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!
So would this particular universalist community reject BDAG’s overall reliability or just its particular definition of αἰωνιος?
In other words Bob (and Roofus) are you saying BDAG is incorrect on just this definition or in general? (Although the fact that a word is derived from another or maybe modified by its context doesn’t prove BDAG’s definition is incorrect.)
First off, I am not a universalist, I just hope that it is true…
The BDAG is only incorrect on this one word, the rest is absolutely without error 
Luke, please avoid assuming that any given member of this forum community is a universalist or has the same interpretation of any given biblical verse (or the same opinion of BDAG). Anyway, by the way, I already wrote an article that partially addresses Judgment Day in the book of Revelation, which I suppose has something to do about what you call the “wider NT evidence for a final judgment with equally viable outcomes.”
theoperspectives.blogspot.com/2010/02/kings-earth-heaven.html
Hi Luke,
If you stick around, I think you’ll find that this is a diverse community of believers. Not all here are universalists–though most are at least friendly to the doctrine, but even among the convinced universalists there are differing varieties of belief. 
As far as BDAG goes, I’m not personally familiar with it, but it looks like a fantastic resource. I would certainly not throw it out simply because I disagree with their interpretation of a single word. No human work is infallible, and I reserve the right to do my own fact checking and accept or reject any particular definition accordingly.
You asked, “Why is the definition provided by BDAG unacceptable?” Here’s my answer (the short version) to that:
When I was first looking into universalism I spent a lot of time on aion and aionios, and came to the conclusion that these are not words with simple, straightforward definitions. If ‘aion’ simply meant ‘eternity’ (as in: a period without beginning or end) then to translate the corresponding adjective ‘aionios’ as ‘eternal’ (meaning: having the quality of unendingness) would be easy and straightforward. But that’s not the case.
Aion most closely translates to our word ‘age’. An age can be very long, or quite short. My history-teacher husband has all sorts of books on his shelf with names like “Age of Sail” “Age of the Galley” “Age of Calamity” and so forth. You could say we’re now in “the Information Age”. We all know what an age means. It’s a period of of time, set apart by some particular distinguishing and unifying charactaristic.
When a noun is used as an adjective it’s proper or original meaning (speaking in general, since word-meanings are very changeable) is that of ‘being like’ whatever the noun is. Since “aionios” is the adjective form of “aion”, it’s definition cannot, in my opinion, be said to ‘straightforwardly’ have a different quality than the noun it derives from. I would expect such a claim to include explanation for the shift in meaning.
The definition you quoted was:
Given the definition of aion, it would seem that a more fitting explanation of aionios would be “pertaining to a period of any length which has a specific character.”
Having said all that, I know some will argue that ‘aion’ can also mean ‘having no end’. I disagree with that because, while I agree that it is possible for some particular ‘aion’ to have no end, it is not defined by that quality. Here’s a more obvious example of the point I’m making: If I describe myself as: a brown-haired woman, and then go on to describe another person as ‘womanly’, you know I’m not saying she has brown hair. Her hair color is irrelevant because it is not the definition of ‘woman’. In the same way, the length of an aion is irrelevant to the fact of it’s being an aion.
Sonia
Luke,
Coming from conservative evangelical experience, I am baffled by your insistence that the focus remain on our trust in BDAG’s reliablity. Perhaps the only consensus on our site would be that trust in any human’s lexicon should not be pivotal to settling different interpretations. Rather the debate should rest on the Biblical date itself.
Of course, most lexicons will be helpful in most of their definitions (and BDAG is as good as they come). Still, their interpretation of any given term is subject to the Scriptural data, and especially when they embody theological concepts at the center of historic traditions. Were you taught that trust in certain reference works is crucial for right beliefs?
Let me try another analogy: If there was a debate about what Stephen Hawking’s references to “God” meant, would you say that the key is confidence in someone’s dicionary definition? Or that the most crucial focus would be in studying how Hawking himself used the word? If #2, should the Bible be the exception, where confidence in other writers of theology and linguistics would be more important than giving oneself to the crucial study of God’s own text and use of words? My bias is that there is no legitimate shortcut to the hard work of studying it for ourselves.
Luke,
I’m still working on Matthew 25:41 but I’ve preliminary ideas. A literal interpretation of 25:41 indicates a permanent banishment from God and punishment in everlasting fire for (1) the devil, (2) the devil’s angels, and (3) humans who neglected the needs of needy followers of Jesus. This includes images of everlasting torment and annihilation.
Concerning the word aionion, ancient Greek meaning of aionion includes “everlasting” and “an indefinite period of time.” And the use aionion in John 17:3 implies a favorable relationship with God.
I currently don’t have a copy of BDAG on hand, but I would gladly accept a copy as a donation to my humble library. Regardless, if BDAG says that there is no meaning to aionion other then “without end,” then I would think that BDAG needs minor revisions. And I’m unsure what BDAG says about the different forms of aionion, so I’ll withhold judgment until I see another copy of BDAG. However, I definitely agree with BDAG concerning the literal interpretation of Matthew 25:41.
Anyway, NT images of everlasting banishment from God and punishment in everlasting fire are nonliteral and don’t refute the wider NT eschatology about the hope of universalism (Hope Against Hope, Bauckham and Hart, 1999).
Sure I didn’t want to tar everyone with the same brush. I just wanted see why people would generally not approve of the BDAG definition. I persisted because initially people jumped on the definition at first without offering an explanation of why this particular reference work shouldn’t be trusted in relation to αἰωνιος. I see now (and correct me if I’m misrepresenting anyone) that the answers fall into two groups. Some of you such as James and Bob to an extent, reject the definition because of their larger theological framework, others such as Roofus and Bob to an extent reject the definition because of the way BDAG has put the definition itself.
I just wanted to establish that Roofus, before we got into the particulars, I think that’s why we got off on the wrong foot with each other.
If I may ask a further framing question, and this probably goes far beyond this particular thread but what is the argument that is the clincher for universalism? (The argument that makes you go even if BDAG is right, it’s wrong because of x or y argument.) E.g. the love of God, God’s sovereignty, the nature of victory or sin.
Sorry to double post folks, but in reply specifically to James’ question:
BDAG gives the word group as follows (p32-33):
αἰων (the noun) 1. “long period of time without reference to beginning or end” e.g Acts 15:18 or John 6:51 2. “A segment of time as a particular unit of history” e.g. Matt 13:22 or Eph 2:7 3. “the world as a spatial concept” e.g Hb 1:2 or 1 Tim 1:17 3. “Aeon as a person” e.g. Eph 2:2 or Col 1:26
αὠνιος (the adjective) 1. “pertaining to a long period of time” e.g. Rom 16:25 or 2 Tim 1:9 2. “pertaining to a period of time without beginning or end” e.g. Rom 16:26 or Hb 9:14 3. “pertaining to a period of unending duration” e.g. Luke 16:9 or Matt 25:46
(Someone else bought my copy for me, although they say Thayers is almost as good for much less of the price.)
“others such as Roofus and Bob to an extent reject the definition because of the way BDAG has put the definition itself.”
Did I ever say that I “rejected the definition”? NO! I said that it wasn’t saying what you were claiming that it said. For instance, one of the definitions says “pertaining to an unending age”. Something can “pertain to an age” but not last all the way through it, right? And my other take was that it was not to be blindly accepted without reference to how it arrived at its’ decision? What is their argument? Or should we just accept it because they said it?
Luke, thanks for your genuineness and the fuller citation of BDAG. If it says that the #1 definition of Matthew’s term is pertaining to a “a long period of time” (translating Rom. 16:25 that way), on what basis would I be confident in their conclusion that Matthew 25’s reference to such an age to come should be translated differently as endless? Choosing variations among possible definitions for a given text is something that the greatest authorities disagree about all the time. I can’t see that there usually is any clear cut scientific basis that resolves differing opinions in such cases. We are always left to evaluate the actual contextual reasons offered for preferring a particular definition in a specific context.
Of course your question as to what drives universalism bears on such inclinations, though each of us may have different answers. Your two books proffer two things most compelling to me. Talbott’s argument that universalism best resolves the conflict I alway perceived in the Bible’s clearest widely held beliefs, such as that God loves and seeks to save all, and that his power is able to accomplish his ultimate purposes. Second, Mac Donald’s case that the whole direction of the Biblical story makes the most sense, as it pushes in the direction of a God who is constantly expanding the boundaries to achieve a universal victory of his love for the whole creation. That hopeful vision of an ultimate Reality in God that promises a Love and Wisdom that we can trust is able to succeed in reconciling and redeeming the most hopeless resistance is compelling for me. If I’m going to put my faith in the Goodness of God, why not really take a step of trust that appears coherent?
Bob, you said: “If it says that the #1 definition of Matthew’s term is pertaining to a “a long period of time”…”
Does BDAG say that about Matthew’s verse?
No, in Luke’s excerpt, it provides that reference for another more traditional translation.