"Given that mankind is sick (and not what God intended), I've actually come back around to liking "dispensation," when thought of in terms of a dispensary. If you pick up the wrong prescription (perhaps the right medication, but with the wrong instructions) at the pharmacy, not only is it not going to do what it should (or what you think it'll do), it might even kill you. "
WordWolf:
"A) If there's a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking, please share it. Otherwise, it looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery."
TLC
"Surely you know and recognize that "dispensation" is not a translation that is made up. Just exactly why do you suppose they used that word? Do you not think the scholars of 1611 viewed it as a "dispensing" of... something? "
That's not "sharing a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking." That's supposing it matches what the translators of one or more versions were thinking without actually presenting any evidence for it. It still looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery.
"I have a hard time seeing exactly which (or what kind of) covenant you might say or think applies to us in this day and time. I guess I just don't see it written and/or referred to as something applicable to us in anything that Paul wrote. Care to explain you thinking on this?"
WordWolf:
"
Covenants? I think of this:
Hebrews 8 King James Version (KJV)
8 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
==============================
[So, there's the covenant made to the 12 tribes, and the covenant which was promised to follow. Jesus us the mediator of that better covenant. From what I've seen dealing with devout Jews, I think the old, outmoded covenant still does what it did before. It sure is better than no covenant. However, it is outmoded and outdated since the new, improved model left the factory, so to speak."
TLC:
"Yes, there's no question that certain covenants are spoken of, most notably to Israel. And yes, Paul does speak in Hebrews (which I believe he wrote) of a new (better) covenant, but it appears to me that this new covenant relates rather specifically (and certainly most directly) to Israel. In fact, given Paul's concern for all of Israel (and not just those that had accepted Jesus as Lord) and his background, Hebrews offers an highly advanced and powerful insight into both the historical and future covenant relationship between God and Israel. I just don't see the church of the body of Christ brought up or mentioned anywhere in it. Neither do I see the terms of any covenant between God and Christ (or his body.) And as for 1 Tim. 2:5, I'm not convinced that having a mediator necessary implies or mandates a certain need for a covenant."
I didn't quote I Timothy 2:5- which says Christ Jesus is mankind's ONE mediator. I quoted Hebrews 8:6, which states outright that Jesus is the mediator OF that better covenant. As for that covenant referring to us, it's the same comparison as in Galatians 4.
Galatians 4:24ff (KJV)
21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free."
To make Hebrews AND Galatians exclude born-again Christians is to slice us out of a LOT of the Epistles. Hebrews was addressed to Christians of a Jewish background, and Galatians was addressed to Christians living in Galatia. That some of them would have Jewish personal histories or just plain know Scripture (Philip witnessed to a non-Jew reading Scripture in his chariot) is not much of a jump. Paul said one covenant corresponded to the bondwoman's covenant-and that one was "Jerusalem which now is" (Judaism.) The other is ours, which is "children of promise."
====================
Ok, I can't get the freaking thing to stop underlining. I hope my point was clear despite that.)
That's supposing it matches what the translators of one or more versions were thinking without actually presenting any evidence for it.
Actually, it's the 1611 KJV and 1881 RV , which (as far as I know, and as I presume you know already) were collaborative translations done by some of the (if not the) most extensive group of highly qualified language scholars ever assembled to translate the texts into English (in use at that time.) So, I just don't see it as something to be taken lightly, and not bother to look at it in light of that particular nuance.
I quoted Hebrews 8:6, which states outright that Jesus is the mediator OF that better covenant.
I realized that. My point was that the "new covenant" of Hebrews (as detailed further in verse 8) was promised to and with "the house of Israel and with the house of Judah," and again (in verse 10) "with the house of Israel." Furthermore, I don't really see this part of it as yet being fulfilled: "I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts."
Galatians 4:24ff more directly applies to my question (and I'm still pondering it), but it won't necessarily change my view of what is written in Hebrews - which I believe was specifically written to/for all of Israel (believers in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, or not) and not (as you state) "Christians of a Jewish background."
On 6/19/2018 at 12:38 PM, Thomas Loy Bumgarner said:
actually the Geneva Bible and Bishop's Bible proceeded KJV. Me, I prefer the 1960 NASB updated. Also most scholars agree that Hebrews was written by either Lydia or Priscillia and Aquilla
Well, it just doesn't make much sense to me. Without a doubt, there would have been absolutely no one more qualified (from some number of perspectives) to address the nation of Israel on the subject matter than the apostle Paul himself. And, given that 2 Peter (which appears to be written to fellow Jewish believers that obtained "like precious faith") specifically mentions Paul as having "written unto you," the implication appears to be that he is referring to Hebrews. So, while it's not certain, it does seem this offers a fairly reasonable basis for it.
Moderator's note: This post quotes an exceprt of a previous post that was deleted for reasons having nothing to do with this excerpt.
"Given that mankind is sick (and not what God intended), I've actually come back around to liking "dispensation," when thought of in terms of a dispensary. If you pick up the wrong prescription (perhaps the right medication, but with the wrong instructions) at the pharmacy, not only is it not going to do what it should (or what you think it'll do), it might even kill you. "
WordWolf:
"A) If there's a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking, please share it. Otherwise, it looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery."
TLC
"Surely you know and recognize that "dispensation" is not a translation that is made up. Just exactly why do you suppose they used that word? Do you not think the scholars of 1611 viewed it as a "dispensing" of... something? "
WordWolf:
"That's not "sharing a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking." That's supposing it matches what the translators of one or more versions were thinking without actually presenting any evidence for it. It still looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery."
TLC:
"Actually, it's the 1611 KJV and 1881 RV , which (as far as I know, and as I presume you know already) were collaborative translations done by some of the (if not the) most extensive group of highly qualified language scholars ever assembled to translate the texts into English (in use at that time.) So, I just don't see it as something to be taken lightly, and not bother to look at it in light of that particular nuance. "
WordWolf (new posting):
So, that's still not "sharing a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking." That's supposing that your thinking matches what the collaborative translators of the 1611 KJV and 1881 RV were thinking, without actually presenting any evidence that's what they were thinking. It still looks like you made an analogy and ran with it- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery.
Here's what it might look like. Earlier in the thread, I mentioned something about the Greek word "oikonomia", a word that's translated a few ways in the Greek Bible texts.
WordWolf:
"Then again, I didn't render "oikonomia" as "dispensation" NOR "administration." I render it "stewardship", and consider who's in charge of stewarding God's Word at that time, and in what form it's stewarded."
Taxidev:
"This is very interesting. I just looked at Strong and Thayer after finding this word used 4 times in the epistles. All 4 times it is translated dispensation. But both Strong and Thayer hold a type of managerial bent on their definitions, definitely along the lines of what you say here. And, that word is also translated stewardship 3 times in Luke, and steward 3 times in Luke and Titus. So administration, rather than being a period of time, is more of a handling and overseeing.
In fact, Eph 3:2 makes it pretty clear that it is an oversight, a handling.
Good call, WordWolf!"
So, Taxidev looked at "oikonomia"- which, actually, is the word TLC's saying should properly be rendered "dispensation" and further asserts that this word should be taken to mean something akin to a "dispensary" like we think of for medication.
WordWolf:
"Then again, I didn't render "oikonomia" as "dispensation" NOR "administration." I render it "stewardship", and consider who's in charge of stewarding God's Word at that time, and in what form it's stewarded."
TLC directly replied to this with:
"Given that mankind is sick (and not what God intended), I've actually come back around to liking "dispensation," when thought of in terms of a dispensary. If you pick up the wrong prescription (perhaps the right medication, but with the wrong instructions) at the pharmacy, not only is it not going to do what it should (or what you think it'll do), it might even kill you. "
So far, it seems the Greek all says one thing, and that has nothing to do with "oikonomia" being any kind of "dispensary" or related to that in concept in any way. I'm still asking TLC to make a case for it, and keep getting "'Dispensation' is the word those translators chose" and a refusal to address that their usage of it seems to go in a completely different direction other than a "dispensary." I don't know why they chose that specific word, but there seems to be no reason whatsoever to think it was in relation to a medication. The usage all seems to refer to some sort of management or governance, rather than a dispensary or even a period of time, Which, of course, is a different talking-point.
Taxidev, if you saved your data when you did the search, can you post here and retrace your steps so everyone can see how you got there? It sounded like you documented all your steps, but if you could type out the details, it would be appreciated. (I'd have posted a similar search already, but I regret I lack the time so far. If you don't lack the time, I for one would be grateful.)
The above posts in this thread were moved here because I read them as regarding "Dispensationalism" rather than VPW's Plagiarism.
Please let me know by PM if something was moved which should not have been, or if something more needs to be moved. Thank you.
Lemme see if I got this right - so the first rule of fight club...er..uhm...I mean this dispensational thread is there is no talking about wierwille’s plagiarism
Lemme see if I got this right - so the first rule of fight club...er..uhm...I mean this dispensational thread is there is no talking about wierwille’s plagiarism
The second rule of fight club is whenever someone breaks the first rule of fight club, you must instruct them that research means re-search.
"oikonomia"- which, actually, is the word TLC's saying should properly be rendered "dispensation" and further asserts that this word should be taken to mean something akin to a "dispensary" like we think of for medication.
No, I never said that. I very plainly said that I've "come back to liking dispensation" (and have given you several reasons since why.) Frankly, I'm not convinced there is a perfect translation for it, as it carries with it several nuances of meaning. One of which (that I see as being essential to it) is that there is/was a "dispensing" of words (i.e., of) which markedly set or changed or altered the relationship between God and man.
At first, man was put in the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. Then he was sent forth from it to till the ground from whence he was taken. Then, in addition to the green herb, every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for man. Of course, that all changed with Moses and the giving of the law. When did that change? Yeah, with the apostle Paul (see Col. 1:25). Of course, this is but one little aspect of it. But if anyone wants to blenderize it all and live on the slop, just don't blame God if you aren't feeling nourished by it, or it if makes you sick, or if you can't make sense of certain things. There's a (healthy) reason for the separations.
Truth is, I also very much like the nuance of stewardships, in light of it involving different "economies." Perhaps its a reflection of certain fiduciary responsibilities. If you're going to prosper (or at least, not be sent to the poor house), you need to be able to recognize and adapt to what the "real" economy is all about. Sure, there may be patterns and similarities involved, but if you fail to see the differences... well, no need to go too deep into it. But if you really want to get deep into another perspective on it, there appears to be a certain "crossing over" involved with each change. (However, I'm not going there, as I couldn't even get you past the dispensing issue without you demanding - in typical twi fashion - "chapter and verse.")
I'm surprised to see someone make a virtue of not having a Scriptural rationale for something, but I'm fine with continuing on about "stewardship".
I think the sensible thing here will be to pull out that word "oikonomia" and get into its usages- specifically, what it was meant to say and what was not meant to say. As much as I like the word "stewardship", there may be problems with translating it that way- or implications that should NEVER be made- because it wasn't meant to go in a direction I think it should mean, or want it to mean.
I'm also curious. If we're not going to examine ideas and terms using the Bible, on what are we going to base the bulk of the discussion? Personally, if I have a brilliant and clever idea that has zero support from the Bible, and I assert it, I expect to be called on that one, and vice versa....
I'm surprised to see someone make a virtue of not having a Scriptural rationale for something, but I'm fine with continuing on about "stewardship".
I'm nearly dumbfounded that you won't, can't, or don't care to consider any of the directly quoted from scripture phrases I plainly gave in my last post as being some "Scriptural rational" for a certain "dispensing" (of the Word of God) that markedly set or changed or altered the relationship between God and man. What, did you need chapter and verse quoted with each phrase before acknowledging that they were indeed "scriptural"? Furthermore, lest anyone forget, this thread didn't exactly start in a doctrinal forum - else I might never have gone there. But, since you asked (and since its not something fabricated on a whim), I steered into it by illustrating the basic fact that there was indeed a "dispensing" of something at various times which coincided with a significant change in the relationship between God and man. However, that part of it evidently either went over your head, or went clean clear through. (Which is probably why I might have avoided this aspect of it had it started some other way.) You want to drop it because its too hard for you to see any scriptural rational for it? Fine. Kindly lay off the unjust critique that it doesn't exist just because you can't (or don't care to ) follow it.
2 hours ago, WordWolf said:
I think the sensible thing here will be to pull out that word "oikonomia" and get into its usages- specifically, what it was meant to say and what was not meant to say.
Have at it. I can hardly wait to see your detailed Scriptural rationale and in-depth explanation of it. Who knows, maybe I'll like it.
I think the sensible thing here will be to pull out that word "oikonomia" and get into its usages- specifically, what it was meant to say and what was not meant to say. As much as I like the word "stewardship", there may be problems with translating it that way- or implications that should NEVER be made- because it wasn't meant to go in a direction I think it should mean, or want it to mean.
I'm also curious. If we're not going to examine ideas and terms using the Bible, on what are we going to base the bulk of the discussion? Personally, if I have a brilliant and clever idea that has zero support from the Bible, and I assert it, I expect to be called on that one, and vice versa....
Sure - oikonomia and usages sound like a reasonable start. I am not 100% convinced that doing "word studies" on Greek words is going to present a great deal of enlightenment regarding "the ages" or "administrations of time" types of views. The LXX isn't as precise as the Hebrew OT.
And I'm going to obviate one of my other problems. I reject a fundamentalist viewpoint of being able to do mathematical type proofs with scriptures. I see the Greek word for scribe which is "grammeteis" - or grammatician. Jesus taught much on the Pharisees and Scribes. His teachings on Pharisees are the core concept behind a favorite book around here "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse". His teachings on scribes and Pharisees to me really pinpoint the heart of the Way and splinter groups. How Jesus teaches they operate, you can observe them operating in that fashion. I personally am recovering from acting in that fashion. So my views on scripture are influenced by that.
The expanded ideas surrounding "oikonomia" of the pharmacy dispensing help and medication, and the stewardship angles to me strike a chord because my view of scriptures is as inspiration. I view it less as a rulebook of rules to live your life by, although if I examine my life I do see good things in living up to the list categories. The less people understand good heart and motive and inspiration, the more they are going to require rules to live life. The more I see people focused on rules the less freedom and grace I see in daily life.
On the other side of this discussion, you present a valid point. If we aren't going to examine ideas and terms using the Bible and inherent definitions, then to what standard will the discussion adhere? None I suppose.
I wish I had a better answer for myself to your questions than "somewhere in the middle of digging into detail, using good common sense, and having an active prayer life seeking guidance".
But unfortunately that is the best I have at the moment.
TLC:
"I'm nearly dumbfounded that you won't, can't, or don't care to consider any of the directly quoted from scripture phrases I plainly gave in my last post as being some "Scriptural rational" for a certain "dispensing" (of the Word of God) that markedly set or changed or altered the relationship between God and man."
Ah, that's not what I asked you about in the first place- nor what you responded about.
TLC:
"Given that mankind is sick (and not what God intended), I've actually come back around to liking "dispensation," when thought of in terms of a dispensary. If you pick up the wrong prescription (perhaps the right medication, but with the wrong instructions) at the pharmacy, not only is it not going to do what it should (or what you think it'll do), it might even kill you. "
WordWolf: "A) If there's a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking, please share it. Otherwise, it looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery."
TLC:
""Surely you know and recognize that "dispensation" is not a translation that is made up. Just exactly why do you suppose they used that word? Do you not think the scholars of 1611 viewed it as a "dispensing" of... something? "
WordWolf: "That's not "sharing a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking." That's supposing it matches what the translators of one or more versions were thinking without actually presenting any evidence for it. It still looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery."
TLC:
""Actually, it's the 1611 KJV and 1881 RV , which (as far as I know, and as I presume you know already) were collaborative translations done by some of the (if not the) most extensive group of highly qualified language scholars ever assembled to translate the texts into English (in use at that time.) So, I just don't see it as something to be taken lightly, and not bother to look at it in light of that particular nuance. "
WordWolf: "So, that's still not "sharing a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking." That's supposing that your thinking matches what the collaborative translators of the 1611 KJV and 1881 RV were thinking, without actually presenting any evidence that's what they were thinking. It still looks like you made an analogy and ran with it- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery."
Taxidev:
"This is very interesting. I just looked at Strong and Thayer after finding this word used 4 times in the epistles. All 4 times it is translated dispensation. But both Strong and Thayer hold a type of managerial bent on their definitions, definitely along the lines of what you say here. And, that word is also translated stewardship 3 times in Luke, and steward 3 times in Luke and Titus. So administration, rather than being a period of time, is more of a handling and overseeing.
In fact, Eph 3:2 makes it pretty clear that it is an oversight, a handling. "
WordWolf: "o, Taxidev looked at "oikonomia"- which, actually, is the word TLC's saying should properly be rendered "dispensation" and further asserts that this word should be taken to mean something akin to a "dispensary" like we think of for medication"
"So far, it seems the Greek all says one thing, and that has nothing to do with "oikonomia" being any kind of "dispensary" or related to that in concept in any way. I'm still asking TLC to make a case for it, and keep getting "'Dispensation' is the word those translators chose" and a refusal to address that their usage of it seems to go in a completely different direction other than a "dispensary." I don't know why they chose that specific word, but there seems to be no reason whatsoever to think it was in relation to a medication. The usage all seems to refer to some sort of management or governance, rather than a dispensary or even a period of time, Which, of course, is a different talking-point."
TLC:
"No, I never said that. I very plainly said that I've "come back to liking dispensation" (and have given you several reasons since why.) Frankly, I'm not convinced there is a perfect translation for it, as it carries with it several nuances of meaning. One of which (that I see as being essential to it) is that there is/was a "dispensing" of words (i.e., of) which markedly set or changed or altered the relationship between God and man. "
So, you mentioned more than one reason, but you darn well DID originate the "dispensaty" analogy I immediately asked you about- and ducked answerting. The closest you came to addressing that directly-other than saying "they used the word 'dispensation' for a reason' and supposing that reason matched your reasoning was this:
TLC:
"(However, I'm not going there, as I couldn't even get you past the dispensing issue without you demanding - in typical twi fashion - "chapter and verse.")"
WordWolf: "I'm surprised to see someone make a virtue of not having a Scriptural rationale for something, but I'm fine with continuing on about "stewardship".
TLC:
"'m nearly dumbfounded that you won't, can't, or don't care to consider any of the directly quoted from scripture phrases I plainly gave in my last post as being some "Scriptural rational" for a certain "dispensing" (of the Word of God) that markedly set or changed or altered the relationship between God and man. "
That wasn't what I asked about, as we can see. You answered a question I didn't ask, and ducked the question I asked, and pretended they were the same.
In other news, this is flogging a dead horse, and we all can get on with the actual discussion once more. I hope.
================================
TLC:
"Frankly, I'm not convinced there is a perfect translation for it, as it carries with it several nuances of meaning. One of which (that I see as being essential to it) is that there is/was a "dispensing" of words (i.e., of) which markedly set or changed or altered the relationship between God and man.
At first, man was put in the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. Then he was sent forth from it to till the ground from whence he was taken. Then, in addition to the green herb, every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for man. Of course, that all changed with Moses and the giving of the law. When did that change? Yeah, with the apostle Paul (see Col. 1:25). Of course, this is but one little aspect of it. But if anyone wants to blenderize it all and live on the slop, just don't blame God if you aren't feeling nourished by it, or it if makes you sick, or if you can't make sense of certain things. There's a (healthy) reason for the separations.
Truth is, I also very much like the nuance of stewardships, in light of it involving different "economies." Perhaps its a reflection of certain fiduciary responsibilities. If you're going to prosper (or at least, not be sent to the poor house), you need to be able to recognize and adapt to what the "real" economy is all about. Sure, there may be patterns and similarities involved, but if you fail to see the differences... well, no need to go too deep into it. But if you really want to get deep into another perspective on it, there appears to be a certain "crossing over" involved with each change. "
WordWolf: "I think the sensible thing here will be to pull out that word "oikonomia" and get into its usages- specifically, what it was meant to say and what was not meant to say. As much as I like the word "stewardship", there may be problems with translating it that way- or implications that should NEVER be made- because it wasn't meant to go in a direction I think it should mean, or want it to mean. "
TLC:
"But, since you asked (and since its not something fabricated on a whim), I steered into it by illustrating the basic fact that there was indeed a "dispensing" of something at various times which coincided with a significant change in the relationship between God and man."
God Almighty definitely gave lots of stuff to people across history. I'll stipulate to that without needing to illustrate the point- it seems self-evident to me, but I'm willing to show something if there's a question about it later. Whether that has anything whatsoever with the word "oikonomia" or the concept taken from one translation of it as "dispensation"- well, that's where there needs to be discussion and some support-for or against- actually posted. Taxidev already took a look there. Perhaps we should join him when we can. (I'm a little busy but will post what I find as soon as I'm able.)
TLC:
"Have at it. I can hardly wait to see your detailed Scriptural rationale and in-depth explanation of it. Who knows, maybe I'll like it."
I never said it was going to be "detailed" or "in-depth", although it might be one or both. In case it isn't, I don't want anyone coming along later and claiming I failed to do one or both after claiming I would do both. But yes, perhaps you'll like it. I'd prefer to post something worth liking, which would make that easier, of course.
chockfull:
"Sure - oikonomia and usages sound like a reasonable start. I am not 100% convinced that doing "word studies" on Greek words is going to present a great deal of enlightenment regarding "the ages" or "administrations of time" types of views. The LXX isn't as precise as the Hebrew OT.
And I'm going to obviate one of my other problems. I reject a fundamentalist viewpoint of being able to do mathematical type proofs with scriptures."
I'm hoping to go over what I find, and make the clearest case for a consistent answer I can find, "showing all my work." My thinking is that it should be internally consistent and stand on its own merits. If that doesn't work, then hopedully I didn't waste too much of your time. If that does work, I'm hoping that will be enough for you to agree at least to that. That's really all I can ask, if I'm presenting a rationale.
chockfull:
" Where are you at on this?"
I'm where I was before digging into the material again. (So, my opinion may change in the next few days.) At present, I think that the sensible rendering of "oikonomia" is "stewardship", period. Furthermore, I think the division of things into "covenants" is more consistent with what we see than "dispensations/administrations", whether ot nor rhe word "dispensations" even appears in Scripture. Again, I reserve the right to change opinions once all the evidence is laid out.
That wasn't what I asked about, as we can see. You answered a question I didn't ask, and ducked the question I asked, and pretended they were the same.
Never "pretended" they were the same. You asked how I got to home plate, and evidently weren't expecting or open to anything except answers in a format that you're accustomed to and conditioned in, and you have zero interest in first or second base because they're "the wrong direction" in your mind. Maybe you figure it out yourself someday (but I doubt it.) I'm done with it.
I am not 100% convinced that doing "word studies" on Greek words is going to present a great deal of enlightenment regarding "the ages" or "administrations of time" types of views.
Nor am I. But it's "the twi way."
23 hours ago, chockfull said:
The less people understand good heart and motive and inspiration, the more they are going to require rules to live life. The more I see people focused on rules the less freedom and grace I see in daily life.
Agreed.
23 hours ago, chockfull said:
I wish I had a better answer for myself to your questions than "somewhere in the middle of digging into detail, using good common sense, and having an active prayer life seeking guidance".
But unfortunately that is the best I have at the moment.
chockfull:
"Sure - oikonomia and usages sound like a reasonable start. I am not 100% convinced that doing "word studies" on Greek words is going to present a great deal of enlightenment regarding "the ages" or "administrations of time" types of views. The LXX isn't as precise as the Hebrew OT.
And I'm going to obviate one of my other problems. I reject a fundamentalist viewpoint of being able to do mathematical type proofs with scriptures."
I'm hoping to go over what I find, and make the clearest case for a consistent answer I can find, "showing all my work." My thinking is that it should be internally consistent and stand on its own merits. If that doesn't work, then hopedully I didn't waste too much of your time. If that does work, I'm hoping that will be enough for you to agree at least to that. That's really all I can ask, if I'm presenting a rationale.
chockfull:
" Where are you at on this?"
I'm where I was before digging into the material again. (So, my opinion may change in the next few days.) At present, I think that the sensible rendering of "oikonomia" is "stewardship", period. Furthermore, I think the division of things into "covenants" is more consistent with what we see than "dispensations/administrations", whether ot nor rhe word "dispensations" even appears in Scripture. Again, I reserve the right to change opinions once all the evidence is laid out.
Here's some side material. Apparently some Greek Orthodox translate oikonomia as "economy".
Here's the full definition. I also am showing my work.
"
Oikonomia(also spelledoikonomeia,economiaoreconomy) literally means "household management," the "law of the house," or "house building," and refers primarily to two related concepts in the Orthodox Church—the divine plan for man's salvation and the specificepiscopalapplication of thecanonsin the life of the Church. The latter usage is a derivation of the former.
Oikonomia is one of two ways of observing the Canons of the Church, the other isAkriveiaor strict adherence (precision, exactness). Whereas the application ofOikonomiais generally regarded as being a more flexible application or interpretation of the Canons, the application ofAkriveiais regarded as being a more precise and strict one.Pastoral Discretionis of key importance in either application."
There seems to be some disagreement on this thread that mostly centers around the approach to Biblical definitions. Are we to accept only the most common terms that apply to a Biblical word? Or can there be nuances that take you into a corner of the definition that may not apply to every usage of the word?
Here with oikonomia this is illustrated by the struggle with do we accept it to mean only "stewardship"or "household management" as the literal word translation and common usages seem to indicate?
Or can there be financial implications and dispensing implications that are used in other fields that can expand our mental horizons in understanding?
Or can we accommodate both views by saying here is the baseline use, and here are the expanded uses it touches on?
There seems to be some disagreement on this thread that mostly centers around the approach to Biblical definitions. Are we to accept only the most common terms that apply to a Biblical word? Or can there be nuances that take you into a corner of the definition that may not apply to every usage of the word?
Perhaps it has more to do with the approach to biblical research. I suspect I was "as well" trained and indoctrinated into twi's methodology as anyone else here, probably more so than most. So, yeah... given sufficient time (and motivation), I have the both the materials and the means to dig into the etymology of pretty much anything appearing in scripture. And there was a time in life when that was pretty much the touchstone used for testing or "measuring" (so much softer a word than "judging") how much truth was in something. And you know... it did wonders for my ego. Like, wonders how it got so big?
Oddly enough, after some number of rather significant "turn of events" over the last, oh, maybe 8 or 10 or 15 years or so (I won't bore you with any details), I've developed a new perspective on quite a number of things, including both how to do (and evaluate) biblical research. It's probably more of a "top down" approach, based of how it might fit within the overall framework of scripture, rather than a "bottom up" approach that seeks to define or establish basic building blocks prior to seeing what sort of construct can be built from them.
Hence, when I see you talk about "Biblical definitions," in my mind I'm instead thinking about "Biblical usages." Not sure if that makes sense to you, or not...
I realized that. My point was that the "new covenant" of Hebrews (as detailed further in verse 8) was promised to and with "the house of Israel and with the house of Judah," and again (in verse 10) "with the house of Israel." Furthermore, I don't really see this part of it as yet being fulfilled: "I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts."
Galatians 4:24ff more directly applies to my question (and I'm still pondering it), but it won't necessarily change my view of what is written in Hebrews - which I believe was specifically written to/for all of Israel (believers in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, or not) and not (as you state) "Christians of a Jewish background."
This is where I believe that dispensationalists have really missed the big message of Hebrews 8. TLC, I see what you are hinting at. I was once a dispensationalist as well. You believe that Hebrews 8 verses 8-12 is referring to the millennium or 1000 years...being a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth in our future. The problem with this approach is the fact that the dispensationalists have completely ignored the very last verse of Hebrews chapter 8, verse 13 : By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. The word soon comes from the Greek "engys" which means "near" in space or time. http://biblehub.com/greek/1451.htm I've brought this up before in the doctrinal forum since this Greek word engys is contained within some verses in the Book of Revelation but dispensationalists keep twisting these time statements to mean anything but near or soon. AD 30-AD 70 was a transition period. It was as if the 2 covenants were in effect during the same time but the old was soon (when Hebrews was written) to disappear at the dissolution of the temple at 70AD.
This is where I believe that dispensationalists have really missed the big message of Hebrews 8. TLC, I see what you are hinting at. I was once a dispensationalist as well. You believe that Hebrews 8 verses 8-12 is referring to the millennium or 1000 years...being a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth in our future. The problem with this approach is the fact that the dispensationalists have completely ignored the very last verse of Hebrews chapter 8, verse 13 : By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. The word soon comes from the Greek "engys" which means "near" in space or time. http://biblehub.com/greek/1451.htm I've brought this up before in the doctrinal forum since this Greek word engys is contained within some verses in the Book of Revelation but dispensationalists keep twisting these time statements to mean anything but near or soon. AD 30-AD 70 was a transition period. It was as if the 2 covenants were in effect during the same time but the old was soon (when Hebrews was written) to disappear at the dissolution of the temple at 70AD.
Here is another thing to consider. Why didn't the writer/writers of Hebrews write chapter 8 verse 13 like this: By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear but in the distant future the old covenant will return from a state of abeyance for a 7 year period ." LOL
The problem with this approach is the fact that the dispensationalists have completely ignored the very last verse of Hebrews chapter 8, verse 13...
You're quite the brave preterist, daring to accuse any one else of ignoring certain bible verses (as many as can be easily be thrown back at you)... which btw, I (personally) haven't "completely ignored" as you accuse. Hebrews is, in many respects, very delicate "advanced class" stuff... which most want to handle like a bull in a china shop. And when you merely look at or try to pick up (or out) little pieces of information from it, chances are that you are looking at broken glass, instead of seeing it as a fascinating (and previously hidden) overlay upon all that can or could be known by the senses (extending back through all of man's history here on earth.)
So why do you think (and say) that "the new" only overlapped the old for this wee short little 40 years or so? Or accuse me that I have completely ignored something which, quite frankly, I suspect you may have never bothered to consider or look at from the perspective I just spoke of?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
18
21
18
54
Popular Days
Jul 15
20
Jul 2
20
Jul 11
20
Jul 5
15
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 18 posts
chockfull 21 posts
Infoabsorption 18 posts
TLC 54 posts
Popular Days
Jul 15 2018
20 posts
Jul 2 2018
20 posts
Jul 11 2018
20 posts
Jul 5 2018
15 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
Dispensationalism is a man-made, private interpretation of “ALL scripture”, DEAD doctrine, based upon early 19th century textual and critical evidence which relied completely upon the latest 16th cent
DontWorryBeHappy
Hi Taxidev! imho, the entire “Biblical” and doctrinal underpinning Of TWIt’s private interpretation is based on the FALSE PREMISE (logical fallacy) Of dispensationalism. This was actually a world
chockfull
So on the education dig I know that's pointed towards someone on this thread, but I think criticizing any of us on our education background is a bit obnoxious. I mean my theological education was 4
WordWolf
TLC:
"Given that mankind is sick (and not what God intended), I've actually come back around to liking "dispensation," when thought of in terms of a dispensary. If you pick up the wrong prescription (perhaps the right medication, but with the wrong instructions) at the pharmacy, not only is it not going to do what it should (or what you think it'll do), it might even kill you. "
WordWolf:
"A) If there's a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking, please share it. Otherwise, it looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery."
TLC
"Surely you know and recognize that "dispensation" is not a translation that is made up. Just exactly why do you suppose they used that word? Do you not think the scholars of 1611 viewed it as a "dispensing" of... something? "
That's not "sharing a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking." That's supposing it matches what the translators of one or more versions were thinking without actually presenting any evidence for it. It still looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
TLC:
"I have a hard time seeing exactly which (or what kind of) covenant you might say or think applies to us in this day and time. I guess I just don't see it written and/or referred to as something applicable to us in anything that Paul wrote. Care to explain you thinking on this?"
WordWolf:
"
Covenants? I think of this:
Hebrews 8 King James Version (KJV)
8 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
==============================
[So, there's the covenant made to the 12 tribes, and the covenant which was promised to follow. Jesus us the mediator of that better covenant. From what I've seen dealing with devout Jews, I think the old, outmoded covenant still does what it did before. It sure is better than no covenant. However, it is outmoded and outdated since the new, improved model left the factory, so to speak."
TLC:
"Yes, there's no question that certain covenants are spoken of, most notably to Israel. And yes, Paul does speak in Hebrews (which I believe he wrote) of a new (better) covenant, but it appears to me that this new covenant relates rather specifically (and certainly most directly) to Israel. In fact, given Paul's concern for all of Israel (and not just those that had accepted Jesus as Lord) and his background, Hebrews offers an highly advanced and powerful insight into both the historical and future covenant relationship between God and Israel. I just don't see the church of the body of Christ brought up or mentioned anywhere in it. Neither do I see the terms of any covenant between God and Christ (or his body.) And as for 1 Tim. 2:5, I'm not convinced that having a mediator necessary implies or mandates a certain need for a covenant."
I didn't quote I Timothy 2:5- which says Christ Jesus is mankind's ONE mediator. I quoted Hebrews 8:6, which states outright that Jesus is the mediator OF that better covenant. As for that covenant referring to us, it's the same comparison as in Galatians 4.
Galatians 4:24ff (KJV)
21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free."
================================================================
To make Hebrews AND Galatians exclude born-again Christians is to slice us out of a LOT of the Epistles. Hebrews was addressed to Christians of a Jewish background, and Galatians was addressed to Christians living in Galatia. That some of them would have Jewish personal histories or just plain know Scripture (Philip witnessed to a non-Jew reading Scripture in his chariot) is not much of a jump. Paul said one covenant corresponded to the bondwoman's covenant-and that one was "Jerusalem which now is" (Judaism.) The other is ours, which is "children of promise."
====================
Ok, I can't get the freaking thing to stop underlining. I hope my point was clear despite that.)
Edited by WordWolfFormatting glitches
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Actually, it's the 1611 KJV and 1881 RV , which (as far as I know, and as I presume you know already) were collaborative translations done by some of the (if not the) most extensive group of highly qualified language scholars ever assembled to translate the texts into English (in use at that time.) So, I just don't see it as something to be taken lightly, and not bother to look at it in light of that particular nuance.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I realized that. My point was that the "new covenant" of Hebrews (as detailed further in verse 8) was promised to and with "the house of Israel and with the house of Judah," and again (in verse 10) "with the house of Israel." Furthermore, I don't really see this part of it as yet being fulfilled: "I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts."
Galatians 4:24ff more directly applies to my question (and I'm still pondering it), but it won't necessarily change my view of what is written in Hebrews - which I believe was specifically written to/for all of Israel (believers in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, or not) and not (as you state) "Christians of a Jewish background."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, it just doesn't make much sense to me. Without a doubt, there would have been absolutely no one more qualified (from some number of perspectives) to address the nation of Israel on the subject matter than the apostle Paul himself. And, given that 2 Peter (which appears to be written to fellow Jewish believers that obtained "like precious faith") specifically mentions Paul as having "written unto you," the implication appears to be that he is referring to Hebrews. So, while it's not certain, it does seem this offers a fairly reasonable basis for it.
Moderator's note: This post quotes an exceprt of a previous post that was deleted for reasons having nothing to do with this excerpt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Modgellan
This thread was created to split the this topic off from a thread in "About the Way" located here:
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24675-did-vpw-cite-his-sources-or-did-he-plagiarize/
The above posts in this thread were moved here because I read them as regarding "Dispensationalism" rather than VPW's Plagiarism.
Please let me know by PM if something was moved which should not have been, or if something more needs to be moved. Thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
TLC:
"Given that mankind is sick (and not what God intended), I've actually come back around to liking "dispensation," when thought of in terms of a dispensary. If you pick up the wrong prescription (perhaps the right medication, but with the wrong instructions) at the pharmacy, not only is it not going to do what it should (or what you think it'll do), it might even kill you. "
WordWolf:
"A) If there's a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking, please share it. Otherwise, it looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery."
TLC
"Surely you know and recognize that "dispensation" is not a translation that is made up. Just exactly why do you suppose they used that word? Do you not think the scholars of 1611 viewed it as a "dispensing" of... something? "
WordWolf:
"That's not "sharing a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking." That's supposing it matches what the translators of one or more versions were thinking without actually presenting any evidence for it. It still looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery."
TLC:
"Actually, it's the 1611 KJV and 1881 RV , which (as far as I know, and as I presume you know already) were collaborative translations done by some of the (if not the) most extensive group of highly qualified language scholars ever assembled to translate the texts into English (in use at that time.) So, I just don't see it as something to be taken lightly, and not bother to look at it in light of that particular nuance. "
WordWolf (new posting):
So, that's still not "sharing a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking." That's supposing that your thinking matches what the collaborative translators of the 1611 KJV and 1881 RV were thinking, without actually presenting any evidence that's what they were thinking. It still looks like you made an analogy and ran with it- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Here's what it might look like. Earlier in the thread, I mentioned something about the Greek word "oikonomia", a word that's translated a few ways in the Greek Bible texts.
WordWolf:
"Then again, I didn't render "oikonomia" as "dispensation" NOR "administration." I render it "stewardship", and consider who's in charge of stewarding God's Word at that time, and in what form it's stewarded."
Taxidev:
"This is very interesting. I just looked at Strong and Thayer after finding this word used 4 times in the epistles. All 4 times it is translated dispensation. But both Strong and Thayer hold a type of managerial bent on their definitions, definitely along the lines of what you say here. And, that word is also translated stewardship 3 times in Luke, and steward 3 times in Luke and Titus. So administration, rather than being a period of time, is more of a handling and overseeing.
In fact, Eph 3:2 makes it pretty clear that it is an oversight, a handling.
Good call, WordWolf!"
So, Taxidev looked at "oikonomia"- which, actually, is the word TLC's saying should properly be rendered "dispensation" and further asserts that this word should be taken to mean something akin to a "dispensary" like we think of for medication.
WordWolf:
"Then again, I didn't render "oikonomia" as "dispensation" NOR "administration." I render it "stewardship", and consider who's in charge of stewarding God's Word at that time, and in what form it's stewarded."
TLC directly replied to this with:
"Given that mankind is sick (and not what God intended), I've actually come back around to liking "dispensation," when thought of in terms of a dispensary. If you pick up the wrong prescription (perhaps the right medication, but with the wrong instructions) at the pharmacy, not only is it not going to do what it should (or what you think it'll do), it might even kill you. "
So far, it seems the Greek all says one thing, and that has nothing to do with "oikonomia" being any kind of "dispensary" or related to that in concept in any way. I'm still asking TLC to make a case for it, and keep getting "'Dispensation' is the word those translators chose" and a refusal to address that their usage of it seems to go in a completely different direction other than a "dispensary." I don't know why they chose that specific word, but there seems to be no reason whatsoever to think it was in relation to a medication. The usage all seems to refer to some sort of management or governance, rather than a dispensary or even a period of time, Which, of course, is a different talking-point.
Taxidev, if you saved your data when you did the search, can you post here and retrace your steps so everyone can see how you got there? It sounded like you documented all your steps, but if you could type out the details, it would be appreciated. (I'd have posted a similar search already, but I regret I lack the time so far. If you don't lack the time, I for one would be grateful.)
Edited by WordWolfThe formatting hates me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Lemme see if I got this right - so the first rule of fight club...er..uhm...I mean this dispensational thread is there is no talking about wierwille’s plagiarism
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
The second rule of fight club is whenever someone breaks the first rule of fight club, you must instruct them that research means re-search.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
No, I never said that. I very plainly said that I've "come back to liking dispensation" (and have given you several reasons since why.) Frankly, I'm not convinced there is a perfect translation for it, as it carries with it several nuances of meaning. One of which (that I see as being essential to it) is that there is/was a "dispensing" of words (i.e., of) which markedly set or changed or altered the relationship between God and man.
At first, man was put in the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. Then he was sent forth from it to till the ground from whence he was taken. Then, in addition to the green herb, every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for man. Of course, that all changed with Moses and the giving of the law. When did that change? Yeah, with the apostle Paul (see Col. 1:25). Of course, this is but one little aspect of it. But if anyone wants to blenderize it all and live on the slop, just don't blame God if you aren't feeling nourished by it, or it if makes you sick, or if you can't make sense of certain things. There's a (healthy) reason for the separations.
Truth is, I also very much like the nuance of stewardships, in light of it involving different "economies." Perhaps its a reflection of certain fiduciary responsibilities. If you're going to prosper (or at least, not be sent to the poor house), you need to be able to recognize and adapt to what the "real" economy is all about. Sure, there may be patterns and similarities involved, but if you fail to see the differences... well, no need to go too deep into it. But if you really want to get deep into another perspective on it, there appears to be a certain "crossing over" involved with each change. (However, I'm not going there, as I couldn't even get you past the dispensing issue without you demanding - in typical twi fashion - "chapter and verse.")
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm surprised to see someone make a virtue of not having a Scriptural rationale for something, but I'm fine with continuing on about "stewardship".
I think the sensible thing here will be to pull out that word "oikonomia" and get into its usages- specifically, what it was meant to say and what was not meant to say. As much as I like the word "stewardship", there may be problems with translating it that way- or implications that should NEVER be made- because it wasn't meant to go in a direction I think it should mean, or want it to mean.
I'm also curious. If we're not going to examine ideas and terms using the Bible, on what are we going to base the bulk of the discussion? Personally, if I have a brilliant and clever idea that has zero support from the Bible, and I assert it, I expect to be called on that one, and vice versa....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I'm nearly dumbfounded that you won't, can't, or don't care to consider any of the directly quoted from scripture phrases I plainly gave in my last post as being some "Scriptural rational" for a certain "dispensing" (of the Word of God) that markedly set or changed or altered the relationship between God and man. What, did you need chapter and verse quoted with each phrase before acknowledging that they were indeed "scriptural"? Furthermore, lest anyone forget, this thread didn't exactly start in a doctrinal forum - else I might never have gone there. But, since you asked (and since its not something fabricated on a whim), I steered into it by illustrating the basic fact that there was indeed a "dispensing" of something at various times which coincided with a significant change in the relationship between God and man. However, that part of it evidently either went over your head, or went clean clear through. (Which is probably why I might have avoided this aspect of it had it started some other way.) You want to drop it because its too hard for you to see any scriptural rational for it? Fine. Kindly lay off the unjust critique that it doesn't exist just because you can't (or don't care to ) follow it.
Have at it. I can hardly wait to see your detailed Scriptural rationale and in-depth explanation of it. Who knows, maybe I'll like it.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Sure - oikonomia and usages sound like a reasonable start. I am not 100% convinced that doing "word studies" on Greek words is going to present a great deal of enlightenment regarding "the ages" or "administrations of time" types of views. The LXX isn't as precise as the Hebrew OT.
And I'm going to obviate one of my other problems. I reject a fundamentalist viewpoint of being able to do mathematical type proofs with scriptures. I see the Greek word for scribe which is "grammeteis" - or grammatician. Jesus taught much on the Pharisees and Scribes. His teachings on Pharisees are the core concept behind a favorite book around here "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse". His teachings on scribes and Pharisees to me really pinpoint the heart of the Way and splinter groups. How Jesus teaches they operate, you can observe them operating in that fashion. I personally am recovering from acting in that fashion. So my views on scripture are influenced by that.
The expanded ideas surrounding "oikonomia" of the pharmacy dispensing help and medication, and the stewardship angles to me strike a chord because my view of scriptures is as inspiration. I view it less as a rulebook of rules to live your life by, although if I examine my life I do see good things in living up to the list categories. The less people understand good heart and motive and inspiration, the more they are going to require rules to live life. The more I see people focused on rules the less freedom and grace I see in daily life.
On the other side of this discussion, you present a valid point. If we aren't going to examine ideas and terms using the Bible and inherent definitions, then to what standard will the discussion adhere? None I suppose.
I wish I had a better answer for myself to your questions than "somewhere in the middle of digging into detail, using good common sense, and having an active prayer life seeking guidance".
But unfortunately that is the best I have at the moment.
Where are you at on this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
TLC:
"I'm nearly dumbfounded that you won't, can't, or don't care to consider any of the directly quoted from scripture phrases I plainly gave in my last post as being some "Scriptural rational" for a certain "dispensing" (of the Word of God) that markedly set or changed or altered the relationship between God and man."
Ah, that's not what I asked you about in the first place- nor what you responded about.
TLC:
"Given that mankind is sick (and not what God intended), I've actually come back around to liking "dispensation," when thought of in terms of a dispensary. If you pick up the wrong prescription (perhaps the right medication, but with the wrong instructions) at the pharmacy, not only is it not going to do what it should (or what you think it'll do), it might even kill you. "
WordWolf:
"A) If there's a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking, please share it. Otherwise, it looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery."
TLC:
""Surely you know and recognize that "dispensation" is not a translation that is made up. Just exactly why do you suppose they used that word? Do you not think the scholars of 1611 viewed it as a "dispensing" of... something? "
WordWolf:
"That's not "sharing a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking." That's supposing it matches what the translators of one or more versions were thinking without actually presenting any evidence for it. It still looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery."
TLC:
""Actually, it's the 1611 KJV and 1881 RV , which (as far as I know, and as I presume you know already) were collaborative translations done by some of the (if not the) most extensive group of highly qualified language scholars ever assembled to translate the texts into English (in use at that time.) So, I just don't see it as something to be taken lightly, and not bother to look at it in light of that particular nuance. "
WordWolf:
"So, that's still not "sharing a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking." That's supposing that your thinking matches what the collaborative translators of the 1611 KJV and 1881 RV were thinking, without actually presenting any evidence that's what they were thinking. It still looks like you made an analogy and ran with it- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery."
Taxidev:
"This is very interesting. I just looked at Strong and Thayer after finding this word used 4 times in the epistles. All 4 times it is translated dispensation. But both Strong and Thayer hold a type of managerial bent on their definitions, definitely along the lines of what you say here. And, that word is also translated stewardship 3 times in Luke, and steward 3 times in Luke and Titus. So administration, rather than being a period of time, is more of a handling and overseeing.
In fact, Eph 3:2 makes it pretty clear that it is an oversight, a handling. "
WordWolf:
"o, Taxidev looked at "oikonomia"- which, actually, is the word TLC's saying should properly be rendered "dispensation" and further asserts that this word should be taken to mean something akin to a "dispensary" like we think of for medication"
"So far, it seems the Greek all says one thing, and that has nothing to do with "oikonomia" being any kind of "dispensary" or related to that in concept in any way. I'm still asking TLC to make a case for it, and keep getting "'Dispensation' is the word those translators chose" and a refusal to address that their usage of it seems to go in a completely different direction other than a "dispensary." I don't know why they chose that specific word, but there seems to be no reason whatsoever to think it was in relation to a medication. The usage all seems to refer to some sort of management or governance, rather than a dispensary or even a period of time, Which, of course, is a different talking-point."
TLC:
"No, I never said that. I very plainly said that I've "come back to liking dispensation" (and have given you several reasons since why.) Frankly, I'm not convinced there is a perfect translation for it, as it carries with it several nuances of meaning. One of which (that I see as being essential to it) is that there is/was a "dispensing" of words (i.e., of) which markedly set or changed or altered the relationship between God and man. "
So, you mentioned more than one reason, but you darn well DID originate the "dispensaty" analogy I immediately asked you about- and ducked answerting. The closest you came to addressing that directly-other than saying "they used the word 'dispensation' for a reason' and supposing that reason matched your reasoning was this:
TLC:
"(However, I'm not going there, as I couldn't even get you past the dispensing issue without you demanding - in typical twi fashion - "chapter and verse.")"
WordWolf:
"I'm surprised to see someone make a virtue of not having a Scriptural rationale for something, but I'm fine with continuing on about "stewardship".
TLC:
"'m nearly dumbfounded that you won't, can't, or don't care to consider any of the directly quoted from scripture phrases I plainly gave in my last post as being some "Scriptural rational" for a certain "dispensing" (of the Word of God) that markedly set or changed or altered the relationship between God and man. "
That wasn't what I asked about, as we can see. You answered a question I didn't ask, and ducked the question I asked, and pretended they were the same.
In other news, this is flogging a dead horse, and we all can get on with the actual discussion once more. I hope.
================================
TLC:
"Frankly, I'm not convinced there is a perfect translation for it, as it carries with it several nuances of meaning. One of which (that I see as being essential to it) is that there is/was a "dispensing" of words (i.e., of) which markedly set or changed or altered the relationship between God and man.
At first, man was put in the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. Then he was sent forth from it to till the ground from whence he was taken. Then, in addition to the green herb, every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for man. Of course, that all changed with Moses and the giving of the law. When did that change? Yeah, with the apostle Paul (see Col. 1:25). Of course, this is but one little aspect of it. But if anyone wants to blenderize it all and live on the slop, just don't blame God if you aren't feeling nourished by it, or it if makes you sick, or if you can't make sense of certain things. There's a (healthy) reason for the separations.
Truth is, I also very much like the nuance of stewardships, in light of it involving different "economies." Perhaps its a reflection of certain fiduciary responsibilities. If you're going to prosper (or at least, not be sent to the poor house), you need to be able to recognize and adapt to what the "real" economy is all about. Sure, there may be patterns and similarities involved, but if you fail to see the differences... well, no need to go too deep into it. But if you really want to get deep into another perspective on it, there appears to be a certain "crossing over" involved with each change. "
WordWolf:
"I think the sensible thing here will be to pull out that word "oikonomia" and get into its usages- specifically, what it was meant to say and what was not meant to say. As much as I like the word "stewardship", there may be problems with translating it that way- or implications that should NEVER be made- because it wasn't meant to go in a direction I think it should mean, or want it to mean. "
TLC:
"But, since you asked (and since its not something fabricated on a whim), I steered into it by illustrating the basic fact that there was indeed a "dispensing" of something at various times which coincided with a significant change in the relationship between God and man."
God Almighty definitely gave lots of stuff to people across history. I'll stipulate to that without needing to illustrate the point- it seems self-evident to me, but I'm willing to show something if there's a question about it later. Whether that has anything whatsoever with the word "oikonomia" or the concept taken from one translation of it as "dispensation"- well, that's where there needs to be discussion and some support-for or against- actually posted. Taxidev already took a look there. Perhaps we should join him when we can. (I'm a little busy but will post what I find as soon as I'm able.)
TLC:
"Have at it. I can hardly wait to see your detailed Scriptural rationale and in-depth explanation of it. Who knows, maybe I'll like it."
I never said it was going to be "detailed" or "in-depth", although it might be one or both. In case it isn't, I don't want anyone coming along later and claiming I failed to do one or both after claiming I would do both. But yes, perhaps you'll like it. I'd prefer to post something worth liking, which would make that easier, of course.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
chockfull:
"Sure - oikonomia and usages sound like a reasonable start. I am not 100% convinced that doing "word studies" on Greek words is going to present a great deal of enlightenment regarding "the ages" or "administrations of time" types of views. The LXX isn't as precise as the Hebrew OT.
And I'm going to obviate one of my other problems. I reject a fundamentalist viewpoint of being able to do mathematical type proofs with scriptures."
I'm hoping to go over what I find, and make the clearest case for a consistent answer I can find, "showing all my work." My thinking is that it should be internally consistent and stand on its own merits. If that doesn't work, then hopedully I didn't waste too much of your time. If that does work, I'm hoping that will be enough for you to agree at least to that. That's really all I can ask, if I'm presenting a rationale.
chockfull:
" Where are you at on this?"
I'm where I was before digging into the material again. (So, my opinion may change in the next few days.) At present, I think that the sensible rendering of "oikonomia" is "stewardship", period. Furthermore, I think the division of things into "covenants" is more consistent with what we see than "dispensations/administrations", whether ot nor rhe word "dispensations" even appears in Scripture. Again, I reserve the right to change opinions once all the evidence is laid out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Never "pretended" they were the same. You asked how I got to home plate, and evidently weren't expecting or open to anything except answers in a format that you're accustomed to and conditioned in, and you have zero interest in first or second base because they're "the wrong direction" in your mind. Maybe you figure it out yourself someday (but I doubt it.) I'm done with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Nor am I. But it's "the twi way."
Agreed.
Pretty well said. Seems I agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Here's some side material. Apparently some Greek Orthodox translate oikonomia as "economy".
http://www.bombaxo.com/blog/the-gospels-and-oikonomia/
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Oikonomia
Here's the full definition. I also am showing my work.
"
Oikonomia (also spelled oikonomeia, economia or economy) literally means "household management," the "law of the house," or "house building," and refers primarily to two related concepts in the Orthodox Church—the divine plan for man's salvation and the specific episcopal application of the canons in the life of the Church. The latter usage is a derivation of the former.
Oikonomia is one of two ways of observing the Canons of the Church, the other is Akriveia or strict adherence (precision, exactness). Whereas the application of Oikonomia is generally regarded as being a more flexible application or interpretation of the Canons, the application of Akriveia is regarded as being a more precise and strict one. Pastoral Discretion is of key importance in either application."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
There seems to be some disagreement on this thread that mostly centers around the approach to Biblical definitions. Are we to accept only the most common terms that apply to a Biblical word? Or can there be nuances that take you into a corner of the definition that may not apply to every usage of the word?
Here with oikonomia this is illustrated by the struggle with do we accept it to mean only "stewardship"or "household management" as the literal word translation and common usages seem to indicate?
Or can there be financial implications and dispensing implications that are used in other fields that can expand our mental horizons in understanding?
Or can we accommodate both views by saying here is the baseline use, and here are the expanded uses it touches on?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Perhaps it has more to do with the approach to biblical research. I suspect I was "as well" trained and indoctrinated into twi's methodology as anyone else here, probably more so than most. So, yeah... given sufficient time (and motivation), I have the both the materials and the means to dig into the etymology of pretty much anything appearing in scripture. And there was a time in life when that was pretty much the touchstone used for testing or "measuring" (so much softer a word than "judging") how much truth was in something. And you know... it did wonders for my ego. Like, wonders how it got so big?
Oddly enough, after some number of rather significant "turn of events" over the last, oh, maybe 8 or 10 or 15 years or so (I won't bore you with any details), I've developed a new perspective on quite a number of things, including both how to do (and evaluate) biblical research. It's probably more of a "top down" approach, based of how it might fit within the overall framework of scripture, rather than a "bottom up" approach that seeks to define or establish basic building blocks prior to seeing what sort of construct can be built from them.
Hence, when I see you talk about "Biblical definitions," in my mind I'm instead thinking about "Biblical usages." Not sure if that makes sense to you, or not...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Infoabsorption
This is where I believe that dispensationalists have really missed the big message of Hebrews 8. TLC, I see what you are hinting at. I was once a dispensationalist as well. You believe that Hebrews 8 verses 8-12 is referring to the millennium or 1000 years...being a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth in our future. The problem with this approach is the fact that the dispensationalists have completely ignored the very last verse of Hebrews chapter 8, verse 13 : By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. The word soon comes from the Greek "engys" which means "near" in space or time. http://biblehub.com/greek/1451.htm I've brought this up before in the doctrinal forum since this Greek word engys is contained within some verses in the Book of Revelation but dispensationalists keep twisting these time statements to mean anything but near or soon. AD 30-AD 70 was a transition period. It was as if the 2 covenants were in effect during the same time but the old was soon (when Hebrews was written) to disappear at the dissolution of the temple at 70AD.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Infoabsorption
Here is another thing to consider. Why didn't the writer/writers of Hebrews write chapter 8 verse 13 like this: By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear but in the distant future the old covenant will return from a state of abeyance for a 7 year period ." LOL
Edited by Infoabsorptiongoofs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
You're quite the brave preterist, daring to accuse any one else of ignoring certain bible verses (as many as can be easily be thrown back at you)... which btw, I (personally) haven't "completely ignored" as you accuse. Hebrews is, in many respects, very delicate "advanced class" stuff... which most want to handle like a bull in a china shop. And when you merely look at or try to pick up (or out) little pieces of information from it, chances are that you are looking at broken glass, instead of seeing it as a fascinating (and previously hidden) overlay upon all that can or could be known by the senses (extending back through all of man's history here on earth.)
So why do you think (and say) that "the new" only overlapped the old for this wee short little 40 years or so? Or accuse me that I have completely ignored something which, quite frankly, I suspect you may have never bothered to consider or look at from the perspective I just spoke of?
Edited by TLCLink 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.