Speaking as a goat - when I bleat on in threads on this board about being more impressed by unwarrented concern and kindness than preaching - this is exactly the kind of thing I’m driving at (not easy to drive with these hooves by the way).
If I am to find myself herded together on the wrong side of the dividing line, I for one, would be very likely to be moved by the love of those sheep over there.
For those who may be interested, I’ve found the following quote (from Thomas Allin) extremely helpful.
I probably read over this before, but it’s not something that should be read over.
It’s a brilliant observation. 
Everlasting correction permanently corrects, everlasting fire permanently consumes, and to perish everlastingly would be to permanently cease to exist (at least as one was prior to perishing–2 Cor. 5:17.)
Very interesting.
BTW: This may or may not fit here, but even Bishop Jeremy Taylor once quoted Justin Martyr to the effect that “everlasting” (when used of “everlasting fire”) “signifies only to the end of it’s proper period.” (Sermon on Christ’s Advent to Judgment.)
encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861611607/fire.html
“Eternal Fire” would permanently destroy ( or consume ) that which needs to be destroyed.
This whole discussion becomes moot once we realize that Matt 25 is part of a speech Jesus gave called the |
“Olivette Discourse.” Why? because Jesus tells us explicitely that ALL of these events MUST take place before that generation passed away. Jesus ascended his throne 2000 yrs ago. This is not refering to some final judgment at the end of time. In response to the reprobate Jewish religious leaders, Jesus was predicting the impending judgment they called down upon themselves when they declared to Pilate, “Let his blood be upon us and our children.” It was an awesome curse they declared upon themselves and history records the results of that curse.
But Jesus is not prophesying about the final fate of individuals when they meet their maker. Rather he is predicting his judgment upon Israel, and any nation for that matter that doesn’t bow the knee to him. Any nation that persecutes Christians shall receive chastisement through out the age to come.Which age? The age of Christ. The age that began when he ascended from the grave and declared that all power and authority has been (note - past tense) given unto him. Israel received one generation reprieve to repent, failed to do so and was judged. Some of the generation Jesus spoke to upon the Mount of Olives were still alive. No all, perhaps not many, but some. James Stuart Russell things the nations refers to the “tribes” of Israel, but it probably refers to all the surrounding nations. If Jesus were referring to individuals we would have him contradicting everything else i the Bible, because he would be advocating salvation by works. what works? The works of treating Christians well. According to the traditional interpretation, Jesus blesses and damns people exclusively on the basis of how they treat Christians. This is nOT the Gospel. So this cannot be the meaning.
We’ve been discussing Matt 24 (though not yet Matt 25, last I checked, despite my trying to introduce the relevant extension of the topic) here in this thread which was originally about the Rapture and universalism.
Would you also repost this comment over there, in order to consolidate recent conversations? (Keep it here, too, of course. If you do, I’ll add a more specific link here for interested readers to follow the conversation over there. 
)
“And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:” - Matthew 25:32
Is it possible to interpret eternal life and eternal punishment in the permanent sense if we view the sheep and the goats as nations, without compromising the universalist stance?
Therefore, the sheep nations are those who collectively fed the poor, gave drink to the hungry, visited the sick and in prison, took in strangers, etc. (though I would be unclear as to who catagorically ‘my brethren’ would consitute: Jews, Christians, or the general population, since Christ died for the world and will eventually make everyone brethren 
).
The reward, therefore, would be those nations will survive any coming judgement and be granted access to the Messianic Kingdom, as suggested in Rev. 21:24.
“Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:…Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”
The goat nations, on the other hand, would be cease to be nations as a permanent consequence, thus eternal punishment. Thus would gel with the pronouncements Jesus had with various cities:
“Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.” - Matthew 10:15
Here, for example, those cities that didn’t receive the disciples (who were commissioned of the Lord to preach the gospel, heal the sick, raise the dead, and cast out demons; you know, freely giving, the sort of things listed in Matt 25) to nor give them peace are to be judged more harshly than Sodom and Gomorrah, for these cities would know better to treat the disciples kindly, whereas Sodom and Gomorrah was rude to begin with.
*"Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:
Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee." - Matthew 11:20-24 *
Evidently, these are the resulting cities Jesus anticipated in Matthew 10. Particularly interesting is Capernaum’s status: one from being exalted in heaven, to one being brought down to hell. Capernaum, btw, is nothing but a ruined archeological site today, though existed up until 750 A.D.
Now I realize that Jesus was condemning cities within Israel, not nations. However, I tend to look at Israel in the OT before Christ as a microcosm of the world at large after Christ. So the idea extends to the nations of the world in their treatment of Christ’s brethren, whomever that may be (I tend to lean toward the Jews and Israel, specifically, and by extension, Christian nations, but am open to other interpretations). I see a microcosm in the parable of the Good Samaritan as well.
Israel, as an example, have a unique national identity, for with they take pride in, for which they have strong cultural and religious traditions. Likewise, Japan, Spain, France, Great Britain, the Philippines, Kenya, Russia, New Zealand, even the U.S, as diverse as it is. To take that identity away is a tremendous loss for that people. Yet what if this is the very punishment awaiting those nations that do not abide by the criteria of Matthew 25. That all the cultural traditions held dear are ruined, the country destroyed, and the people of those nations have nothing left. They would be refugees, people without anymore identity, no nationality to grasp onto. They are no longer who they were. They would be nothing. Dead as a nation. No longer remembered.
“Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:…Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me”
But then, there is the healing of the nations…
BTW, the above view also preserves *individual * salvation by faith, not by works, while the judgment of the nations are by the collective works of the people within those nations.
common sense prevails!
BDAG (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 2000) offers a very straightforward explanation of αἰωνιος: "pertaining to a period of unending duration, “without end.” (page 33)
Furthermore the eschatological context of that passage, combined with wider NT evidence for a final judgment with equally viable outcomes, makes any other translation impossible.
Thanks for posting. Be prepared for a thorough analysis- this is a pretty heady bunch here. Be rigorous with all the arguments that are thrown back. If you are right, we all need to listen!
My first response is this:
1- Can you post what their argument actually is? To claim that it is “straightforward” (Uncomplicated and easy to understand) is merely an assertion without demonstration. Do the hard work involved, folks will listen. If you merely assert, however, why should anyone accept it?
2- You actually mentioned two interpretations that are quite different:
a) pertaining to a period of unending duration
and,
b) without end
Which is it? Option a doesn’t contradict universalism, option b does.
BDAG is like the Oxford Dictionary of NT Greek (It’s the standard reference work), I simply copied the definition it provided for αἰωνιος, much like the way we would if we were arguing about the definition of an English word.
Luke, a warm welcome to the board, and thanks for reminding us of the classic translation that is dominant! Like most, all my training was with the BDAG lexicon (though we were not to take it as inspired, but to do the only thing they could do: study the ancient Greek! For no dictionary can settle debates over an author’s meaning apart from wrestling with his usage in context, and Arndt and Gingrich’s discussion is much more complex than you quoted).
I am less sure that I follow your reasoning as to why all other meanings are “impossible.” On your rationale 1: In every account of events considered “eschatological,” are you saying that they are always of “unending duration”? On your second argument, when you say that all judgment passages have “equally viable outcomes,” do you mean that they all are explicitly of unending duration? How would it help either side’s case if “viable” simply meant that given meanings are merelypossible?
My impression is that: (1)many prophetic and eschatological events are explicitly said to be limited in duration. (2) Applying the modifier “final” to judgment passages involves inserting a word there that does not exist in the Biblical text. Whereas many times when the time-frame of a judgment is expressly delineated, it is plainly stated to be limited in duration (or even conditional).
If you nonetheless perceive that what is implied in such passages makes it “impossible” to think there could be any other meaning than one of the human perceptions (one of A & G’s), perhaps you could present examples, and spell out more specifically how you come to that conclusion. It seems to me that the pattern I perceive described in paragraph two would actually incline one against assuming that BDAG’s definition would apply in Matthew 25.
Thanks for the welcome Bob,
But I think your missing my point, why is the definition provided by BDAG unacceptable?
I don’t mind engaging in a debate about context or nuances in meaning but am happy to wait until we clear up why using a standard Greek-English Lexicon is unacceptable.
Isn’t the ball in your court as well as to answering the question: "why are we obligated to accept the point of view of the authors of BDAG?
Luke, dictionary definitions are perfectly acceptable. But on this forum, we want to see reasons for accepting or rejecting dictionary definitions.
I apologize but I’ll delay dialoging about this until I finish a draft of a chapter that looks at Matthew 25:41, 46. After that, I should be able to quickly and clearly respond to that dictionary definition.
Luke, I’m afraid it wrongly seemed virtually self-evident to me that everyone recognizes that it would not be acceptable to settle the meaning of a statement by simply appealing to a dictionary. Let me use an over the top example. If you said, “Bob, I think you are foolish about this. Indeed, you are a crazy nut,” and I insisted that according to the Oxford Dictionary, it is impossible for you to be saying anything but that I am a ‘hard-shelled fruit’" you might rightly object that the context is a clue to your real intended connotation: that you actually think that I am ‘crazy,’ or have a screw loose.
An English dictionary simply records human observations of what seems to them to be some of the current conventions of language. This could never be used to prove what it is impossible for someone else to mean. That’s why there are competing sources cited for different views of a word’s meaning, and why dictionaries are constantly revised.
In the case of a Koine Greek dictionary, it is even far more problematic to hold that it is the last word. For it is trying to sort out definitions for what is now a dead language, and yet one whose usage spanned many years, and wherein there is much evidence of definitions developing and changing (as well as new ancient documents arising, which often clarifies a difficult term), much less being different for the same word in varying contexts.
I fear that I must be missing something about your assumptions. In my Christian tradition, this question appears to be as simple as our protestant consensus that only ‘God’ is infallible, whereas all human authorities are subject to error. It thereby follows, that no differences in scholarly conclusions can simply be resolved, by one of us citing someone else’s human opinion. Unfortunately many religion discussions instead come down to an exchange of dueling authorities: “My ‘expert’ says this.” “But the one I trust says otherwise…” My bias is that we all grow more in our knowledge when we focus on clarifying the actual data that may have led each of us (or our reference works) to differing conclusions.
We could go round all day in circles Roofus, both accusing the other of begging the question.
Ok Bob, I see your point that sometimes words are ambiguous. I also accept God’s word is authoritative and not BDAG. However all words without context and explanation are ultimately ambiguous, it’s only because of shared assumptions about grammar and meaning that we can understand anything. BDAG is simply a formalized expression of collective research over time about αἰωνιος. And I don’t mind debating the ins an outs of the scholarly consensus (as expressed in BDAG) about αἰωνιος but only after establishing why the universalist community (as expressed in this forum) rejects the standard definition from this particular source.
I see of course that the rejection will based on the larger views about the nature of Hell etc but I’m genuinely interested in why this definition from this reference work is rejected?
I’m looking forward to reading your explanation James but is the same level of explanation consistent across Universalism, so would the “all” passages require just as much qualification and explanation as the “eternal torment” passages?
Luke, thanks, you captured my view of language perfectly! (You also caught by implication to James that all views reject one or another ‘standard definitions;’ so e.g. I could reserve discussing pas’s meaning only after you explain why you reject BDAG’s “all” (the totality of members of the set indicated in context) when e.g. Rom. 5 explicitly says “all men” will be (future tense) justified, or “reconciled” (Col.1), or “made alive in Christ” (1 Cor. 15)).
You also rightly see that one’s definition will be influenced by one’s “larger view” of what other passages say on connected topics. So I’d say we question BDAG’s standard definition because of many passages and uses of aioniois that appear incompatible with it. First, I’m struck that this word is not like “pas,” whose original root appears to literally refer to an adjective for the totality of its’ indicated set. But aioniois has no root or literal meaning that corresponds to “endless duration.” It is derived from the noun which literally meant an “age.” Thus, if #2, I see that numerous uses of it in the NT & LXX refer to events of explicitly limited duration, then limiting its’ meaning to your citation of BDAG seems incorrect, whereas the literal meaning of the term (pertaining to the age) works well in such contexts. I have further found in the last 5 years in Q & A with those who teach NT Greek at Wheaton, Fuller, and Regent (Vancouver) that all these non-universalist authorities agree that aioniois at least sometimes cannot bear a meaning like “everlasting,” and by implication that your understanding of BDAG’s implications is incorrect.
Thus, I am left asking if there can be a reasonable explanation for BDAG’s popular definition. And my bias is that popular views and translations have often way later been recognized as wrong. Here, I know that the Constantinian Roman Church (I think influenced by pagan Greek concepts) institutionalized the idea of infinitely extending torment as the necessity for sins in finite time as a powerfully motivating way to direct people’s lives. It since has been embraced by evangelicals, who often tell me that challenging this traditional reading of aioniois would remove them from their scholarly livlihood. My bias is that such historically developed traditions of men are able to explain why BDAG and the traditional consensus are maintained that aioniois has such a non-literal meaning. If I’m right that its linguistic derivation cannot bear the weight of such a definition, then we are left to settle it, the way the usage of most words are determined, by wrestling with how the term is used in its total context.
Very interesting post, Bob. It will be interesting to hear Luke’s reply. Luke, thanks for the reply. If and when you have time, could you give me your take on my challenge to your initial post (see that points about a and b). If time is scarce, I’d rather hear you dialogue with Bob Wilson than myself!