Greek question: 'Eternal' in Rev 14:6

For all you Greek enthusiasts...In revelation 14:6 John writes 'eternal' gospel..."aiwnion" - here it is an adjective, neuter, singular and accusative.I am curious if the flavour and meaning of the word is captured in this sense: '...for all time' ?I ask, because some are teaching that the gospel has changed from the old covenant to the new. That is, they believe that the new covenant is a new way of salvation as opposed to a more enlightened view of the same salvation.Dan/\\/\\/\\

I ask, because some are teaching that the gospel has changed from the old covenant to the new. That is, they believe that the new covenant is a new way of salvation as opposed to a more enlightened view of the same salvation. I guess I am one that would be accused of this as I don't believe regeneration was possible before Pentecost.As regards 'eternal', the word means 'age-enduring', you have to look at the context to see what that means. The nephilim of Genesis 6 are said to be 'eternal' using the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek 'aiOnion'. The Lamps in the Sanctuary were to burn everlastingly although they went out on several occasions, and have now gone out permanently. The Aaronic priesthood was an everlasting priesthood, but that has gone too. As I say, you need to read the context to know what 'eternal' means in scripture.

KrispyKrittr wrote:Well... I believe that. Here's why:Hebrews 8:6-13: But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. (7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.(8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: (11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. (12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. (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.KrispyYou are equating the new covenant with a new gospel. Yet in Revelation 14:6 is not the gospel unchanging? Eternal?Can God be just if he justifies men one way, then changes and begins to justify men another?If the gospel is indeed eternal, and therefore unchanging - then the new covenant is not to be equated with a better gospel - but rather a better promise.Sins were already being forgiven in the old covenant for those who repented in faith. How is the new covenant any different?I don't ask to be fecetious, I am honestly working this out. I always assumed that the new covenant was a new gospel - I hadn't given it any thought. But recently, as I begin to look at the new covenant - I see no indication that God is going to change the way in which He has chosen to justify a man - rather I see a new promise with regards to God's spirit coming and indwelling believers. The law, it seems was for the old covenant, and grace it seems is for the new - but the gospel hasn't changed as far as I can tell. We are still saved just as Jews were saved under John The baptists old covenant Gospel (Mark 1:4 repentance plus faith).I don't mind being corrected on this. But I would like serious thought on it before that happens. :-)If I am absolutely out to lunch, I will need to know, but if I am simply stamping out some tradition that isn't warranted by scripture, well, I want to know ;-) Dan/\\/\\/\\

Thanks Greg, but I couldn't tell if that was meant in support of the eternal gospel or as a demonstration that there was no eternal gospel. Clearly God, being just, could not justify Abraham in a different way that he justified Abraham's children? That is, if Abraham was saved by his faith, it would be less than just to send Isaac to hell if Isaac exercised the exact same kind of faith. The gospel that John the Baptist (the last -Jewish- prophet) preached (Mark 1:4) was this not the old covenant gospel?Of the things that John came to straighten out was the gospel not one of them? Was he not baptizing the Jews as though they were proselytes because they had strayed so far from the gospel that they needed to repent in order to become children of Abraham (not unlike a proselyte to the Jewish faith)?I am curious to see if others agree or if I am grasping in vain.Dan/\\/\\/\\

The New Covenant came in with the power to change our consciences, I read a good article on conscience from Bro. Ron Bailey but I can't seem to find the link anywhere, maybe he'll be so kind as to re-post it. In the OT thier consciences were never really dealt with, and that's why the change and the New Covenant. Your Quote: The gospel that John the Baptist (the last -Jewish- prophet) preached (Mark 1:4) was this not the old covenant gospel-----Jesus said that that the kingdom of heaven suffered violence and the violent take it by force, After John the Baptiser that changed and we have a new and living way into heaven before the throne of God through Jesus. Jesus said that John was the last of the Old Testament prophets.