I recently heard some teaching on a supposed difference between “everlasting life” and “eternal life”.

Very basically, according to this doctrine, “everlasting life” is the lesser of the two and is what we get before we are given “eternal life” which is the true life of God and is greater than “everlasting life”.

Now, the distinction, really, is between “everlasting” and “eternal” and is applied not only to life, as in “everlasting life” and “eternal life”, but to other things as well. The presumed difference between “everlasting” and “eternal” is applied to such as the old and new covenants and their priesthoods, hade/hell and the lake of fire, to God himself, to our present state as Jesus’ disciples and our state following the resurrection, and so on.

With God’s help, I will just like to briefly demonstrate that this doctrine is blatantly false. Basically, it is clearly false because reading the Bible in its original language does not have any such distinction nor does it, even in the least, suggest it. In addition to this, this doctrine is not coherent with its self.

You may judge for yourself if this is true or not.

We will be using the KJV as those espousing this doctrine claim that this distinction is preserved in the KJV and may be lost in other English translations. I wonder how they will teach it in other languages.

Why “Everlasting” and “Eternal” Are Not Different

“Everlasting” and “Eternal” Are Not Different In Greek

Reading the New Testament in its original language, which is Greek, the language in which Paul preached and wrote his letters, there is absolutely no reason why one would think that there is a difference between “everlasting” and “eternal” because they are both translated from the very same Greek word—“αἰώνιος, aiōnios, G166”. Whatever the reason of some translators for translating “αἰώνιος” into two or more different words, the meaning of the original Greek word in the context of its use remains the same.

This fact is beyond controversy.

Even The KJV Does Not Support This Doctrine

Now, even without the Greek, even the KJV which they claim preserves this distinction, is sufficient by itself to show that there is no difference between “eternal life” and “everlasting life”. Consider the following examples based on the KJV,

1. The condition that Jesus gave a certain man to inherit “eternal life” [Mat 19:16 KJV] was that he sold all he had and follow him [Mat 19:21 KJV]. And following this, Peter stated that they had fulfilled the above condition to which Jesus responded that they, and all such people, will “inherit everlasting life” [Mat 19:29 KJV]. Therefore, “eternal life” and “everlasting life” are the same life given to those who forsake all to follow Jesus.
   1. Now, I know, some may try to draw a distinction between that man who was not yet a follower of Jesus and those who were already disciples of Jesus, so let me address this. It is, to put it very lightly, just plain ridiculous. Why? Because if the man had accepted Jesus’ instruction, he would have become a follower of Jesus just like the other disciples before he got eternal life. However, if this ridiculous distinction is insisted upon, it would mean that the man who did not know Jesus and who was a child compared to those before him would get “eternal” life, which this doctrine considers greater than “everlasting” life. So, those who don’t know Jesus get the greater eternal life while those who do know Jesus get the lesser “everlasting” life.
2. Also, “everlasting life” is the life that those who have forsaken all to follow Jesus will receive according to Matthew. However, telling the very same story, as translated by the KJV, Mark calls it “eternal life” [Mat 19:28-29 KJV cf.,Mar 10:29-30 KJV].
3. Quoting the same words of Jesus (according to the KJV), we read in Mark “...in the world to come, eternal life” while read in Luke “...in the world to come, life everlasting” [Mar 10:30 cf., Luk 18:30 KJV; Mat 19:28-29 KJV]
4. Because Jesus was crucified, those who believe in him will not perish but will have “eternal life” [Joh 3:14-15 KJV]. Now, in the next verse, the popular Joh 3:16, just as with the preceding verses, by believing in Jesus Christ we have “everlasting life” because God “gave” His Son.
   1. What is important in both sections is the crucifixion and death of Jesus. This is clearer in the preceding in verses 14-15 by the comparison to how Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness [Joh 3:14KJV]. In John 3:16 this is simply described as God giving His Son [Rom 8:32 cf., Rom 5:5-10; 3:24-26 KJV].
   2. Some may want to draw a distinction between “son of man” and “son of God” with regard to what life one is given by believing in Jesus, so please note the next point.
5. In verses 14-15 [Joh 3:14-15 KJV], those who believe in the “son of man” are given in “eternal life”. However, in verse 36 [Joh 3:36 KJV], the same group of people, those who believe in the “son of man”, are given “everlasting life”. This again, according to the KJV shows that the two lives are the same life.
   1. But apart from this, clearly, the life you get by believing in the Son of God is the same life you get by believing in the Son of Man. Therefore, as far as the life we receive by believing in Jesus is concerned, there is no difference between belief in the “Son of God” and belief in the “Son of Man”.
6. Both everlasting life and eternal life are inherited [Mat 19:29; Mar 10:17; Luk 10:25; 18:18 KJV]
7. Both everlasting life and eternal life will not be received in this age but in the age to come [Mar 10:29-30; Luk 18:29-30 KJV]
8. Both everlasting life and eternal life are obtained through mercy [1Ti 1:16; Jud 1:21 KJV]

By the way, all the words above translated everlasting or eternal are the same word in the Greek which is how the New Testament was originally written by the apostles.

It Is Foolishness to Base Any Doctrine on A Translation

Apart from all this, it is absolutely ridiculous to base any bible doctrine on a bible translation’s, say the KJV’s, choice of words, as if the apostles preached and taught the Gospel or wrote their letters in the language of that translation. As if the apostles were the original authors of the KJV. This is especially true when (whether the translators intended it or not) the interpretation based on the translation clearly does not agree with the intentions of the original authors of the scriptures.

When we say that scriptures are God breathed, do we mean the translations are God breathed or do we mean, the scriptures, as the prophets and apostles wrote them are God breathed?

Apart from this, this is a demonstration of, willing or not, gross ignorance of the fact that translators have their different motives, beliefs, paradigms, worldviews, doctrinal biases and practices which, more or less, may or may not conform to God’s truth. It is true that one translation may be better than another, nevertheless, no translation is equal to the original. I think we all will agree that the Bible was not translated into the KJV by any of the apostles or prophets of Scriptures.

Conclusion

Clearly, everlasting life and eternal life are the very same life.

But how could anyone even come up with such ridiculous doctrine and furthermore try to defend it?

Roots of This Blatantly False Doctrine

One of the reasons for this gross confusion is a seriously warped understanding of “salvation” and the Scriptures’ language of faith. This whole mess also shows a poorly veiled disregard for the authority of the apostles and prophets and indeed Christ himself. “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” [Mat 7:16 KJV]

At this time, I will only address the language of faith.

The Language of Faith

Many read that we have eternal life [1Jn 5:13 KJV] and think that we actually do have it. However, it is quite obvious that even Christians age and die and none has lived even half as old as Methuselah. And so those who believe that we presently have eternal life are burdened with resolving an apparent contradiction—how can we have everlasting/eternal life and yet fall sick, age and die. If we really had eternal life, we ought not to ever be sick, nor should we age and nor should we die. This contradiction is supported by the scripture that describes eternal life as something future [Jud 1:21 KJV]

Of course, various reasons are set forth such as we not having sufficient faith, or a failure to live righteously, or pray enough, and so many others. One sure problem to these solutions is the fact that even the apostles died.

For some who do not say that the apostles failed, the solution is that the life we now have is somewhat spiritual and not life in the literal sense that we naturally believe it to be. Thus, even with this “spiritual” life, we will still age and, well, eventually die and before that, may fall sick. Please note that they may not call it spiritual, but, whatever they call it or how they describe it, it is not a life that manifests in actual longevity and perfect health.

Thus they try to eliminate the apparent contradiction. However, this doesn’t really solve the problem.

According to such reasoning, this ‘spiritual’ everlasting life we now have is manifested in how much we are like Christ in our character and inner thoughts. The problem is that this same people, even in their old ages know that they are never perfectly like Christ according to their imaginations of perfection—which means that they never really have this life. And so they may modify their solution further by looking for gradations in the measure of life.

Whatever the case, however, this contradiction is based on a simple confusion—they are taking what is said in faith to be literal. Apparently, they have missed the fact that God and scriptures often speak in faith describing things that are not as if they were.

…God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. [Rom 4:17KJV]

Paul pointed out this principle when speaking of God declaring Abraham to be the father of many nations even when he had no children.

When God said that Abram was no longer to be called Abram but Abraham, saying that he had made him the Father of Many Nations, did it mean that Abraham was spiritually or in any real sense a father of even one nation?

No.

Isaac had not yet been conceived and even Isaac only had one sons that God acknowledged—Jacob. So, why was God calling and how was Abraham the father of many nations at that time?

Very simple, God was speaking by faith.

It was certain that Abraham would be a father to many nations and so God was calling him what he would be. Just as with Abraham, speaking of something as presently being does not mean it actually presently exists in any form. Or should we be looking for some spiritual meaning to the name “Abraham”? Perhaps God wasn’t speaking of actual nations and people but of … whatever.

God speaks by faith.

Saying that we have eternal life does not mean we actually do but that we certainly will. It is an expression of faith. Because of Christ and his sacrifice, and because we belong to him, it is absolutely certain that we will receive everlasting/eternal life. Therefore, because of this certainty, speaking in faith, those in Christ can be said to have eternal life.

Conclusion

In plain language, everlasting/eternal life is something we are waiting for and not something we presently have. There is therefore no justification for seeking a distinction between everlasting and eternal life.

All said, there is no difference between everlasting and eternal life, it's the same life.

“Eternal” From Hebrew

“The eternal^H6924 God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting^H5769 arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say, Destroy them.” [Deut 33:27]

H6924—קדמה  /  קדם—qedem  /  qêdmâh

BDB Definition:

1. east, antiquity, front, that which is before, aforetime (noun masculine)
   1. front, from the front or east, in front, mount of the East
   2. ancient time, aforetime, ancient, from of old, earliest time
   3. anciently, of old (adverb)
   4. beginning
   5. east
2. eastward, to or toward the East (adverb)

Part of Speech: see above in Definition

A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H6923

Same Word by TWOT Number: 1988a

H5769—עלם  /  עולם—‛ôlâm

BDB Definition:

1. long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world
   1. ancient time, long time (of past)
   2. (of future)
      1. for ever, always
      2. continuous existence, perpetual
      3. everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity

Part of Speech: noun masculine

A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H5956

Same Word by TWOT Number: 1631a

Is Eternal Really Different From Everlasting From the Hebrew?

The Hebrew word translated “eternal” above, does not always mean eternal.

With respect to time, it is translated

1. Eternal only once (1) [Deut 33:27]
2. Old, seventeen (17) times [Neh 12:46, Psa 44:1; 55:19; 68:33; 74:2,12; 77:5,11; 78:2; 119:152; 143:5; Jer 46:26; Lam 1:7; 2:17; 5:21; Mic 5:2; 7:20]
3. Ancient, eight (8) times [Deut 33:15; 2Ki 19:25; Isa 19:11; 23:7; 37:26; 45:21; 46:10; 51:9]
4. Everlasting, only once (1) [Hab 1:12]
5. Past, once (1) [Job 29:2]
6. Ever, 1 [Pro 8:23]
7. Etc.

Obviously, the word does not necessarily mean “eternal” as something distinguished from “everlasting”.

First, it is somewhere translated “everlasting”. Second, it means contextually and as translated, less than even everlasting such as “old” etc.