two covenants in the Bible: God's covenant with us, and our covenant with God. God's covenant is the "new" covenant--the one God continually renews with us. The "old" covenant is the one where we try to promise obedience to God, and, attempting in our own strength, fail to keep our promise.

That Jeremiah 32:40 is addressing God's covenant, not ours, is clear both from the language of the verse, and from the context of the "new covenant" being expressly mentioned in the prior chapter.

12
  • You said the old cov was not God's or not given by God. Although Jer 31.32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers. Mentions that he made the covenant. If you hold the doctrine that the OT was given by Satan or evil angels or evil beings then kindly post an analysis & history & prominent scholars of this theology, in my recent question on the same topic that God had nothing to do with the OT.
    – Michael16
    Apr 6, 2023 at 3:05
  • 1
    @Michael16 I am frankly bewildered by your comment above, and wonder how it is connected with the answer above it. I have no idea how you would read into it such an untruth as that the OT had been given us by Satan. Did you mean, perhaps, to post your comment under some other answer?
    – Biblasia
    Apr 6, 2023 at 15:28
  • It's an honest interpretation, you've repeatedly argued that it is not given by God, but made by man. Man did not make it alone surely, it was given by someone, if that's not God then it has to be Satan or evil beings, as widely believed by scholars. I thought that's your view as well, - The "Old Covenant," on the other hand, is not God's covenant--it is the one we tried to make with God. Who do you believe it was given by if not God
    – Michael16
    Apr 7, 2023 at 2:49
  • @Michael16 Some things require a little common sense, and spiritual discernment. Can it be that you do not discern the distinction between the books written in the "old testament" (explicitly mentioned in 2 Corinthians 3:14) and the "old covenant" (an expression which exists nowhere in the Bible)? It would appear that you have chosen to deliberately conflate these for the sake of argumentation. I'm not interested in arguing, so will leave off here.
    – Biblasia
    Apr 7, 2023 at 2:58
  • 1
    @Biblasia You said “The "Old Covenant," on the other hand, is not God's covenant--it is the one we tried to make with God, but failed, and broke it.” - what did you mean it’s “not God’s covenant”.
    – Cork88
    Apr 7, 2023 at 16:51
0

In the first place, the "new covenant" promise of Jeremiah is surely the source of the term "New Testament" ("testament" being an alternative rendering of DIATHEKE) as a label for the Christian portion of scripture. The evidence is the way the more extended promise of ch31 vv31-34 is emphasised in the argument of Hebrews ch8 vv8-13. "In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete" (v13). However,this argument doesn't quite identify the two new covenants. The writer's point is made by any suggestion that the old covenant will be replaced by another.

One approach is to go through the terms of the ch31 version and see how far they may have been fulfilled under the New Testament.

A close relationship with the Lord; "I will be their God and they shall be my people" (v33). Certainly we Christians regard ourselves as God's people, although a more complete fulfilment is promised in Revelation ch21 v3, implying that we are not quite there yet.

No more need for the written law; "I will put my law within them and I will write it upon their hearts" (v33). This appears to be fulfilled very exactly by Romans ch7 v6; "But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which kept us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit" (RSV). But that is on the condition that we listen to what the Spirit is saying.

Forgiveness; "I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sin no more" (v34). Isn't that the central promise of the gospel?

Evangelism is redundant; "And no longer shall each man teach his neighbour and each his brother saying "Know the Lord", for they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord" (v34). Now we all know that this promise has not yet been fulfilled, and won't be fulfilled until Revelation ch21 v27 (when the new Jerusalem will contain no-one who isn't already written in the book of life).

Turning back to ch32 vv39-40, we see the promises that "I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever... I will put the fear of me in their hearts that they may not turn from me." This is a relationship so perfect, so free from flaws, that we can hardly see a complete fulfilment of it before the new Jerusalem.

I suggest, then, that although the Jeremiah new covenant does not quite match the Christian new covenant, it is a foreshadowing of the Christian new covenant. They are both working towards the final covenant relationship implied in Revelation ch22. Preachers are justified in associating the two, though anyone who treats the "covenant" concept legalistically is making life hard for himself.

I think that amounts to a "yes" to your first question, and a qualified "yes" to your second.

3
  • “ Evangelism is redundant; "And no longer shall each man teach his neighbour and each his brother saying "Know the Lord", for they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord" (v34). Now we all know that this promise has not yet been fulfilled, and won't be fulfilled until Revelation ch21 v27 (when the new Jerusalem will contain no-one who isn't already written in the book of life).” what did you mean by this? When the people of God have a present knowledge of God before the New Jerusalem comes?
    – Cork88
    Apr 7, 2023 at 16:23
  • @Cork88 No, I just meant the "New Jerusalem" itself, which is the content of that chapter. I fixed on that verse only because that's where it indicates that there will be no "unbelievers" on the scene, Though perhaos it is implied already by "God himelf will be with them" (v3). Apr 7, 2023 at 16:48
  • Okay, so there is a more clear way to put the phrase: “Now we all know that this promise has not yet been fulfilled, and won't be fulfilled until Revelation ch21 v27…”
    – Cork88
    Apr 7, 2023 at 16:53
0

It clearly was referring specifically to Israel. It is similar to all the other covenants. It clearly references to a people who had left God. It clearly refers to a people who dwelled in Israel. It calls them Israel, and names specific tribes. It lists many sins Israel had done, then says Israel will no longer do them. If read alone, Jeremiah 32:40 does look like the reference to the covenant you speak of; however, it also looks like every other covenant.

“The people of Israel and Judah have done nothing but evil in my sight from their youth; indeed, the people of Israel have done nothing but arouse my anger with what their hands have made, declares the Lord. 31 From the day it was built until now, this city has so aroused my anger and wrath that I must remove it from my sight. 32 The people of Israel and Judah have provoked me by all the evil they have done—they, their kings and officials, their priests and prophets, the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem. 33 They turned their backs to me and not their faces; though I taught them again and again, they would not listen or respond to discipline. 34 They set up their vile images in the house that bears my Name and defiled it. 35 They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molek, though I never commanded—nor did it enter my mind—that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.

36 “You are saying about this city, ‘By the sword, famine and plague it will be given into the hands of the king of Babylon’; but this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: 37 I will surely gather them from all the lands where I banish them in my furious anger and great wrath; I will bring them back to this place and let them live in safety. 38 They will be my people, and I will be their God. 39 I will give them singleness of heart and action, so that they will always fear me and that all will then go well for them and for their children after them. 40 I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me. 41 I will rejoice in doing them good and will assuredly plant them in this land with all my heart and soul.

42 “This is what the Lord says: As I have brought all this great calamity on this people, so I will give them all the prosperity I have promised them. 43 Once more fields will be bought in this land of which you say, ‘It is a desolate waste, without people or animals, for it has been given into the hands of the Babylonians.’ 44 Fields will be bought for silver, and deeds will be signed, sealed and witnessed in the territory of Benjamin, in the villages around Jerusalem, in the towns of Judah and in the towns of the hill country, of the western foothills and of the Negev, because I will restore their fortunes, declares the Lord.”

(Jeremiah 32)

2
  • You said: “It clearly was referring specifically to Israel. It is similar to all the other covenants. It clearly references to a people who had left God. It clearly refers to a people who dwelled in Israel.” - How can this be when Rom 11 mentions gentiles being grafted into the Olive Tree (Israel) and that we become Abraham’s decedents (wether Jew or Gentile) by faith in Christ: Galatians 3:28-29. If it’s for Israel only, why is the house of Israel and Judah mentioned in Jeremiah 31 in connection with Heb 8 with New Covenant believers who are both Jew and Gentile?
    – Cork88
    Apr 7, 2023 at 16:40
  • We don’t dwell in Israel, it was explicit about the land of Israel. I didn’t deny an indirect reference, but it is impossible to be a direct reference.
    – TacoBlayno
    Apr 7, 2023 at 21:34
0

The reason it is not used directly to imply the New covenant of Christ is maybe due to the fact that Jeremiah 31 is a better option for that. The prophecies are interpreted allegorically in the approach of Haggadah, as Paul did with Gen 17 by inserting Christ into it. There are various instances of "everlasting covenant" promised to Israel, which in context should mean the renewal of the covenant whenever Israel breaks it. God never permanently forsakes them for breaking the covenants, however renewal implies breaking, and we know that Israel has broken the covenant many times.

The passage should not be interpreted to the New covenant of Christ by ignoring the original meaning for that time; it is a tendency among Christians to hijack all such promises to Israel, ignoring the context and applying the everlasting part to themselves, as if the New covenant Church is any different from the old. It is up to you if you want to apply it to the new covenant.

Do not think that the prophecies work as a lottery number, in an objective sense. They are always subjectively allegorically interpreted. The phrase "everlasting covenant" is often used in the Bible, it doesn't mean we would apply all of them to the new faith covenant.

2
  • What did you mean by: “ Do not think that the prophecies work as a lottery number, in an objective sense. They are always subjectively allegorically interpreted.” ? Are you implying that all prophecies are allegorical? That’s not possible if so, some messianic prophesies are historical and not allegorical like in Daniel 9.
    – Cork88
    Apr 7, 2023 at 16:09
  • Only few ones are objective having a specific meaning, but most ones used in the NT as prophecies are allusions, allegorical by the authors.
    – Michael16
    Apr 7, 2023 at 17:28
-1

Not really.

but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me.

There no correlation with fear and the new covenant. The term ‘everlasting’ can mean ‘age enduring’ or similar limited meanings in the grand scheme of God’s salvation plan.

Sodom and Gomorrah...who suffer the punishment of eternal fire Jud 1:7

Is the fire still burning? No. It burnt for the age required, for the time needed - it is hardly 'eternal' as we automatically think eternal means.

There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love 1John 4:18

We can choose to accept the translators choice of fear in Phil 2:12 or we can opt for reverence which is certainly reasonable and fits with the NC mantra of love and grace - not fear and punishment.

2
  • 1
    1 John 4:18 doesn’t necessarily do Justice to the fact that The Apostle Paul mentions that believers are to: “…work out your own salvation with {fear} and trembling;” ‭‭Philippians‬ ‭2:12‬
    – Cork88
    Jan 17, 2022 at 16:52
  • I agree with you on the “fear” pertaining to reverence, but as far as the fear being put into peoples hearts so they will not depart from God, that must be reverential fear too then. Since 1 John 4:18 would probably have to do with terror. Yet I am unfamiliar with the cross connections between the Hebrew & Greek between a Jeremiah 32:40 & Philippians 2:12. Oh well, for another question I suppose.
    – Cork88
    Jan 17, 2022 at 22:09
-1

This verse definitely seems to align with the new covenant for the nation of Israel. God is the one who who gives them a new heart and a new spirit, and He is the one who also puts reverence in their hearts towards Him according to this verse.

And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may revere me, all the days --For the good of them, and of their children after them; and I will solemnise to them an age-abiding covenant, That I will not turn away from following them, to do them good,--but the reverence of myself, will I put in their heart, so that they shall not turn away from me. Jeremiah 32: 39-40 Rotherham Emphasized Bible

Op ask's,

Is Jeremiah 32:40 a typological prophecy of the New Covenant for both Jews & Gentiles?

This new covenant is for the Nation of Israel only and will not be implemented until the full complement of the nations may be entering.

For I am not willing for you to be ignorant of this secret, brethren, lest you may pass for prudent among yourselves, that Israel, in part, has become calloused Until the full complement of the nations may be entering. ( emphasis added) And thus all Israel shall be saved, according as it is written, "the Rescuer shall be arriving out of Zion, He will be turning irreverence from Jacob. And this is My covenant with them whenever I may be eliminating their sins." Romans 11: 25-27 Concordant literal

2: OP's question;

Is Jeremiah 32:40 even about the New Covenant in Christ at all?

The apostle Paul is talking about the cup of the new covenant in 1 Corinthians 11:25

"This is My body, which is broken for your sake's. Be doing this for a recollection of Me." Similarly, also, the cup, after dinner, saying, "This is the cup of the new covenant in My blood.

"At this time the believers among the nations were still subordinate to Israel. They were still partakers of their spiritual things, hence they were considered as coming under the blessings of the new covenant. The later revelations contained in the Perfection Epistles, gave them an independent standing outside the new covenant which Jehovah made with Israel." Concordant commentary

OP's third question,

If Jeremiah 32:40 isn’t about the New Covenant in Christ, what is the reason God gives for using the term “everlasting covenant”?‬

The word olam translated actually is for a period of time.

  1. olam ► Strong's Concordance olam: long duration, antiquity, futurity Original Word: עוֹלָם Part of Speech: Noun Masculine Transliteration: olam Phonetic Spelling: (o-lawm') Definition: long duration, antiquity, futurity

I have made for them a covenant age-during, in that I turn not back from after them for My doing them good, and My fear I put in their heart, so as not to turn aside from me; Jeremiah, 32:40 YLT

I realize this is not a popular traditional teaching, but wanted to put it out there, so one can search these things out.

As a side note:

"Physical relationship is most important to the Israelite upon the Earth. It loses all meaning among the celestials. The Israelite is related to the Messiah by blood; we are united to Christ by spirit. "Israel, nationally, has no allotment in the heavenly place and power. The believers among the nations are placed on par with those of the favored nation who believe in this administration of grace. Both together form the joint body, which is blessed with every spiritual blessing among the celestials (Eph. 3:6; 1:3). So then, during the last two eons (the eons of the eons) there will be two systems, one in the celestial realms, and one on the earth. The administration of realms above will be entrusted to the ecclesia which is Christ 's body, while the Earth will be subject to the nation, which is His bride. The heavenly host will be the subjects of the body ecclesia's rule, the nations on earth will come under the righteous rule of Israel. " Quote from "The Mystery of the Gospel by A.E. Knoch .

2
  • You said “The word olam translated actually is for a period of time.” - It can mean a period of time, but it can also mean “everlasting” depending on the context, cf. Psalms 90:2 in relation to God.
    – Cork88
    Apr 7, 2023 at 16:18
  • @Cork88. 2Before mountains were brought forth, And Thou dost form the earth and the world, Even from age unto age Thou [art] God. YLT Psalm 90:2. Remember ages are part of creation. In these last days did speak to us in a Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He did make the ages; Heb. 10:2 notice the plural. 165 aiṓn (see also the cognate adjective, 166 /aiṓnios, "age-long") – properly, an age (era, "time-span"), characterized by a specific quality (type of existence).
    – Sherrie
    Apr 7, 2023 at 17:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.