Have you ever heard of the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.
Why yes I have, thank you.
quote:There was a period in which God gave laws to Moses and expected people to live according to those laws.
SOME people were expected to live by those laws, not all. Israel only. The law was never sent to China, or North America, or Sub Equatorial Africa. So non-Israel would be functioning under the same divine expectations that they had all along.
quote: God never demanded that we have an exact label for that time period. Therefore, if it makes no difference to God, it makes no difference to me.
If God doesn't label the time period, why do you feel the necessity to do so? Calling the Law that was given to Israel an adminstration makes an assumption that may or may not be warranted without more thought than you appear willing to give it.
quote:Again, I have been accused of only using Way terminology.
No you haven't
quote: Another gross exaggeration.
by you
quote:But, some people in this forum seem to thrive on wild accusations and gross exaggerations.
That would be you once again
quote: God did not demand we label time periods. As a matter of facts, we were told not to get hung up on holy days, etc.
I think that you just made the opposing viewpoint
quote:If someone wants to call it the Law Disemcantankerotamus, it's fine with me.
I guess calling something that would be as biblical as calling it an administration since neither are biblical
As that what this whole discussion is about. What it was called? VPW called it administration. People think bad of VPW therefore we shouldn't call it administration. Some people don't like dispensation, but they of standing in line waiting for the nurse to give them their medicine, I guess.
As I said, I don't care what people call it. God never demands that we develop a cleverly crafted, original, resonating off the roof of the mouth title for everything. It's not a commandment of God to call it administration or dispensation or age or era. It's important to know WHAT HAPPENED in that time period. It's important to know how past time periods led us to the time of Jesus Christ. It's important to recognize what Jesus Christ did that brought us to our current time period or era.
Is it helpful to use common or familiar terminology (oh, well, here we go talking about terminology again, boring!!!!). If I call cranberry sauce mashed potatoes and you call applesauce turkey, our meal is going to get very mixed up. If you refer to an automobile as your car, jalopie, "wheels", or get-up-and-go machine, I could probably figure out what you were talking about. If you referred to your car as your gizmo, well a gizmo is a generic term used for many different objects.
So, it's a free country. We can refer to the time periods in anyway we like, especially to deomonstrate our very independent way of thinking. But we get blank stares we people don't recognize what we are talking about, then that's on us.
It's irrelevant where it's different or not TWI terminology. It's irrelevant where it's mainstream terminology. The idea is to grasp what God had holy men wrote, and be able to share that with others.
Ephesians 1:21 does NOT set up a parallelism between "aion" and the other dignities listed. They are all objects of the preposition "huperano". "Aion" is a noun denoting time, and is the object of the preposition "en", in the dative case. This is an expression of time, not of personification.
Beside which, if "aion" is understood to be the personification of an emanation from the "great god", what is that emanation understood to be, if not time itself? So we have a situation where we can understand "aion" in its simple, primary sense as "a period of time", or we can understand it as a convoluted personification which represents... A PERIOD OF TIME?
You may be correct in this case Steve, as you were in the other examples you cited, that it should be understood in a literal sense; but to reiterate what I have already stated in the closing paragraph of my last post, which you may have overlooked:
"...much depends on the contexts in how aionos (as with any word) is employed."
As I have noted in my previous post, Liddell as well as others acknowledge the particular usage of this term aion which I have proposed in addition to your own. And as I have demonstrated from the Genesis Apocryphon as well as Colossians 1:26 (acknowledged in the Revised Standard Version) and the Book of Hebrews, the Semitic writers were not at all strangers to this particular usage.
Perhaps it would be helpful to consider how this term could be used in such a manner to begin with.
Gesenius (Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament, p.613) may provide some invaluable insight, in his discussion on elam or olam:
"The true nature of eternity is found in this word in those passages which speak of the immortal nature [emphasis my own] of God himself, who is called the [El Eylam ], the eternal God....[or] to live forever, to be immortal, like gods [rather like God himself]..."
Hence it is hardly "convoluted" or unreasonable to see how such a term could become used to characterize "superhuman" beings, of which angels and gods are oft regarded - as "immortal", or unaffected by the effects of time itself.
Wherever the contexts support "eylama" designating angels as "worlds" or "aeons", they are likewise referred to as "stars" elsewhere throughout the Hebrew and Aramaic literature, as well as "the Elements" by virtue of their association with the natural forces of nature over which angels were thought to govern throughout this literature. This appears to me to be quite common throughout the ancient world, and the Hebrews, as anyone will discover upon reviewing all the literature, were no exception.
Does that mean that each and every case of alam, olam or aionos is to be construed as a personification in this regard? Of course not. But we would do this word a disservice by viewing it in every single instance in the Bible only in the light of one static, literal meaning, as Steve has asserted.
And there may be other usages which we may have not fully put our finger on yet, on how the minds of another culture and a distant era interpreted such, as for example, the writings in the Nag Hammadi Library will make painfully obvious to anyone who undertakes to review such.
I think the terminology rubrik goes, in a way, to the heart of the discussion.
Perhaps one reason the names are so uncertain is that the Bible itself doesn't bother to name the time periods, or to give the time periods any particular name. Therefore, any terminology must be manufactured outside the Bible. With that in mind, I guess it doesn't matter what it's called, since it's extra-biblical to begin with. But I'd argue that biblical concepts such as propitiation and atonement deserve to be called what they are. And in that sense, terminology becomes important.
Honestly, I think Wierwille pulled a fast one when he gave it the "I don't like the word dispensation, let's call it administration" punch. Perhaps it wasn't his intention, but when you do that, you can just start telling people this & that, totally unsupported. At least hieing to the biblical term, dispensation, possibly keeps the argument on grounds that are arguable from within the scriptures. Manufacturing terminology smacks, to me, of the old "read what's written & if it's wrong i'll tell you" fast one.
Have you ever heard of the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.
Why yes I have, thank you.
Are there not different portions of the Bible where God gives specific information and other times general information. I can't, don't plan to, and don't want to know every single Mosaic law or memorize every genealogy mentioned in the Bible. It doesn't help me know Christ in a better way.
quote:There was a period in which God gave laws to Moses and expected people to live according to those laws.
_SOME_ people were expected to live by those laws, not all. Israel only. The law was never sent to China, or North America, or Sub Equatorial Africa. So non-Israel would be functioning under the same divine expectations that they had all along.
Context, Oak, context. What are we talking about? What's mentioned in the Bible, I hope. I apologize if I left out specifics. God gave the law to Israel. Of course, I understand that.
quote: God never demanded that we have an exact label for that time period. Therefore, if it makes no difference to God, it makes no difference to me.
If God doesn't label the time period, why do you feel the necessity to do so? Calling the Law that was given to Israel an adminstration makes an assumption that may or may not be warranted without more thought than you appear willing to give it.
Administration comes from the Greek word "oikonomia" which means the administration of a house. It is also translated stewardship and governing. We are dealing with how God governs his creation. Dispensation was the King James English translation of oikonomia. So, administration and dispensation basically mean the same thing. Governing or reigning or ruling over a specific time period fits with current terminology in how we, in America, describe our executive leader term in office. So, administration is widely used terminology, especially for Americans, to refer to specific definable periods of time. I like the term "administration" because people can generally understand the term. In order to share God's Word, but it must be in terms that people can understand. If I yelled at you that your rumpelstilskin was on fire, you wouldn't know what I meant.
quote:Again, I have been accused of only using Way terminology.
No you haven't
quote: Another gross exaggeration.
by you
Oh, yeah, of course, uh huh. But we really know who is the culprit. Is that MainstreamBrain, never admitting when you are wrong?
quote:But, some people in this forum seem to thrive on wild accusations and gross exaggerations.
That would be you once again
See above.
I am not going to get into this childish "you are, no you are, no you are" nonsense.
quote: God did not demand we label time periods. As a matter of facts, we were told not to get hung up on holy days, etc.
I think that you just made the opposing viewpoint.
But, for the sake of communication, we need to have common terminology so that when we communicate the Word to each other and to one other, we are able to convey the correct meaning and concepts. For someone to just arbitrarily decide that they hate TWI, therefore all TWI terminology or descriptions is wrong, is not logical. If one looks objectively at many things TWI taught, there is both scriptural integrity, common logic, and understanding terminology. To arbitrarily dismiss all of that is not using sound logic.
quote:If someone wants to call it the Law Disemcantankerotamus, it's fine with me.
I guess calling something that would be as biblical as calling it an administration since neither are biblical
The Greek word "oikonomia" is translated as administration, stewardship, and governing. Administration is to oversee, steward is to properly care or oversee, and governing is overseeing with rules and regulations. It is not logical to claim "administration" is an unbiblical word. The word "administration" also perfectly fits with current language, as in defining a presidential term of office. So, the word "administration" can convey a well understood meaning. But, I am not declaring that that is exactly what the definable and distinguishable time periods in the Bible must be called. For that matter, "dispensation" coming from the same Greek word "oikonomia" would be just as Biblical, but less used in modern language. Pharmacists dispense pills. ATM dispense money. Dispense in modern language commonly refers more to the giving out of something, than the oversight of.
I repeat, I don't care what people call it. But it's helpful if people can understand the meaning.
I can't, don't plan to, and don't want to know every single Mosaic law or memorize every genealogy mentioned in the Bible. It doesn't help me know Christ in a better way.
Oh, BD, what a treasure you miss in those genealogies when you see who Jesus's earthly ancestors were. That's how he can identify with us with black sheep in the family and people who may have a sordid history.
quote:There was a period in which God gave laws to Moses and expected people to live according to those laws.
_SOME_ people were expected to live by those laws, not all. Israel only. The law was never sent to China, or North America, or Sub Equatorial Africa. So non-Israel would be functioning under the same divine expectations that they had all along.
Context, Oak, context. What are we talking about? What's mentioned in the Bible, I hope. I apologize if I left out specifics. God gave the law to Israel. Of course, I understand that.
And the whole dispensation/covenant battle is based on whether Israel means Church now or not.
quote: God never demanded that we have an exact label for that time period. Therefore, if it makes no difference to God, it makes no difference to me.
If God doesn't label the time period, why do you feel the necessity to do so? Calling the Law that was given to Israel an adminstration makes an assumption that may or may not be warranted without more thought than you appear willing to give it.
Administration comes from the Greek word "oikonomia" which means the administration of a house. It is also translated stewardship and governing. We are dealing with how God governs his creation. Dispensation was the King James English translation of oikonomia. So, administration and dispensation basically mean the same thing. Governing or reigning or ruling over a specific time period fits with current terminology in how we, in America, describe our executive leader term in office. So, administration is widely used terminology, especially for Americans, to refer to specific definable periods of time. I like the term "administration" because people can generally understand the term. In order to share God's Word, but it must be in terms that people can understand. If I yelled at you that your rumpelstilskin was on fire, you wouldn't know what I meant.
But no one can say for sure when one started and the other ended.
quote:Again, I have been accused of only using Way terminology.
No you haven't
quote: Another gross exaggeration.
by you
Oh, yeah, of course, uh huh. But we really know who is the culprit. Is that MainstreamBrain, never admitting when you are wrong?
Try it on, you may find it fits.
quote:But, some people in this forum seem to thrive on wild accusations and gross exaggerations.
That would be you once again
See above.
I am not going to get into this childish "you are, no you are, no you are" nonsense.
I think you just did.
quote: God did not demand we label time periods. As a matter of facts, we were told not to get hung up on holy days, etc.
I think that you just made the opposing viewpoint.
But, for the sake of communication, we need to have common terminology so that when we communicate the Word to each other and to one other, we are able to convey the correct meaning and concepts. For someone to just arbitrarily decide that they hate TWI, therefore all TWI terminology or descriptions is wrong, is not logical. If one looks objectively at many things TWI taught, there is both scriptural integrity, common logic, and understanding terminology. To arbitrarily dismiss all of that is not using sound logic.
BD, Many of us have dismissed or stopped using it not arbitrarily, but through honest study and prayer. We found the way to be illogical and therefore invalid of further study.
quote:If someone wants to call it the Law Disemcantankerotamus, it's fine with me.
I guess calling something that would be as biblical as calling it an administration since neither are biblical
The Greek word "oikonomia" is translated as administration, stewardship, and governing. Administration is to oversee, steward is to properly care or oversee, and governing is overseeing with rules and regulations. It is not logical to claim "administration" is an unbiblical word. The word "administration" also perfectly fits with current language, as in defining a presidential term of office. So, the word "administration" can convey a well understood meaning. But, I am not declaring that that is exactly what the definable and distinguishable time periods in the Bible must be called. For that matter, "dispensation" coming from the same Greek word "oikonomia" would be just as Biblical, but less used in modern language. Pharmacists dispense pills. ATM dispense money. Dispense in modern language commonly refers more to the giving out of something, than the oversight of.
I repeat, I don't care what people call it. But it's helpful if people can understand the meaning.
quote:For the most part, VPW got this right. It does mention an administration of grace, in the Church Epistles.
And where would that be? Which Epsitle and what Bible mentions an "administration of grace". Not the King James. Not the NIV. Not the ASV. The words "administration of grace" do not appear in any Bible that I am aware of.
Paul does however write in Epehsians 3:2:
Eph 3:2 2If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Is this talking about an "Administration" as defined by Wierwille/Bullinger/et al - as in a period of time? No. In the context read verses 7 & 8:
Eph 3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
Paul is simpy saying that he was given grace by God by allowing him to preach and minister to the Ephesians (Gentiles).
To pull a time framed "administration of grace" out of these verses is absurd and sloppy interpretation and is not reading it in the context.
Dave said elsewhere:
quote:Under the "administration of grace" (notice the actual words used in the Bible)...
Huh? What "actual words" are you taking about?
Following is my comments on the above:
No matter what words you want to use, they have to fit the context of what is being discussed. Paul is not talking about a "time period" of grace. He is talking about being given the stewardship, the responsibility to preach about grace. If you want to posit a "time period" of grace, then you have to find another part of the scripture to back it up.
????????? (oikonomia) occurs seven times in the bible:
Three times in Luke 16:2-4, translated as stewardship
I Corinthians 9:17, Ephesians 1:10, Ephesians 3:2, and Colossians 1:25 all translated dispensation.
The first three in Luke apply to one person's personal responsibility to act as a steward. The steward talks about being put out of the stewardship and having the stewardship taken away. It is referred to as if it is a thing. While there certainly is a time period over which the steward exercised his stewardship, the emphasis appears to be more on actions, as opposed to time.
quote:Luke 16:2-4 - And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.
Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.
I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.
I Corinthians 9:17 and Colossians 1:25 seem to fit the explanation that Goey gave of Ephesians 3:2, "Paul is simpy saying that he was given grace by God by allowing him to preach and minister to the Ephesians (Gentiles)".
quote:I Corinthians 9:17 - For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
quote:Colossians 1:25 -Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
Ephesians 1:10 could go either way, in my opinion, maybe somebody who has studied it can give some insight.
quote: Ephesians 1:10 - That in the dispensation 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:
In my view, the idea that there are distinct administrations, or periods of time, where things are completely and sharply different, is not supported by the verses that use the Greek word ????????? (oikonomia). To support administartionism/dispensationalism you have to get your evidense elsewhere.
One of the results of following the idea of administrations/dispensations is that you get the "to whom is it written?" quandry. Certain parts of the bible are relevant, and some are not.
It is self evident that things changed over time. There was a Garden of Eden and then there was not; there wasn't a torah and then there was; other examples can be cited. But to conclude that the periods of time that coincide with these occurences are somehow sealed off from each other, where God's rules of salvation are completely overturned, needs more documentation than has been given so far.
Just where does it say in the bible that what dispensationalists claim is true? Can dispenstaionalism be documented from the bible, rather than just illustarted by analogy?
Danny - In your post of 12/14/04, 11:40, you wrote, "But we would do this word ["aion"] a disservice by viewing it in every single instance in the Bible only in the light of one static, literal meaning, as Steve has asserted."
Would you care to point out where I made that assertion? You can't, because I never made it. I wrote, "The New Testament contains a fully developed system regarding the arrangements of various 'periods of time'. Paul's uses of the phrases denoting 'this age' are in consonance with that system's arrangement. The system unambiguously uses the word 'aion' to mean a period of time'."
I didn't write "every time Paul used the word 'aion', it means..." I wrote "Paul's uses of the phrases denoting 'this age' are in consonance with..." the New Testament's arrangement of periods of time, as opposed to Wierwille's scheme of "administrations".
The reason I mentioned the phrase "this age" is because I DO agree with you that there are other places where Paul uses the word "aion" in a sense other than strictly a period of time.
But when he includes "aion" in phrases indicating "this" one, or the one "to come", I believe the meaning is to be taken literally.
I've been interested lately in doing some study in the writings of the Church Fathers. I found a copy of "A Patristic Greek Lexicon" edited by Lampe. My hat is off to you, brother! I'm not sure even how long it's going to take me to learn to decipher the citation abbreviations :-D
*****
A note to everybody, fine-tuning our understanding of "oikonomia".
A stewardship isn't just the "rules of a household". It is an arrangement where one person is given responsibility to manage another person's property. The owner of the property doesn't set the rules, except in a very basic sense, the "mission statement" if you like. The steward makes the rules which govern the nuts and bolts of everyday life.
Corporations operate the same way. The property actually belongs to the shareholders. The shareholders elect a Board of Directors which hires the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), who actually makes the day-to-day decisions about running the company. The CEO is usually assisted by a group of functionaries who are collectively known as "management" or the "administration". Note that here, also, we have a use of "administration" that does not necessarily mean a period of time.
This understanding of "oikonomia" helped me understand Ephesians 1:10, Oakspear. Let's look at the context,
quote: Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
That in the dispensation ["eis oikonomian"] of the fulness of times ["kairon" = "the decisive moments" as we saw in Luke 18:30] he might gather in one all things in Christ...
Ephesians 1:9&10a
If "in the dispensation" was an expression of time, it would have been "en oikonomiai". "Eis oikonomian" is not an expression of time, it's an expression of purpose, "toward stewardship" or "toward management".
God has made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself: toward management of that which fills the times of decision, to head up all things in the Christ...
That was the mystery God had to keep secret. If the princes of this age had known it, they wouldn't have crucified Jesus Christ! They wouldn't have wanted him to become the Lord of Glory.
I had drawn my initial impressions (or misimpressions?) not from a particular statement you made but rather from the overall thrust of your argument, which emphasized your point about the meaning aion = time periods, while offering little comment on what I had raised earlier in support of the additional albeit unusual meaning I had proposed.
But I understand that we each have a life outside of these forums, and the tendency for one to condense one's own or another's views or comments in whatever manner to convey a point (short of jotting a fully detailed dissertation, or dissecting another person's comments, not always possible nor desirable) may become a necessity, though such attempts are not without their shortfalls.
I envy you on your recent acquisition of "A Patristic Lexicon"! I recall this was on my "want" list awhile back, along with Martinez's "Study Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls," and a critical edition of St. Ignatius, and 20-some-odd other works (lol).
Your continuing work on "oikonomia" is admirable, not to overlook the service it greatly does to Jesus' "steward" parables.
I wrote, "When I return, we'll look at what exactly the Word of God says happened on Pentecost."
It's too much to try to do in a single post. We're going to have to take it in pieces. We know the Bible says they were baptized with holy spirit. So as soon as I get time, we'll look at the significance of baptism.
This post is a heads up, so everybody can get out their concordances (and their orange books, if they want to) and load up with ammunition.
What do you mean by "The Upper Room Theory"? That the 120 were in the upper room? I personally think Wierwille got that right (and have seen other, independent studies suggest the same thing).
Personally, from my own research, I believe Pentecost happened at the temple not in an upper room.
Raf, I agree vpw got this one right, and others have hit it too. Ray Vanderlaan, Michigan-based scholar, has a book that talks about the south gate to the temple as the most likely spot.
As for salvation, I believe we need to understand that God judges from the heart. Look at Rahab, an innkeeper or prostitute, she was a rank unbeliever who heard what God was doing, correctly assessed the situation and trusted in Him. She eventually became part of the Christ line.
I've been working on a presentation regarding the significance of baptism on the Day of Pentecost. It has become apparent to me that I can't really do it without first establishing some of the things the "Old Testament" says about the "New". So that's what I am giving priority to now. When I get to posting, we'll be looking at Deuteronomy 29, Isaiah 43&44, Ezekiel 36, and Jeremiah 31, as well as Joel 2.
Yes, search the scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life, they are they which testify of Jesus Christ.
It is God that gives the understanding, not word study books. Not that there is anything wrong with knowing word studies and scripture. Being strong in it is good, but a stronger than that will come and spoil the goods, therefore be ready to understand the understanding that only the Lord can give.
1 Corinthians 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
And walk in Love, if there is no love there is no true God.
Did not the scribes and pharisees know the scriptures? Yet they were far from understanding and knowing God and his Son.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
34
19
37
Popular Days
Dec 10
26
Dec 9
20
Dec 21
13
Dec 22
12
Top Posters In This Topic
Biblefan Dave 23 posts
Vertical Limit 34 posts
Oakspear 19 posts
Steve Lortz 37 posts
Popular Days
Dec 10 2004
26 posts
Dec 9 2004
20 posts
Dec 21 2004
13 posts
Dec 22 2004
12 posts
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I apologize to all for the "oh yeah, sez you" level of debate in the middle of my last post
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
As that what this whole discussion is about. What it was called? VPW called it administration. People think bad of VPW therefore we shouldn't call it administration. Some people don't like dispensation, but they of standing in line waiting for the nurse to give them their medicine, I guess.
As I said, I don't care what people call it. God never demands that we develop a cleverly crafted, original, resonating off the roof of the mouth title for everything. It's not a commandment of God to call it administration or dispensation or age or era. It's important to know WHAT HAPPENED in that time period. It's important to know how past time periods led us to the time of Jesus Christ. It's important to recognize what Jesus Christ did that brought us to our current time period or era.
Is it helpful to use common or familiar terminology (oh, well, here we go talking about terminology again, boring!!!!). If I call cranberry sauce mashed potatoes and you call applesauce turkey, our meal is going to get very mixed up. If you refer to an automobile as your car, jalopie, "wheels", or get-up-and-go machine, I could probably figure out what you were talking about. If you referred to your car as your gizmo, well a gizmo is a generic term used for many different objects.
So, it's a free country. We can refer to the time periods in anyway we like, especially to deomonstrate our very independent way of thinking. But we get blank stares we people don't recognize what we are talking about, then that's on us.
It's irrelevant where it's different or not TWI terminology. It's irrelevant where it's mainstream terminology. The idea is to grasp what God had holy men wrote, and be able to share that with others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
You may be correct in this case Steve, as you were in the other examples you cited, that it should be understood in a literal sense; but to reiterate what I have already stated in the closing paragraph of my last post, which you may have overlooked:
"...much depends on the contexts in how aionos (as with any word) is employed."
As I have noted in my previous post, Liddell as well as others acknowledge the particular usage of this term aion which I have proposed in addition to your own. And as I have demonstrated from the Genesis Apocryphon as well as Colossians 1:26 (acknowledged in the Revised Standard Version) and the Book of Hebrews, the Semitic writers were not at all strangers to this particular usage.
Perhaps it would be helpful to consider how this term could be used in such a manner to begin with.
Gesenius (Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament, p.613) may provide some invaluable insight, in his discussion on elam or olam:
"The true nature of eternity is found in this word in those passages which speak of the immortal nature [emphasis my own] of God himself, who is called the [El Eylam ], the eternal God....[or] to live forever, to be immortal, like gods [rather like God himself]..."
Hence it is hardly "convoluted" or unreasonable to see how such a term could become used to characterize "superhuman" beings, of which angels and gods are oft regarded - as "immortal", or unaffected by the effects of time itself.
Wherever the contexts support "eylama" designating angels as "worlds" or "aeons", they are likewise referred to as "stars" elsewhere throughout the Hebrew and Aramaic literature, as well as "the Elements" by virtue of their association with the natural forces of nature over which angels were thought to govern throughout this literature. This appears to me to be quite common throughout the ancient world, and the Hebrews, as anyone will discover upon reviewing all the literature, were no exception.
Does that mean that each and every case of alam, olam or aionos is to be construed as a personification in this regard? Of course not. But we would do this word a disservice by viewing it in every single instance in the Bible only in the light of one static, literal meaning, as Steve has asserted.
And there may be other usages which we may have not fully put our finger on yet, on how the minds of another culture and a distant era interpreted such, as for example, the writings in the Nag Hammadi Library will make painfully obvious to anyone who undertakes to review such.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
I think the terminology rubrik goes, in a way, to the heart of the discussion.
Perhaps one reason the names are so uncertain is that the Bible itself doesn't bother to name the time periods, or to give the time periods any particular name. Therefore, any terminology must be manufactured outside the Bible. With that in mind, I guess it doesn't matter what it's called, since it's extra-biblical to begin with. But I'd argue that biblical concepts such as propitiation and atonement deserve to be called what they are. And in that sense, terminology becomes important.
Honestly, I think Wierwille pulled a fast one when he gave it the "I don't like the word dispensation, let's call it administration" punch. Perhaps it wasn't his intention, but when you do that, you can just start telling people this & that, totally unsupported. At least hieing to the biblical term, dispensation, possibly keeps the argument on grounds that are arguable from within the scriptures. Manufacturing terminology smacks, to me, of the old "read what's written & if it's wrong i'll tell you" fast one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
The Greek word "oikonomia" is translated as administration, stewardship, and governing. Administration is to oversee, steward is to properly care or oversee, and governing is overseeing with rules and regulations. It is not logical to claim "administration" is an unbiblical word. The word "administration" also perfectly fits with current language, as in defining a presidential term of office. So, the word "administration" can convey a well understood meaning. But, I am not declaring that that is exactly what the definable and distinguishable time periods in the Bible must be called. For that matter, "dispensation" coming from the same Greek word "oikonomia" would be just as Biblical, but less used in modern language. Pharmacists dispense pills. ATM dispense money. Dispense in modern language commonly refers more to the giving out of something, than the oversight of.
I repeat, I don't care what people call it. But it's helpful if people can understand the meaning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
BFD:
Check your Private Topics
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Forgive me if you answered this before, BF, but what is your position, dispensationally speaking, on salvation for pre-Pentecost people?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Oh, BD, what a treasure you miss in those genealogies when you see who Jesus's earthly ancestors were. That's how he can identify with us with black sheep in the family and people who may have a sordid history.
_SOME_ people were expected to live by those laws, not all. Israel only. The law was never sent to China, or North America, or Sub Equatorial Africa. So non-Israel would be functioning under the same divine expectations that they had all along.Context, Oak, context. What are we talking about? What's mentioned in the Bible, I hope. I apologize if I left out specifics. God gave the law to Israel. Of course, I understand that.
And the whole dispensation/covenant battle is based on whether Israel means Church now or not.
If God doesn't label the time period, why do you feel the necessity to do so? Calling the Law that was given to Israel an adminstration makes an assumption that may or may not be warranted without more thought than you appear willing to give it.Administration comes from the Greek word "oikonomia" which means the administration of a house. It is also translated stewardship and governing. We are dealing with how God governs his creation. Dispensation was the King James English translation of oikonomia. So, administration and dispensation basically mean the same thing. Governing or reigning or ruling over a specific time period fits with current terminology in how we, in America, describe our executive leader term in office. So, administration is widely used terminology, especially for Americans, to refer to specific definable periods of time. I like the term "administration" because people can generally understand the term. In order to share God's Word, but it must be in terms that people can understand. If I yelled at you that your rumpelstilskin was on fire, you wouldn't know what I meant.
But no one can say for sure when one started and the other ended.
No you haven't by youOh, yeah, of course, uh huh. But we really know who is the culprit. Is that MainstreamBrain, never admitting when you are wrong?
Try it on, you may find it fits.
That would be you once againSee above.
I am not going to get into this childish "you are, no you are, no you are" nonsense.
I think you just did.
I think that you just made the opposing viewpoint.But, for the sake of communication, we need to have common terminology so that when we communicate the Word to each other and to one other, we are able to convey the correct meaning and concepts. For someone to just arbitrarily decide that they hate TWI, therefore all TWI terminology or descriptions is wrong, is not logical. If one looks objectively at many things TWI taught, there is both scriptural integrity, common logic, and understanding terminology. To arbitrarily dismiss all of that is not using sound logic.
BD, Many of us have dismissed or stopped using it not arbitrarily, but through honest study and prayer. We found the way to be illogical and therefore invalid of further study.
I guess calling something that would be as biblical as calling it an administration since neither are biblicalThe Greek word "oikonomia" is translated as administration, stewardship, and governing. Administration is to oversee, steward is to properly care or oversee, and governing is overseeing with rules and regulations. It is not logical to claim "administration" is an unbiblical word. The word "administration" also perfectly fits with current language, as in defining a presidential term of office. So, the word "administration" can convey a well understood meaning. But, I am not declaring that that is exactly what the definable and distinguishable time periods in the Bible must be called. For that matter, "dispensation" coming from the same Greek word "oikonomia" would be just as Biblical, but less used in modern language. Pharmacists dispense pills. ATM dispense money. Dispense in modern language commonly refers more to the giving out of something, than the oversight of.
I repeat, I don't care what people call it. But it's helpful if people can understand the meaning.
BD, But what if we don't see it that way?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Posted earlier by WordWolf quoting Goey:
Dave writes concerning Diepensationalism:
And where would that be? Which Epsitle and what Bible mentions an "administration of grace". Not the King James. Not the NIV. Not the ASV. The words "administration of grace" do not appear in any Bible that I am aware of.
Paul does however write in Epehsians 3:2:
Eph 3:2 2If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Is this talking about an "Administration" as defined by Wierwille/Bullinger/et al - as in a period of time? No. In the context read verses 7 & 8:
Eph 3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
Paul is simpy saying that he was given grace by God by allowing him to preach and minister to the Ephesians (Gentiles).
To pull a time framed "administration of grace" out of these verses is absurd and sloppy interpretation and is not reading it in the context.
Dave said elsewhere:
Huh? What "actual words" are you taking about?Following is my comments on the above:
No matter what words you want to use, they have to fit the context of what is being discussed. Paul is not talking about a "time period" of grace. He is talking about being given the stewardship, the responsibility to preach about grace. If you want to posit a "time period" of grace, then you have to find another part of the scripture to back it up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
????????? (oikonomia) occurs seven times in the bible:
Three times in Luke 16:2-4, translated as stewardship
I Corinthians 9:17, Ephesians 1:10, Ephesians 3:2, and Colossians 1:25 all translated dispensation.
The first three in Luke apply to one person's personal responsibility to act as a steward. The steward talks about being put out of the stewardship and having the stewardship taken away. It is referred to as if it is a thing. While there certainly is a time period over which the steward exercised his stewardship, the emphasis appears to be more on actions, as opposed to time.
I Corinthians 9:17 and Colossians 1:25 seem to fit the explanation that Goey gave of Ephesians 3:2, "Paul is simpy saying that he was given grace by God by allowing him to preach and minister to the Ephesians (Gentiles)".
Ephesians 1:10 could go either way, in my opinion, maybe somebody who has studied it can give some insight.
In my view, the idea that there are distinct administrations, or periods of time, where things are completely and sharply different, is not supported by the verses that use the Greek word ????????? (oikonomia). To support administartionism/dispensationalism you have to get your evidense elsewhere.
One of the results of following the idea of administrations/dispensations is that you get the "to whom is it written?" quandry. Certain parts of the bible are relevant, and some are not.
It is self evident that things changed over time. There was a Garden of Eden and then there was not; there wasn't a torah and then there was; other examples can be cited. But to conclude that the periods of time that coincide with these occurences are somehow sealed off from each other, where God's rules of salvation are completely overturned, needs more documentation than has been given so far.
Just where does it say in the bible that what dispensationalists claim is true? Can dispenstaionalism be documented from the bible, rather than just illustarted by analogy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
A few quick notes:
Danny - In your post of 12/14/04, 11:40, you wrote, "But we would do this word ["aion"] a disservice by viewing it in every single instance in the Bible only in the light of one static, literal meaning, as Steve has asserted."
Would you care to point out where I made that assertion? You can't, because I never made it. I wrote, "The New Testament contains a fully developed system regarding the arrangements of various 'periods of time'. Paul's uses of the phrases denoting 'this age' are in consonance with that system's arrangement. The system unambiguously uses the word 'aion' to mean a period of time'."
I didn't write "every time Paul used the word 'aion', it means..." I wrote "Paul's uses of the phrases denoting 'this age' are in consonance with..." the New Testament's arrangement of periods of time, as opposed to Wierwille's scheme of "administrations".
The reason I mentioned the phrase "this age" is because I DO agree with you that there are other places where Paul uses the word "aion" in a sense other than strictly a period of time.
But when he includes "aion" in phrases indicating "this" one, or the one "to come", I believe the meaning is to be taken literally.
I've been interested lately in doing some study in the writings of the Church Fathers. I found a copy of "A Patristic Greek Lexicon" edited by Lampe. My hat is off to you, brother! I'm not sure even how long it's going to take me to learn to decipher the citation abbreviations :-D
*****
A note to everybody, fine-tuning our understanding of "oikonomia".
A stewardship isn't just the "rules of a household". It is an arrangement where one person is given responsibility to manage another person's property. The owner of the property doesn't set the rules, except in a very basic sense, the "mission statement" if you like. The steward makes the rules which govern the nuts and bolts of everyday life.
Corporations operate the same way. The property actually belongs to the shareholders. The shareholders elect a Board of Directors which hires the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), who actually makes the day-to-day decisions about running the company. The CEO is usually assisted by a group of functionaries who are collectively known as "management" or the "administration". Note that here, also, we have a use of "administration" that does not necessarily mean a period of time.
This understanding of "oikonomia" helped me understand Ephesians 1:10, Oakspear. Let's look at the context,
If "in the dispensation" was an expression of time, it would have been "en oikonomiai". "Eis oikonomian" is not an expression of time, it's an expression of purpose, "toward stewardship" or "toward management".
God has made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself: toward management of that which fills the times of decision, to head up all things in the Christ...
That was the mystery God had to keep secret. If the princes of this age had known it, they wouldn't have crucified Jesus Christ! They wouldn't have wanted him to become the Lord of Glory.
God made Jesus the CEO of His property.
All for now.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Thanks Steve, well put.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Hi Steve,
I had drawn my initial impressions (or misimpressions?) not from a particular statement you made but rather from the overall thrust of your argument, which emphasized your point about the meaning aion = time periods, while offering little comment on what I had raised earlier in support of the additional albeit unusual meaning I had proposed.
But I understand that we each have a life outside of these forums, and the tendency for one to condense one's own or another's views or comments in whatever manner to convey a point (short of jotting a fully detailed dissertation, or dissecting another person's comments, not always possible nor desirable) may become a necessity, though such attempts are not without their shortfalls.
I envy you on your recent acquisition of "A Patristic Lexicon"! I recall this was on my "want" list awhile back, along with Martinez's "Study Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls," and a critical edition of St. Ignatius, and 20-some-odd other works (lol).
Your continuing work on "oikonomia" is admirable, not to overlook the service it greatly does to Jesus' "steward" parables.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
If God does not change, then how can the rules for godly living?
While we are not required to live by every little law in the OT, they still show God's heart about holy living.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I wrote, "When I return, we'll look at what exactly the Word of God says happened on Pentecost."
It's too much to try to do in a single post. We're going to have to take it in pieces. We know the Bible says they were baptized with holy spirit. So as soon as I get time, we'll look at the significance of baptism.
This post is a heads up, so everybody can get out their concordances (and their orange books, if they want to) and load up with ammunition.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
How much validity is there in the Upper Room theory?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
What do you mean by "The Upper Room Theory"? That the 120 were in the upper room? I personally think Wierwille got that right (and have seen other, independent studies suggest the same thing).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Personally, from my own research, I believe Pentecost happened at the temple not in an upper room.
Raf, I agree vpw got this one right, and others have hit it too. Ray Vanderlaan, Michigan-based scholar, has a book that talks about the south gate to the temple as the most likely spot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
As for salvation, I believe we need to understand that God judges from the heart. Look at Rahab, an innkeeper or prostitute, she was a rank unbeliever who heard what God was doing, correctly assessed the situation and trusted in Him. She eventually became part of the Christ line.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I've been working on a presentation regarding the significance of baptism on the Day of Pentecost. It has become apparent to me that I can't really do it without first establishing some of the things the "Old Testament" says about the "New". So that's what I am giving priority to now. When I get to posting, we'll be looking at Deuteronomy 29, Isaiah 43&44, Ezekiel 36, and Jeremiah 31, as well as Joel 2.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Invisible one,
Take a look here:
http://www.choosebooks.com/item_details.js...tem_id=29809386
Only 256 bucks! Maybe there's still time for "Santa" to get you a copy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Geo -
Forget "Santa" - I'll need to sell my soul to "Satan" to get that copy (lol).
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
Yes, search the scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life, they are they which testify of Jesus Christ.
It is God that gives the understanding, not word study books. Not that there is anything wrong with knowing word studies and scripture. Being strong in it is good, but a stronger than that will come and spoil the goods, therefore be ready to understand the understanding that only the Lord can give.
1 Corinthians 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
And walk in Love, if there is no love there is no true God.
Did not the scribes and pharisees know the scriptures? Yet they were far from understanding and knowing God and his Son.
Link 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.