OK Butch & others. The following has always been my understanding of the word eternal or everlasting. I must say the Doulos had a good argument but after thinking this topic over a lot, I'm inclined to stick to my Baptist Doctrine which is explained in Albert Barnes' quote, by permission of e-Sword.
Into everlasting punishment - The original word translated here as “punishment” means torment, or suffering inflicted for crime. The noun is used but in one other place in the New Testament - 1Jo_4:18; “Fear hath ‘torment.’” The verb from which the noun is derived is twice used - Act_4:21; 2Pe_2:9. In all these places it denotes anguish, suffering, punishment. It does not mean simply a “state or condition,” but absolute, positive suffering; and if this word does not teach it, no word “could” express the idea that the wicked would suffer. It has been contended that the sufferings of the wicked will not be eternal or without end. It is not the purpose of these notes to enter into debates of that kind further than to ascertain the meaning of the language used by the sacred writers. In regard to the meaning of the word “everlasting” in this place, it is to be observed:
1. that the literal meaning of the word expresses absolute eternity - “always belong,” Mat_18:8; Mat_19:16; Mar_3:29; Rom_2:7; Heb_5:9.
2. that the obvious and plain interpretation of the word demands this signification in this place. The original word - αἰώνιον aionion - is employed in the New Testament 66 times. Of these, in 51 instances it is used of the happiness of the righteous; in two, of God’s existence; in six, of the church and the Messiah’s kingdom; and in the remaining seven, of the future punishment of the wicked. If in these seven instances we attach to the word the idea of limited duration, consistency requires that the same idea of limited duration should be given it in the 51 cases of its application to the future glory of the righteous, and the two instances of its application to God’s existence, and the six eases of its appropriation to the future reign of the Messiah and the glory and perpetuity of the church. But no one will presume to deny that in these instances it denotes unlimited duration, and therefore, in accordance with the sound laws of interpretation and of language itself, the same sense of unlimited duration must be given it when used of future punishment - Owen, in loc.
3. that, admitting that it was the Saviour’s design always to teach this doctrine, this would be “the very word” to express it; and if this does not teach it, it could not be taught.
4. that it is not taught in any plainer manner in any confession of faith on the globe; and if this may be explained away, all those may be.
5. that our Saviour knew that this would be so understood by nine-tenths of the world; and if he did not mean to teach it, he has knowingly led them into error, and his honesty cannot be vindicated.
6. that he knew that the doctrine was calculated to produce “fear and terror;” and if he was benevolent, and actually used language calculated to produce this fear and terror, his conduct cannot be vindicated in exciting unnecessary alarms.
7. that the word used here is the same in the original as that used to express the eternal life of the righteous; if one can be proved to be limited in duration, the other can by the same arguments. “The proof that the righteous will be happy forever is precisely the same, and no other, than that the wicked will, be miserable forever.”
What say Ye?
