Simple Queston here: do or do not administrations/dispisations exist in the Bible? Please, no VPW quotes and I don't really think that the order of when gospels and epistiles were written adds credence to the validity of the question, then, if that should matter, I want to hear it.
Dispensationalism was born out of the mind of John Nelson Darby. He needed to find a way to make his concept of the secret rapture fit with the scriptures.
"If one accepted Darby's view of the secret rapture... Benjamin Wills Newton pointed out, then many Gospel passages must be "renounced as not properly ours."...this is precisely what Darby was prepared to do.
Too traditional to admit that biblical authors might have contradicted each other, and too rationalist to admit that the prophetic maze defied penetration, Darby attempted a resolution of his exegetical dilemma by distinguishing between Scripture intended for the Church and Scripture intended for Israel...
The task of the expositor of the Bible was, in a phrase that became the hallmark of dispensationalism, "rightly dividing the word of truth".
From "The Roots of Fundamentalism:
British and American Millenarianism 1800-1930" (1970)
O.K., waysider - so if the secret rapture (an event and not an administration or oikanomia as stated by WordWolf) is not an end event to this ("grace") oikanomia then does the oikanomia that existed with Christ's initial physical presence eventually go directly to the tribulation period? Just need to know so I can store up on fuel, food, seeds and ammo.
O.K., waysider - so if the secret rapture (an event and not an administration or oikanomia as stated by WordWolf) is not an end event to this ("grace") oikanomia then does the oikanomia that existed with Christ's initial physical presence eventually go directly to the tribulation period? Just need to know so I can store up on fuel, food, seeds and ammo.
waysider's saying there are no "administrations"/"dispensations" except in the
opinion of the reader. So, we're not in a "grace" "oikonomia" any more
than we're in a "law administration."
It's entirely a separate discussion as to whether or not there's a
"rapture" of any kind or any kind of tribulation or end-time.
That might be several discussions right there.
So, you might rephrase with something like
"so, do we live through a tribulation before Christ returns to Earth?"
WordWolf, the Tribulation stuff was more a side bar to the main topic of oikonomia(s). I will rephrase for sake of a more clear question: if given there is no grace period to end with the rapture then don't we just continue with Christ's period (could still be called the law period I guess since Christ is off earth for a season) and that will take us onto the tribulation and Christ's 2d coming (excluding the "in the air" coming at the rapture)? Would I be better of in my thinking if I perceived the Bible starting from creation (and what was before) and ending in the life that follows after the 2d reserection - but if that be the case, where do the changes take place for Christ dieing for mankinds sins - at the accenssion, at penticost, at the first resurection?
I am not trying to do a word play here, I do want some opinion on this linear time line.
O.K., here's where chronology comes into play. We know the Gospels were written after the Epistles. However, as per the Canon (the order in which things appear in the Bible), they are situated in the Bible in a position that precedes the Epistles. This makes it seem like they were written first. It fits handily with the dispensational tenets if we assign them to a period that is out of chronological sequence with the scriptures. Hence, the Christ Administration comes into play before the Grace Administration. This helps to resolve contradictions that would be bothersome if we simply assigned the scriptures their proper chronological order..... Doesn't fit? No problem, just assign it to another administration and say it wasn't addressed to us. Problem solved...kinda.
Actually, the Star Wars analogy is perfect. There was a sense of what happened in the past in the "middle trilogy", but no specifics, so/and Lucas went back and fleshed it out which, if you watch the first 3 first, doing that gives context to the second 3. So it happened with what we call the Bible. Several people had the idea to sit down and write a narrative of Jesus' life. Some borrowed heavily on earlier narrative and some (in the opinion of some) just made stuff up. So the "early" church fathers sat down and waded through all that stuff and picked out what to include - most of it confined to what agreed with later beliefs - not necessarily what was believed when Jesus was alive, or even shortly after his death.
The unvarnished truth is that the "NT" does not contain one account written by an eye-witness to the events surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Not one person who can be verified to have had an actual relationship with Jesus when he was alive even thought to pen what was miraculous. Every last bit of it has to be taken on "faith" that the people are reporting accurately on events that they never witnessed. Furthermore, all of this was put together centuries after the fact, which further dilutes the "to whom it is written" aspect. None of it was written to anyone in particular, except when a letter specifically states to whom it is written. The NT as a whole didn't have to be logical. It didn't have to agree. It didn't have to be perfect. That is something we have been fed as a necessity in order to lend street-cred to the text. And we have been twisting ourselves in knots ever since trying to make it so. At least the Catholic church doesn't really try.
Later "scholars" introduced these different methodologies to try to deal with the inconsistencies and utter failure of logic. Are we in an age of "grace"? Jesus spoke nothing along those lines (that I can recall and I'm too lazy to check). He believed his return was going to happen sooner as opposed to later, but even then he was hedgy when it came to the when part. Paul introduces the concept of grace, probably as a diversion to deal with the when problem, which is a segue from what Jesus taught, which then had to be dealt with.
[Edit] So I think dispensations are a way to make sense of the utter differences between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught to fulfill the premise that the Bible is inerrant. If you remove that premise, no dividing into ages is necessary, but then one is left wondering is one should follow the Jesus of the gospels, or Paul's Jesus.
The word oikonomia appears seven times in the New Testament: Luke 16:2,3,4; 1 Corinthians 9:17; Ephesians 1:10, 3:2; and Colossians 1:25. The word means "stewardship," the arrangement by which one person manages another person's property. It can be translated appropriately as "management." In the Bible itself, oikonomia is NEVER used to indicate a period of time.
There is a good Greek word that DOES mean a period of time. That word is aion, properly translated "age" though the KJV translates it as "world" or "ever." The Bible indicates that there are multiple ages, but only two are described with sufficient detail to distinguish them, "this age" and "the age to come." Paul calls the period of time in which we now live "this present evil age" in Galatians 1:4. The age to come will begin in full when Jesus Christ returns. There is NO SUCH THING in the Bible as an "age or grace" or an "age of law" or a "church age."
The age to come was scheduled to begin with the general resurrection of the dead. Everyone (including Paul) was thrown for a loop when Jesus was resurrected by himself. In one sense, the age to come began partially when Jesus was resurrected, but will not come fully until the general resurrection happens. In that sense, we are living in an "overlap" of the ages.
Likewise, covenants are never used in the Bible to indicate periods of time.
The main tenet of dispensationalism is that the Church is completely separate and discontinuous from Israel. They teach that no prophecy of the Old Testament or the Gospels can be applied to the Church. The day of Pentecost was an easy place to say that the "church age" began, but where should it end? It couldn't end with "our gathering together unto him" (2 Thessalonians 2:1) because that gathering is prophesied all over the Old Testament and the Gospels. So Darby and company invented the pretribulation "rapture" of the Church. By choosing a word that doesn't occur in the Bible, "rapture", Darby and company could teach whatever they wanted to teach about it, and nobody could point out "that's not what the Bible says about it" because the Bible doesn't say ANYTHING about a "rapture."
The truth is that the Church consists of the believing remnant of Israel under the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31, with believing Gentiles grafted in on the same basis as the believing remnant of Israel, by grace through faith in the resurrection and lordship of Jesus the messiah.
Just for the sake of consideration, the power of dispensationalism lies in its presentation of a logical framework for chronologically organizing information contained in the Bible. The system is logical, but not sound, because the premise that oikonomia means "a period of time" is false.
Dispensationalism took as its jumping off point the covenantal theology of the Reformation, but covenantal theology also fails as a device for chronologically organizing information, since a "covenant" is no more "a period of time" than an oikonomia is.
The best framework I've found for chronologically understanding the Bible is God's promise-plan by Walter C. Kaiser. The promise-plan starts with God's promise that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent, continues through God's promise to Abraham that in his seed would all the families of the earth be blessed, and develops through God's promise to David that of his seed's kingdom there would be no end, the promise in Jeremiah that there would be a new covenant, the promise of the resurrection in Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, etc. The Old Testament is a story of doom, with everything imaginable getting in the way of God bringing his promise-plan to pass. The New Testament presents us with the partial current fulfillment of some of the promises, and the hope of future fulfillment for ALL of them!
Kaiser doesn't speculate about "periods of time" beyond what the Bible says about "this age" and the "age to come," and the current apparent overlap of the ages.
Dispensationalism and covenant theology aren't the only options out there. Schoenheit seems to be too caught up in the claptrap and hype of PFAL to recognize this truth...
Folks, there have been alot of statements anti the REV translation that I enjoy reading by JS, et.al. and I have asked you all to point out the specifics on the doctrinal forum and we can discuss those issues but except for Wordwolf I have heard nothing.
Not quite sure if Wordwolf and I finished a discussion since I was off the internet periodically for extended periods (that's not a valid excuse) - I need to revisit past stuff on the doctrinal forum to ensure past issues have been resolved. Last I recall, the last doctrinal forum discussion I introduced was that of the Caiaphas prophecy.
I realize that JS has past twi ties and that makes him and anything he does a GSC target but please, looking past that, take a look at the work that has been done on the REV and respond.
I know this is a personal request. If the research is bad, I want to know.
Yes, I am a little turd on other forums but when it comes to the doctrinal forum: I be all eyes and ears.
The concept of dispensations was around long before Darby came along,
whether or not he popularized them, and whether or not his particular
spin on them was consistent with previous ones, and whether or not
anyone else got the credit/blame for them. The Westminster Confession
of Faith (1646) even used the word "dispensations."
So, I'd say I don't think it's there, but I'd be slow to declare
"It's not there" without a LOT more digging directly into what
actually IS there.
Probably one of the sensible things (to me, anyways) I read yet on this thread.
Personally, I think when viewed from a distance (and looking back over the last 6000 or so years) there are fairly clear indications that certain period of times had a different set of instructions that were given to men by God. (Some much more verbose, obviously.) So, I suppose that most here would peg me as a dispensationalist. Which is undoubtedly true, but not after the manner of either Bullinger, VPW, or anyone else that you might care to mention, including Schoenheit. (Unless you're familiar with Les Feldick's, as his view on this is the best I've come across. I know of no one else that matches his teachings on this, and I've looked at more than a few.)
I looked up John 11:26 using my biblical software.
...
From the actual Greek words used in this verse and my detailed study of the Greek words for "Age" as used in the New Testament with link above. This translation is more accurate.
verse. 26
"and whoever lives and believes in me will not ever die in the Age to come. Do you believe this?
And stated again. The translation of three Greek words as seen in John 11:26 using the Strong's numbering system, with definitions above is in this order, "1519", "3588", "165". To then only translate this as the English "Never" shows a lack of understanding and perhaps also doctrinal bias.
For whatever it's worth, it seems to me that the Douay-Rhiems version makes the most sense of this verse. (Of course, the Latin Vulgate carries some other baggage along.) Weymouth and Wycliffe's version also seem to allude to a similar meaning, but it's harder to pick up on.
...but I preferred "stewardship", and focused on who were the stewards
and what they were stewarding.
Interesting thought. I'm not aware of any covenant associated with Paul, so I don't see that as being the best fit, but he does acknowledge a certain stewardship. The difficulty with "stewardship" for me is how much reliance it seems to put on what man does rather than on what God does. But, maybe it can be seen as God opening or closing certain doors (or instructions) based upon where man is at, at such and such point in time. (I'd need to put more time and thought in it.) It initially might seem to make a stronger case for the called out (i.e., the church) of this era having started with Paul, rather than on the day of Penetcost in Acts 2.
you and I are both wrong and missed something crucial.
That's always true, but I get suspicious whenever Darby's name gets
trotted around. And again when someone drops a term meant to belittle
a position like "secret rapture." If Darby had called it that, then
it would be appropriate for using it to criticize him, especially
when it would be an inconsistent term.
The concept of dispensations was around long before Darby came along,
whether or not he popularized them, and whether or not his particular
spin on them was consistent with previous ones, and whether or not
anyone else got the credit/blame for them. The Westminster Confession
of Faith (1646) even used the word "dispensations."
So, I'd say I don't think it's there, but I'd be slow to declare
"It's not there" without a LOT more digging directly into what
actually IS there.
========================
I lost the topic.
Was the STF-friendly Bible, produced and sponsored by STF and
written by one guy, connected to this?
(I heard Scofield's was, bot not Schoenheit's.)
The idea that an oikonomia can be considered a period of time goes clear back to the early Church fathers, even though the Bible NEVER uses oikonomia in that way. Oikonomia is used every time it occurs (7 times) to mean "stewardship-- an arrangement whereby one person manages another person's property."
Earlier forms of dispensationalism were fairly innocuous, but the form Darby invented and Scofield popularized in his reference Bible is toxic, because it makes the cross of Christ of none effect to the Church.
The thing that distinguishes Darby's dispensationalism is that it says the Church which came into being on the day of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2 is a wholly new thing, completely separate and discontinuous from Israel. "Rightly dividing the Word of truth" originally meant to discern the difference between promises that were supposedly made to Israel and promises presumed to have been made to the Church. Dispensationalists said that prophecies and promises made to Israel COULD NOT be applied to the Church.
When the Romans put Jesus on the cross, they sneeringly put a sign up designating him as the king of Israel. What they failed to realize was that they were crucifying the actual king of Israel. If we read the accounts in Isaiah of the messiah as the suffering servant, we come to recognize that Jesus wasn't just being crucified as the king of Israel, he was being crucified AS ISRAEL HIMSELF.
Let that sink in for a while before going on...
If Jesus on the cross was standing in for the whole nation of Israel, and if none of the prophecies or promises regarding Israel can be applied to the Church, as the dispensationalists teach, then nothing that Jesus did on the cross can be applied to you and me in the Church today!
The Church is not some wholly new thing as Scofield claimed in his Reference Bible. When Paul wrote Romans 11, he was quite clear about that,
"13Now I speak to you Gentiles. In view of the fact that I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I am glorifying my ministry 14if somehow I can provoke to jealousy those of my flesh and save some of them. 15For if their rejection results in the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance result in but life out from among the dead? 16Now if the piece offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump of dough, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and became a joint-partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, 18do not boast against the branches. But if you are boasting, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.
19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20True. They were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by trust. Do not be arrogant but be in fear, 21for if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you. 22Consider, therefore, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God’s kindness toward you, if you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree?" (REV)
Wierwille lied when he taught that this passage of scripture was addressed to "Gentiles" in general. If we read it carefully, we see that it is addressed to those believers in Rome who had come to Christ from Gentile backgrounds, as opposed to the Christians in Rome who came from Jewish backgrounds. The things Paul wrote in Romans 11 are addressed to you and me, if you were not a Jew before you became a Christian.
As we see, according to the Bible, the Church is composed of believing gentiles grafted into the believing remnant of Israel. To state the case more completely, the Church consists of the believing remnant of Israel under the New Testament promised to Israel in Jeremiah 31:31-34, with believing gentiles grafted in on the same basis as believing Jews, by grace through faith in the resurrection and the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Dispensationalism obscures this truth, and screws up our understanding of EVERY PART of the New Testament.
About 20 years ago I drafted a 32-page paper on this subject (with a 12-page annotated bibliography) titled Dispensing with Darby: For the Accuracy and Integrity of God's Word. I sent copies to Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser. It wasn't something out of the blue. I had been working closely with them on the Dialogue newsletter and editing other written material for several years. Schoenheit's only response was a brief card, barely more than a sentence long, informing me that he was too busy to consider what I had written.
Over the course of the next few months, in their monthly teaching tapes, they doubled-down on their dispensationalism. No longer feeling safe in using Wierwille's perverted explanation for the meaning of Romans 9-11, they proclaimed that Paul's thinking had been tainted while he was writing Romans because he had not yet been "broken of his Jewish mindset." That language was straight out of the Momentus training.
In their scholarly humility (sarcasm!), John, John and Mark decided that they knew what Paul was writing better than Paul himself did when he was writing it! They narrowed the part of the Bible we can trust even farther by saying we couldn't count on the reliability of anything Paul wrote outside his prison epistles (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon), because it wasn't until Paul was taken prisoner in Jerusalem that he realized how screwed up Judaism and his self-identification as a Jew (Romans 11:1) had been.
As far as I can see from reading the REV, Schoenheit has not revised ANY of his thinking. But he doesn't put his position out there in any obvious kind of way, either. The notes in his commentary seem like "oolies." In the Navy Nuclear Power Program, an oolie was a piece of factual information that didn't really matter, like "how many holes are there in the pressurizer blow-down head?" We would pose oolies and bet on who could and who couldn't answer them correctly, but the information made no difference whatsoever in how we operated the plant. Schoenheit's REV commentary contains many obscure and erudite facts, but he never uses his commentary to explain WHY he decided to interpret the scriptures the way he does.
I have NO CONFIDENCE... zero, zilch, zip-point-squat... in Schoenheit's scholarship, because he refuses to submit it to any kind of peer review whatsoever.
I have spent the last five years working on a master's degree in Theological Studies. I am not finished, by a long shot, but I've spent that time in daily, close association with people who are recognized professionals in the field. Two years ago, I switched out of the thesis writing track, because of my health concerns, but I am strongly considering going back on the track and writing a thesis if I can stay alive for a few more years. We write exegesis papers each semester in our classes. For an exegesis paper, we scout what reputable commentaries have to say about a particular passage of scripture, report briefly on what they say, then give our own interpretations. The process is very constrained. There is a formal way to present the material, and the paper can't be more than about a dozen pages long. We spend the whole semester working on the paper, making several drafts and critiquing each others drafts several times through the semester. At the end of the semester, we each have to give an oral presentation of our exegesis papers. This semester I am writing a paper on I Corinthians 2 for New Testament with a view to finding out what Paul means when he says we have the mind of Christ. For Old Testament I am writing a paper on Ecclesiastes 12, because I have reached the stage of life the Preacher was writing about/from.
I am not writing these things to vaunt my own accomplishments. They are very, very minimal. Not even a blip on the radar screen so far. But I have developed a more than casual acquaintance with professional scholarship. If any of my instructors were asked to evaluate Schoenheit's work, I think they would rate him as an enthusiastic hobbyist who has developed some ability to look things up in reference works, but who has not built any skill at assessing or articulating arguments for or against his own positions.
The REV is okay, but you'll learn more about dispensationalist interpretation from Scofield's reference Bible than you will from Schoenheit's work. By the way, I have watched Les Feldick's TV show, and I once spent a day at one of his live presentations. He is simply teaching from Scofield's notes.
the management of a household or of household affairs; specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of others' property; the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship: Luke 16:2-4
NT:3623 oikonomos, oikonomou, ho
the manager of a household or of household affairs; especially a steward, manager, superintendent Luke 12:42
Above using my very good biblical software is the definition of the Greek word that Steve Lortz mentions. These are two related words or the equivalent of the verb form and noun form. Another words one is management. The other is manager. This is just to simplify and is in harmony with the words usages. About 15 years ago I tried to explain this to John Schoenheit also. I like him and think he can be a good bible teacher, but on this subject he should have read this with an open mind.
Here is the only usage that relates to a period or in this usage periods of time.
Ephesians 1:10
10 That in the dispensation (oikonomia) of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
KJV
It basically states that in the management by Jesus Christ of the times after his resurrection that he will eventually gather together all in Jesus Christ. He will eventually do this because Jesus is the saviour of mankind. This will be in the future and will require the fullness of times.
The idea that an oikonomia can be considered a period of time goes clear back to the early Church fathers, even though the Bible NEVER uses oikonomia in that way. Oikonomia is used every time it occurs (7 times) to mean "stewardship-- an arrangement whereby one person manages another person's property."
That looks like opinion, not fact.
Earlier forms of dispensationalism were fairly innocuous, but the form Darby invented and Scofield popularized in his reference Bible is toxic, because it makes the cross of Christ of none effect to the Church.
As does that, especially considering it doesn't show how or why you think it makes the cross of no effect to the Church.
If Jesus on the cross was standing in for the whole nation of Israel,
How does that account for or include the statement in 1John 2:2 that he died for the sins of the whole world?
and if none of the prophecies or promises regarding Israel can be applied to the Church, as the dispensationalists teach, then nothing that Jesus did on the cross can be applied to you and me in the Church today!
I don't see the logical connection between the two statements. It appears non sequitur.
Wierwille lied when he taught that this passage of scripture was addressed to "Gentiles" in general. If we read it carefully, we see that it is addressed to those believers in Rome who had come to Christ from Gentile backgrounds, as opposed to the Christians in Rome who came from Jewish backgrounds. The things Paul wrote in Romans 11 are addressed to you and me, if you were not a Jew before you became a Christian.
As we see, according to the Bible, the Church is composed of believing gentiles grafted into the believing remnant of Israel. To state the case more completely, the Church consists of the believing remnant of Israel under the New Testament promised to Israel in Jeremiah 31:31-34, with believing gentiles grafted in on the same basis as believing Jews, by grace through faith in the resurrection and the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Dispensationalism obscures this truth, and screws up our understanding of EVERY PART of the New Testament.
You are certainly entitled to an opinion, Steve. However, you're putting yourself in a precarious position if you declare it to be much more than that.
When Paul wrote that he was the apostle of the Gentiles (verse 13), do you suppose that he was the apostle to only the Gentiles that were in Rome? Of course not. Then why suppose that when he says "I speak to you Gentiles" immediately prior to that, that he was addressing this to only those Gentiles that were in Rome?
It appears to me that "the root" here stems back to Abraham, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed (Gen.18:18.) The Gentiles (all of them) being grafted in had nothing to do with anything they did to be grafted in, it was a result of the work of the seed of Abraham, the Lord Jesus Christ. And, just as all of Israel (didn't matter whether they did or didn't believe) were considered to be partakers of His goodness (in spite of any of them not being deserving of it), now all Gentiles were positioned to benefit from the goodness of God. (Because they really weren't, prior to this.)
They narrowed the part of the Bible we can trust even farther by saying we couldn't count on the reliability of anything Paul wrote outside his prison epistles (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon), because it wasn't until Paul was taken prisoner in Jerusalem that he realized how screwed up Judaism and his self-identification as a Jew (Romans 11:1) had been.
An absurd saying on their part, if they said it. (And I have no reason to think they didn't.)
This semester I am writing a paper on I Corinthians 2 for New Testament with a view to finding out what Paul means when he says we have the mind of Christ.
Say on.
By the way, I have watched Les Feldick's TV show, and I once spent a day at one of his live presentations. He is simply teaching from Scofield's notes.
Actually, there are notable differences, especially in context of the present discussion, dispensationalism. So your critique is not only shallow, it's very misleading. Ever read or investigate Feldick's teachings relating to this passage in Roman 11, which Scofield has few notes or comments on?
Perhaps you (and Feldick) know more of Scofield's notes than are found here
A blithe reference to Feldick's teachings didn't improve your credibility.
10 That in the dispensation (oikonomia) of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
KJV
It basically states that in the management by Jesus Christ of the times after his resurrection that he will eventually gather together all in Jesus Christ. He will eventually do this because Jesus is the saviour of mankind. This will be in the future and will require the fullness of times.
If we examine the Greek for this verse more closely, Mark, and look at the context also, we find that the word oikonomia means "stewardship" or "management" here also, and not "a period of time."
Verse 9 sets the context, God has made known to us the mystery of his will. Verse 10 tells us what that mystery was, that God would "head up" all things in Christ. "Gather together in one" is a very poor translation of the Greek anakephalaiosasthai. That word is a middle voice infinitive that can be translated literally as "to head up for himself." Our gathering together to be with the Lord is called episynagoge as per II Thessalonians 2:1. This is not the mystery that was first revealed to Paul. This mystery had to have been revealed to Peter before he could say on the day of Pentecost that God had made Jesus both Christ and Lord.
The prepositional phrase "in the dispensation of the fulness of times" does not tell us WHEN God affected heading up all things in Christ for himself, but rather WHY.
The preposition "in" of the King James version is translated from the Greek preposition eis. Now en is the Greek preposition for a static location. Eis is dynamic, and means "proceeding toward and all the way into." Eis could be thought of as "to hit the spot."
The word translated times is kairos, which does not mean chronological time. Kairos means "the opportune moment", or "the decisive moment." Kairos is not a period of time, it is an instance.
The fullness of a thing is that with which it is full. The fullness of a Hostess Twinkis is its cream filling. The fullness of opportune or decisive instances are opportune decisions.
The passage could more accurately be translated "God made known to us the mystery of his will, proceeding for himself all the way into management of opportune decisions by heading up all things in Christ."
Opportune decisions belong to God. By heading up all things in Christ, God gave Jesus the responsibility of managing God's property. As Lord, Jesus is God's steward of the cosmos. That's what the author of Ephesians is writing about in chapter one, not about any "period of time."
Steve read my short post again and don't leave out the definition of oikonomia. Please don't misread this short post. It does not disagree with your posts overall. It is simply easier to read. And please don't leave out the words management and manager in my post for your analysis.
NT:3622 oikonomia, oikonomias, hee
the management of a household or of household affairs; specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of others' property; the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship: Luke 16:2-4
NT:3623 oikonomos, oikonomou, ho
the manager of a household or of household affairs; especially a steward, manager, superintendent Luke 12:42
Above using my very good biblical software is the definition of the Greek word that Steve Lortz mentions. These are two related words or the equivalent of the verb form and noun form. Another words one is management. The other is manager. This is just to simplify and is in harmony with the words usages. About 15 years ago I tried to explain this to John Schoenheit also. I like him and think he can be a good bible teacher, but on this subject he should have read this with an open mind.
Here is the ONLY usage that relates to a period or in this usage periods of time.
Ephesians 1:10
10 That in the dispensation (oikonomia) of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
KJV
It basically states that in the management by Jesus Christ of the times after his resurrection that he will eventually gather together all in Jesus Christ. He will eventually do this because Jesus is the saviour of mankind. This will be in the future and will require the fullness of times.
And adding to this here is the definition of times, which is the Strong's number 2540. See below that this is a measure or portion of time and these measures of time could be larger or smaller. And this is plural usage of time or times.
NT:2540
kairos, kairou, ho
1. due measure; nowhere so in the Biblical writings.
2. a measure of time; a larger or smaller portion of time; hence,
a. universally, a fixed and definite time: Rom 13:11; 2 Cor 6:2;
And Steve I am only quoting ONE usage of this word oikonomia. If you want to make your point again, which I do not disagree with then quote other verses.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
16
17
17
Popular Days
Apr 22
6
Feb 25
5
Mar 17
5
Feb 4
5
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 9 posts
Steve Lortz 16 posts
MRAP 17 posts
TLC 17 posts
Popular Days
Apr 22 2015
6 posts
Feb 25 2016
5 posts
Mar 17 2015
5 posts
Feb 4 2017
5 posts
Popular Posts
Steve Lortz
MRAP - We are old farts together, you and I. I hope you are holding up as well as I am. One time, I wrote a haiku for credit in one of my Old Testament classes on the book of Ecclesiastes. It went lik
Steve Lortz
Thank you for your friendship, Raf! Three years ago, I was in intensive care for nearly a week because of a potassium overdose. I took some kidney and heart damage. About a year and a half ago, I
Steve Lortz
Some thoughts regarding Schoenheit's REV: In the 1600s, Descartes proposed an idea as the very basis the scientific method, to begin by finding a fundamental truth (which was assumed), to proceed
waysider
Dispensationalism was born out of the mind of John Nelson Darby. He needed to find a way to make his concept of the secret rapture fit with the scriptures.
"If one accepted Darby's view of the secret rapture... Benjamin Wills Newton pointed out, then many Gospel passages must be "renounced as not properly ours."...this is precisely what Darby was prepared to do.
Too traditional to admit that biblical authors might have contradicted each other, and too rationalist to admit that the prophetic maze defied penetration, Darby attempted a resolution of his exegetical dilemma by distinguishing between Scripture intended for the Church and Scripture intended for Israel...
The task of the expositor of the Bible was, in a phrase that became the hallmark of dispensationalism, "rightly dividing the word of truth".
From "The Roots of Fundamentalism:
British and American Millenarianism 1800-1930" (1970)
by Ernest R. Sandeen, University of Chicago Press
ISBN 978-0-226-73467-5, p. 65-67"
Short answer: No, they don't exist in the Bible.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Unless, of course,
you and I are both wrong and missed something crucial.
That's always true, but I get suspicious whenever Darby's name gets
trotted around. And again when someone drops a term meant to belittle
a position like "secret rapture." If Darby had called it that, then
it would be appropriate for using it to criticize him, especially
when it would be an inconsistent term.
The concept of dispensations was around long before Darby came along,
whether or not he popularized them, and whether or not his particular
spin on them was consistent with previous ones, and whether or not
anyone else got the credit/blame for them. The Westminster Confession
of Faith (1646) even used the word "dispensations."
So, I'd say I don't think it's there, but I'd be slow to declare
"It's not there" without a LOT more digging directly into what
actually IS there.
========================
I lost the topic.
Was the STF-friendly Bible, produced and sponsored by STF and
written by one guy, connected to this?
(I heard Scofield's was, bot not Schoenheit's.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
O.K., waysider - so if the secret rapture (an event and not an administration or oikanomia as stated by WordWolf) is not an end event to this ("grace") oikanomia then does the oikanomia that existed with Christ's initial physical presence eventually go directly to the tribulation period? Just need to know so I can store up on fuel, food, seeds and ammo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
waysider's saying there are no "administrations"/"dispensations" except in the
opinion of the reader. So, we're not in a "grace" "oikonomia" any more
than we're in a "law administration."
It's entirely a separate discussion as to whether or not there's a
"rapture" of any kind or any kind of tribulation or end-time.
That might be several discussions right there.
So, you might rephrase with something like
"so, do we live through a tribulation before Christ returns to Earth?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
WordWolf, the Tribulation stuff was more a side bar to the main topic of oikonomia(s). I will rephrase for sake of a more clear question: if given there is no grace period to end with the rapture then don't we just continue with Christ's period (could still be called the law period I guess since Christ is off earth for a season) and that will take us onto the tribulation and Christ's 2d coming (excluding the "in the air" coming at the rapture)? Would I be better of in my thinking if I perceived the Bible starting from creation (and what was before) and ending in the life that follows after the 2d reserection - but if that be the case, where do the changes take place for Christ dieing for mankinds sins - at the accenssion, at penticost, at the first resurection?
I am not trying to do a word play here, I do want some opinion on this linear time line.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
O.K., here's where chronology comes into play. We know the Gospels were written after the Epistles. However, as per the Canon (the order in which things appear in the Bible), they are situated in the Bible in a position that precedes the Epistles. This makes it seem like they were written first. It fits handily with the dispensational tenets if we assign them to a period that is out of chronological sequence with the scriptures. Hence, the Christ Administration comes into play before the Grace Administration. This helps to resolve contradictions that would be bothersome if we simply assigned the scriptures their proper chronological order..... Doesn't fit? No problem, just assign it to another administration and say it wasn't addressed to us. Problem solved...kinda.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Proper chronological order" NECESSARILY means
"the order in which they were written" and can't mean
"the order in which events unfold"?
You can't even get Star Wars fans to agree on whether or not
that's the case, and they can ask the author directly
"What is the order in which the movies should be watched?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Actually, the Star Wars analogy is perfect. There was a sense of what happened in the past in the "middle trilogy", but no specifics, so/and Lucas went back and fleshed it out which, if you watch the first 3 first, doing that gives context to the second 3. So it happened with what we call the Bible. Several people had the idea to sit down and write a narrative of Jesus' life. Some borrowed heavily on earlier narrative and some (in the opinion of some) just made stuff up. So the "early" church fathers sat down and waded through all that stuff and picked out what to include - most of it confined to what agreed with later beliefs - not necessarily what was believed when Jesus was alive, or even shortly after his death.
The unvarnished truth is that the "NT" does not contain one account written by an eye-witness to the events surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Not one person who can be verified to have had an actual relationship with Jesus when he was alive even thought to pen what was miraculous. Every last bit of it has to be taken on "faith" that the people are reporting accurately on events that they never witnessed. Furthermore, all of this was put together centuries after the fact, which further dilutes the "to whom it is written" aspect. None of it was written to anyone in particular, except when a letter specifically states to whom it is written. The NT as a whole didn't have to be logical. It didn't have to agree. It didn't have to be perfect. That is something we have been fed as a necessity in order to lend street-cred to the text. And we have been twisting ourselves in knots ever since trying to make it so. At least the Catholic church doesn't really try.
Later "scholars" introduced these different methodologies to try to deal with the inconsistencies and utter failure of logic. Are we in an age of "grace"? Jesus spoke nothing along those lines (that I can recall and I'm too lazy to check). He believed his return was going to happen sooner as opposed to later, but even then he was hedgy when it came to the when part. Paul introduces the concept of grace, probably as a diversion to deal with the when problem, which is a segue from what Jesus taught, which then had to be dealt with.
[Edit] So I think dispensations are a way to make sense of the utter differences between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught to fulfill the premise that the Bible is inerrant. If you remove that premise, no dividing into ages is necessary, but then one is left wondering is one should follow the Jesus of the gospels, or Paul's Jesus.
Edited by TzaiaLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The word oikonomia appears seven times in the New Testament: Luke 16:2,3,4; 1 Corinthians 9:17; Ephesians 1:10, 3:2; and Colossians 1:25. The word means "stewardship," the arrangement by which one person manages another person's property. It can be translated appropriately as "management." In the Bible itself, oikonomia is NEVER used to indicate a period of time.
There is a good Greek word that DOES mean a period of time. That word is aion, properly translated "age" though the KJV translates it as "world" or "ever." The Bible indicates that there are multiple ages, but only two are described with sufficient detail to distinguish them, "this age" and "the age to come." Paul calls the period of time in which we now live "this present evil age" in Galatians 1:4. The age to come will begin in full when Jesus Christ returns. There is NO SUCH THING in the Bible as an "age or grace" or an "age of law" or a "church age."
The age to come was scheduled to begin with the general resurrection of the dead. Everyone (including Paul) was thrown for a loop when Jesus was resurrected by himself. In one sense, the age to come began partially when Jesus was resurrected, but will not come fully until the general resurrection happens. In that sense, we are living in an "overlap" of the ages.
Likewise, covenants are never used in the Bible to indicate periods of time.
The main tenet of dispensationalism is that the Church is completely separate and discontinuous from Israel. They teach that no prophecy of the Old Testament or the Gospels can be applied to the Church. The day of Pentecost was an easy place to say that the "church age" began, but where should it end? It couldn't end with "our gathering together unto him" (2 Thessalonians 2:1) because that gathering is prophesied all over the Old Testament and the Gospels. So Darby and company invented the pretribulation "rapture" of the Church. By choosing a word that doesn't occur in the Bible, "rapture", Darby and company could teach whatever they wanted to teach about it, and nobody could point out "that's not what the Bible says about it" because the Bible doesn't say ANYTHING about a "rapture."
The truth is that the Church consists of the believing remnant of Israel under the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31, with believing Gentiles grafted in on the same basis as the believing remnant of Israel, by grace through faith in the resurrection and lordship of Jesus the messiah.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
As you can see, MRAP,
you've a variety of different points of view to choose from,
with lots of variety but little or no doubt or uncertainty. :)
I wonder if that's helped you any, or just opened up more cans of worms.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Just for the sake of consideration, the power of dispensationalism lies in its presentation of a logical framework for chronologically organizing information contained in the Bible. The system is logical, but not sound, because the premise that oikonomia means "a period of time" is false.
Dispensationalism took as its jumping off point the covenantal theology of the Reformation, but covenantal theology also fails as a device for chronologically organizing information, since a "covenant" is no more "a period of time" than an oikonomia is.
The best framework I've found for chronologically understanding the Bible is God's promise-plan by Walter C. Kaiser. The promise-plan starts with God's promise that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent, continues through God's promise to Abraham that in his seed would all the families of the earth be blessed, and develops through God's promise to David that of his seed's kingdom there would be no end, the promise in Jeremiah that there would be a new covenant, the promise of the resurrection in Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, etc. The Old Testament is a story of doom, with everything imaginable getting in the way of God bringing his promise-plan to pass. The New Testament presents us with the partial current fulfillment of some of the promises, and the hope of future fulfillment for ALL of them!
Kaiser doesn't speculate about "periods of time" beyond what the Bible says about "this age" and the "age to come," and the current apparent overlap of the ages.
Dispensationalism and covenant theology aren't the only options out there. Schoenheit seems to be too caught up in the claptrap and hype of PFAL to recognize this truth...
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
Thanks for your posts Mr.Sanguinette and Mr. Lortz - you provided understanding on the topic and for the rest of the posts: much appreciated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Interesting that the book of Revelation written by John around...? contains references to past, present and future
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
Folks, there have been alot of statements anti the REV translation that I enjoy reading by JS, et.al. and I have asked you all to point out the specifics on the doctrinal forum and we can discuss those issues but except for Wordwolf I have heard nothing.
Not quite sure if Wordwolf and I finished a discussion since I was off the internet periodically for extended periods (that's not a valid excuse) - I need to revisit past stuff on the doctrinal forum to ensure past issues have been resolved. Last I recall, the last doctrinal forum discussion I introduced was that of the Caiaphas prophecy.
I realize that JS has past twi ties and that makes him and anything he does a GSC target but please, looking past that, take a look at the work that has been done on the REV and respond.
I know this is a personal request. If the research is bad, I want to know.
Yes, I am a little turd on other forums but when it comes to the doctrinal forum: I be all eyes and ears.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Probably one of the sensible things (to me, anyways) I read yet on this thread.
Personally, I think when viewed from a distance (and looking back over the last 6000 or so years) there are fairly clear indications that certain period of times had a different set of instructions that were given to men by God. (Some much more verbose, obviously.) So, I suppose that most here would peg me as a dispensationalist. Which is undoubtedly true, but not after the manner of either Bullinger, VPW, or anyone else that you might care to mention, including Schoenheit. (Unless you're familiar with Les Feldick's, as his view on this is the best I've come across. I know of no one else that matches his teachings on this, and I've looked at more than a few.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I've found this site useful at times:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/compare-translations/
For whatever it's worth, it seems to me that the Douay-Rhiems version makes the most sense of this verse. (Of course, the Latin Vulgate carries some other baggage along.) Weymouth and Wycliffe's version also seem to allude to a similar meaning, but it's harder to pick up on.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Interesting thought. I'm not aware of any covenant associated with Paul, so I don't see that as being the best fit, but he does acknowledge a certain stewardship. The difficulty with "stewardship" for me is how much reliance it seems to put on what man does rather than on what God does. But, maybe it can be seen as God opening or closing certain doors (or instructions) based upon where man is at, at such and such point in time. (I'd need to put more time and thought in it.) It initially might seem to make a stronger case for the called out (i.e., the church) of this era having started with Paul, rather than on the day of Penetcost in Acts 2.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The idea that an oikonomia can be considered a period of time goes clear back to the early Church fathers, even though the Bible NEVER uses oikonomia in that way. Oikonomia is used every time it occurs (7 times) to mean "stewardship-- an arrangement whereby one person manages another person's property."
Earlier forms of dispensationalism were fairly innocuous, but the form Darby invented and Scofield popularized in his reference Bible is toxic, because it makes the cross of Christ of none effect to the Church.
The thing that distinguishes Darby's dispensationalism is that it says the Church which came into being on the day of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2 is a wholly new thing, completely separate and discontinuous from Israel. "Rightly dividing the Word of truth" originally meant to discern the difference between promises that were supposedly made to Israel and promises presumed to have been made to the Church. Dispensationalists said that prophecies and promises made to Israel COULD NOT be applied to the Church.
When the Romans put Jesus on the cross, they sneeringly put a sign up designating him as the king of Israel. What they failed to realize was that they were crucifying the actual king of Israel. If we read the accounts in Isaiah of the messiah as the suffering servant, we come to recognize that Jesus wasn't just being crucified as the king of Israel, he was being crucified AS ISRAEL HIMSELF.
Let that sink in for a while before going on...
If Jesus on the cross was standing in for the whole nation of Israel, and if none of the prophecies or promises regarding Israel can be applied to the Church, as the dispensationalists teach, then nothing that Jesus did on the cross can be applied to you and me in the Church today!
All for now... more later...
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The Church is not some wholly new thing as Scofield claimed in his Reference Bible. When Paul wrote Romans 11, he was quite clear about that,
"13Now I speak to you Gentiles. In view of the fact that I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I am glorifying my ministry 14if somehow I can provoke to jealousy those of my flesh and save some of them. 15For if their rejection results in the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance result in but life out from among the dead? 16Now if the piece offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump of dough, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and became a joint-partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, 18do not boast against the branches. But if you are boasting, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.
19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20True. They were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by trust. Do not be arrogant but be in fear, 21for if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you. 22Consider, therefore, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God’s kindness toward you, if you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree?" (REV)
Wierwille lied when he taught that this passage of scripture was addressed to "Gentiles" in general. If we read it carefully, we see that it is addressed to those believers in Rome who had come to Christ from Gentile backgrounds, as opposed to the Christians in Rome who came from Jewish backgrounds. The things Paul wrote in Romans 11 are addressed to you and me, if you were not a Jew before you became a Christian.
As we see, according to the Bible, the Church is composed of believing gentiles grafted into the believing remnant of Israel. To state the case more completely, the Church consists of the believing remnant of Israel under the New Testament promised to Israel in Jeremiah 31:31-34, with believing gentiles grafted in on the same basis as believing Jews, by grace through faith in the resurrection and the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Dispensationalism obscures this truth, and screws up our understanding of EVERY PART of the New Testament.
About 20 years ago I drafted a 32-page paper on this subject (with a 12-page annotated bibliography) titled Dispensing with Darby: For the Accuracy and Integrity of God's Word. I sent copies to Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser. It wasn't something out of the blue. I had been working closely with them on the Dialogue newsletter and editing other written material for several years. Schoenheit's only response was a brief card, barely more than a sentence long, informing me that he was too busy to consider what I had written.
Over the course of the next few months, in their monthly teaching tapes, they doubled-down on their dispensationalism. No longer feeling safe in using Wierwille's perverted explanation for the meaning of Romans 9-11, they proclaimed that Paul's thinking had been tainted while he was writing Romans because he had not yet been "broken of his Jewish mindset." That language was straight out of the Momentus training.
In their scholarly humility (sarcasm!), John, John and Mark decided that they knew what Paul was writing better than Paul himself did when he was writing it! They narrowed the part of the Bible we can trust even farther by saying we couldn't count on the reliability of anything Paul wrote outside his prison epistles (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon), because it wasn't until Paul was taken prisoner in Jerusalem that he realized how screwed up Judaism and his self-identification as a Jew (Romans 11:1) had been.
As far as I can see from reading the REV, Schoenheit has not revised ANY of his thinking. But he doesn't put his position out there in any obvious kind of way, either. The notes in his commentary seem like "oolies." In the Navy Nuclear Power Program, an oolie was a piece of factual information that didn't really matter, like "how many holes are there in the pressurizer blow-down head?" We would pose oolies and bet on who could and who couldn't answer them correctly, but the information made no difference whatsoever in how we operated the plant. Schoenheit's REV commentary contains many obscure and erudite facts, but he never uses his commentary to explain WHY he decided to interpret the scriptures the way he does.
I have NO CONFIDENCE... zero, zilch, zip-point-squat... in Schoenheit's scholarship, because he refuses to submit it to any kind of peer review whatsoever.
I have spent the last five years working on a master's degree in Theological Studies. I am not finished, by a long shot, but I've spent that time in daily, close association with people who are recognized professionals in the field. Two years ago, I switched out of the thesis writing track, because of my health concerns, but I am strongly considering going back on the track and writing a thesis if I can stay alive for a few more years. We write exegesis papers each semester in our classes. For an exegesis paper, we scout what reputable commentaries have to say about a particular passage of scripture, report briefly on what they say, then give our own interpretations. The process is very constrained. There is a formal way to present the material, and the paper can't be more than about a dozen pages long. We spend the whole semester working on the paper, making several drafts and critiquing each others drafts several times through the semester. At the end of the semester, we each have to give an oral presentation of our exegesis papers. This semester I am writing a paper on I Corinthians 2 for New Testament with a view to finding out what Paul means when he says we have the mind of Christ. For Old Testament I am writing a paper on Ecclesiastes 12, because I have reached the stage of life the Preacher was writing about/from.
I am not writing these things to vaunt my own accomplishments. They are very, very minimal. Not even a blip on the radar screen so far. But I have developed a more than casual acquaintance with professional scholarship. If any of my instructors were asked to evaluate Schoenheit's work, I think they would rate him as an enthusiastic hobbyist who has developed some ability to look things up in reference works, but who has not built any skill at assessing or articulating arguments for or against his own positions.
The REV is okay, but you'll learn more about dispensationalist interpretation from Scofield's reference Bible than you will from Schoenheit's work. By the way, I have watched Les Feldick's TV show, and I once spent a day at one of his live presentations. He is simply teaching from Scofield's notes.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
NT:3622 oikonomia, oikonomias, hee
the management of a household or of household affairs; specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of others' property; the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship: Luke 16:2-4
NT:3623 oikonomos, oikonomou, ho
the manager of a household or of household affairs; especially a steward, manager, superintendent Luke 12:42
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
Above using my very good biblical software is the definition of the Greek word that Steve Lortz mentions. These are two related words or the equivalent of the verb form and noun form. Another words one is management. The other is manager. This is just to simplify and is in harmony with the words usages. About 15 years ago I tried to explain this to John Schoenheit also. I like him and think he can be a good bible teacher, but on this subject he should have read this with an open mind.
Here is the only usage that relates to a period or in this usage periods of time.
Ephesians 1:10
10 That in the dispensation (oikonomia) of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
KJV
It basically states that in the management by Jesus Christ of the times after his resurrection that he will eventually gather together all in Jesus Christ. He will eventually do this because Jesus is the saviour of mankind. This will be in the future and will require the fullness of times.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
That looks like opinion, not fact.
As does that, especially considering it doesn't show how or why you think it makes the cross of no effect to the Church.
How does that account for or include the statement in 1John 2:2 that he died for the sins of the whole world?
I don't see the logical connection between the two statements. It appears non sequitur.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
You are certainly entitled to an opinion, Steve. However, you're putting yourself in a precarious position if you declare it to be much more than that.
When Paul wrote that he was the apostle of the Gentiles (verse 13), do you suppose that he was the apostle to only the Gentiles that were in Rome? Of course not. Then why suppose that when he says "I speak to you Gentiles" immediately prior to that, that he was addressing this to only those Gentiles that were in Rome?
It appears to me that "the root" here stems back to Abraham, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed (Gen.18:18.) The Gentiles (all of them) being grafted in had nothing to do with anything they did to be grafted in, it was a result of the work of the seed of Abraham, the Lord Jesus Christ. And, just as all of Israel (didn't matter whether they did or didn't believe) were considered to be partakers of His goodness (in spite of any of them not being deserving of it), now all Gentiles were positioned to benefit from the goodness of God. (Because they really weren't, prior to this.)
An absurd saying on their part, if they said it. (And I have no reason to think they didn't.)
Say on.
Actually, there are notable differences, especially in context of the present discussion, dispensationalism. So your critique is not only shallow, it's very misleading. Ever read or investigate Feldick's teachings relating to this passage in Roman 11, which Scofield has few notes or comments on?
Perhaps you (and Feldick) know more of Scofield's notes than are found here
A blithe reference to Feldick's teachings didn't improve your credibility.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
If we examine the Greek for this verse more closely, Mark, and look at the context also, we find that the word oikonomia means "stewardship" or "management" here also, and not "a period of time."
Verse 9 sets the context, God has made known to us the mystery of his will. Verse 10 tells us what that mystery was, that God would "head up" all things in Christ. "Gather together in one" is a very poor translation of the Greek anakephalaiosasthai. That word is a middle voice infinitive that can be translated literally as "to head up for himself." Our gathering together to be with the Lord is called episynagoge as per II Thessalonians 2:1. This is not the mystery that was first revealed to Paul. This mystery had to have been revealed to Peter before he could say on the day of Pentecost that God had made Jesus both Christ and Lord.
The prepositional phrase "in the dispensation of the fulness of times" does not tell us WHEN God affected heading up all things in Christ for himself, but rather WHY.
The preposition "in" of the King James version is translated from the Greek preposition eis. Now en is the Greek preposition for a static location. Eis is dynamic, and means "proceeding toward and all the way into." Eis could be thought of as "to hit the spot."
The word translated times is kairos, which does not mean chronological time. Kairos means "the opportune moment", or "the decisive moment." Kairos is not a period of time, it is an instance.
The fullness of a thing is that with which it is full. The fullness of a Hostess Twinkis is its cream filling. The fullness of opportune or decisive instances are opportune decisions.
The passage could more accurately be translated "God made known to us the mystery of his will, proceeding for himself all the way into management of opportune decisions by heading up all things in Christ."
Opportune decisions belong to God. By heading up all things in Christ, God gave Jesus the responsibility of managing God's property. As Lord, Jesus is God's steward of the cosmos. That's what the author of Ephesians is writing about in chapter one, not about any "period of time."
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Steve read my short post again and don't leave out the definition of oikonomia. Please don't misread this short post. It does not disagree with your posts overall. It is simply easier to read. And please don't leave out the words management and manager in my post for your analysis.
NT:3622 oikonomia, oikonomias, hee
the management of a household or of household affairs; specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of others' property; the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship: Luke 16:2-4
NT:3623 oikonomos, oikonomou, ho
the manager of a household or of household affairs; especially a steward, manager, superintendent Luke 12:42
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
Above using my very good biblical software is the definition of the Greek word that Steve Lortz mentions. These are two related words or the equivalent of the verb form and noun form. Another words one is management. The other is manager. This is just to simplify and is in harmony with the words usages. About 15 years ago I tried to explain this to John Schoenheit also. I like him and think he can be a good bible teacher, but on this subject he should have read this with an open mind.
Here is the ONLY usage that relates to a period or in this usage periods of time.
Ephesians 1:10
10 That in the dispensation (oikonomia) of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
KJV
It basically states that in the management by Jesus Christ of the times after his resurrection that he will eventually gather together all in Jesus Christ. He will eventually do this because Jesus is the saviour of mankind. This will be in the future and will require the fullness of times.
And adding to this here is the definition of times, which is the Strong's number 2540. See below that this is a measure or portion of time and these measures of time could be larger or smaller. And this is plural usage of time or times.
NT:2540
kairos, kairou, ho
1. due measure; nowhere so in the Biblical writings.
2. a measure of time; a larger or smaller portion of time; hence,
a. universally, a fixed and definite time: Rom 13:11; 2 Cor 6:2;
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000 by Biblesoft)
And Steve I am only quoting ONE usage of this word oikonomia. If you want to make your point again, which I do not disagree with then quote other verses.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.