For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

[chickenman]

godrulz always cries for context, but never offers it. Thanks for putting in a real effort. In the context, he says the terror of the Lord and to warn others. That can only be one thing. You can't say there is no punishment when the very next verse says there is wrath. But we can discuss it elsewhere, less Randy lose a few feathers.

No problem with me, if you both want to discuss it here. You'll be good to one another.

 

[chickenman]

Wanted to re-post one of STP's great contributions to this thread...

:wave2: Howdy, bro!
If Randy doesn't mind, I'll take a stab at this.

Here's the initial promise to Abraham:

Genesis 12
1: Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Immediately, we can see that there are two groups involved. A "great nation" and "the families (or nations) of the earth".

Fast forward a little.

Genesis 15
4: And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
5: And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6: And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

So, Abraham, a heathen, yet uncircumcised, was counted as righteous by faith alone. No action was required in believing God's promise.

Moving ahead, God changes his name from Abram to Abraham and...

Genesis 17
10: This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11: And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12: And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

14: And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

The covenant of circumcision is given to Abraham, and an action IS required to remain in this covenant.

So, within the umbrella of the Abrahamic covenant, Gen 12:1-3, God is now beginning to set apart the "great nation" within that covenant.

From Gen 17 forward, it's all about the circumcision. It's all about getting that "great nation" through whom the nations of the earth would be blessed.

Well, the Messiah comes to the circumcision. The majority reject him, he's crucified, buried, risen, and ascended. Israel continues to reject the ministry of the Holy Spirit in early Acts, Israel is fallen.

But, God raises up another apostle with a message that was hidden in the scriptures concerning Gentiles, the uncircumcision.

Gal 3
5: He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6: Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7: Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8: And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9: So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

So, instead of blessing the nations of the world through the rise of that "great nation", they are blessed through the fall of that "great nation"...and, he can do it by their faith alone.

During Acts, you have two groups. Both are the children of Abraham, and both fall under the umbrella of the Abrahamic covenant. One group, a nation, are children of Abraham (in circumcision). The other group, a Body, are children of Abraham (in uncircumcision). The covenant of circumcision requires action, works. No action is required of the uncircumcision.

You can follow these two groups through the book of Acts. You can see the circumcision being diminished, you can see the uncircumcision growing.

The two groups are clearly seen here,

Gal 2
7: But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8: (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles: )
9: And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

In Galatians, Paul contrasts the two covenants which spawn these two groups. He contrasts the Abrahamic covenant with the Mosaic (the circumcision). The promise is unto both, the Jerusalem above which is free, is the mother of them all.

Hope this helps...

 

[CabinetMaker]

Hi Chickenman,

I have a serious question for you. I will ask it poorly but I hope you understand what I am asking and con provide an answer. Where was the term "dispensation" derived from? Where or how did it originate?

Thanks

 

[chickenman]

Hi Chickenman,

I have a serious question for you. I will ask it poorly but I hope you understand what I am asking and con provide an answer. Where was the term "dispensation" derived from? Where or how did it originate?

Thanks

Hey there, big CM. :wave:

I'm not sure what you mean about its derivation or origination. I get it from here:

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. I Cor. 9:17

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 Eph. 1:10

If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to youward Eph. 3:2

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 Col. 1:25
​

But I think I'm not understanding the intent of your question. So could you clarify?

Thanks,
Randy

 

[CabinetMaker]

Hey there, big CM. :wave:

I'm not sure what you mean about its derivation or origination. I get it from here:

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. I Cor. 9:17

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 Eph. 1:10

If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to youward Eph. 3:2

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 Col. 1:25
​

But I think I'm not understanding the intent of your question. So could you clarify?

Thanks,
Randy

I was wondering if the term originated in scripture or if it originated elsewhere. The reason I was asking is that I was doing some study with Strong's and looked at the entry for dispensation. The word appears 4 times in the NT and all 4 times it carries the same meaning:

1) the management of a household or of household affairs
a) specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of other's property
b) the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship
c) administration, dispensation

Now, as I understand dispensationism, a dispensation is defined as God giving something to men, God dispenses something. But the four occurrences of dispensation in scripture do not seem to mean the dispensing of something, they appear to mean caring for something. In fact, according to Strong's, dispensation and stewardship have the same meaning.


So I am wondering if dispensationalism is founded on a misunderstanding of the word. Your thoughts?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I'll give you my 37 cents worth real quick, Cabinetman.

Outside of Romans-Philemon, God worked through covenants solely. It is my belief that all four uses of the word dispensation by Paul are culminated in the time between Acts 9 and the "Rapture". It truly is parenthetical.

I realize that some other dispies have come up with tons of dispensations outside of Romans-Philemon, but I am not sure that I buy it.

 

[zippy2006]

A question that may well be dumb :

Does not MAD completely reduce the importance of Jesus and his teachings? If Jesus was sent to the Jews and his teachings can be interpreted as pertaining to the Jews and not the Gentiles, then...:idunno:

Is there some clean and clear way of understanding what was said to the Jews and what was said to the Gentiles? And why did Jesus preach to Gentiles at times?

Thanks!

 

[Nick M]

A question that may well be dumb :

Does not MAD completely reduce the importance of Jesus and his teachings? If Jesus was sent to the Jews and his teachings can be interpreted as pertaining to the Jews and not the Gentiles, then...:idunno:

Is there some clean and clear way of understanding what was said to the Jews and what was said to the Gentiles? And why did Jesus preach to Gentiles at times?

Thanks!

It isn't dumb, but it is backwards. The dispensation of grace put the sin of the world on the cross. Christ put it there. All those opposed make the cross of no effect.

And a dispensation is an administration. Paul being given an administration of grace, as opposed to Peter's administration of circumcision changes nothing. In fact it proves that Peter is the apostle of circumcision, not just to circumcision. Otherwise, Paul does not have compelte authority, as he claims.

 

[zippy2006]

It isn't dumb, but it is backwards. The dispensation of grace put the sin of the world on the cross. Christ put it there. All those opposed make the cross of no effect.

And a dispensation is an administration. Paul being given an administration of grace, as opposed to Peter's administration of circumcision changes nothing. In fact it proves that Peter is the apostle of circumcision, not just to circumcision. Otherwise, Paul does not have compelte authority, as he claims.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the dispensation of grace (through Paul) begin after the cross? In reading through the beginnings of this thread, it seemed to me that MAD was being used as a reason to interpret certain words of Jesus as pertaining to the Jews and not the Gentiles. If Jesus came to save the Jews, at which point did he switch over so that he could die for the Gentiles as well? Or was he simply dying for the future Gentiles in some way? :think:

 

[john w]

A question that may well be dumb :

Does not MAD completely reduce the importance of Jesus and his teachings? If Jesus was sent to the Jews and his teachings can be interpreted as pertaining to the Jews and not the Gentiles, then...:idunno:

Is there some clean and clear way of understanding what was said to the Jews and what was said to the Gentiles? And why did Jesus preach to Gentiles at times?

Thanks!

"Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more(my emphasis)." 2 Cor. 5:16

We are not saved by the Lord Jesus Christ's earthly ministry; we are saved by 1 Cor. 15:1-4. Paul, our apostle, tells us, in no uncertain terms, that we are not to know our Saviour any longer, in this dispensation, in His earthly ministry. We can learn(Romans 15:4) from the "4 gospels"- Matthew:the Lord Jesus Christ presented as King; Mark:Servant(and notice no geneology given in Mark-not relevant for servants); Luke: Man; John: God- as they have many beautiful intra-dispensational spiritual applications/truths. However, the body of Christ's doctrine in this age is contained in Romans-Philemon. Remove Romans-Philemon and you have no Christianity-you have Jews under the law.

Contrary to what "Joe Blow pastor/teacher/theologian with 15 titles before and after his/her name" has "spoon-fed" most(children need spoon-feeding, as opposed to adults-"milk" vs. "meat"-2 Cor. 3:2) to accept, much of Matthew-John is "Old Testament"(read Hebrews 9:16,17) "law-ground", with the Jews living under the law, not Christians under grace, who have been freed from the burdensome demands of the law(Romans 6:14,15). As an aside, did you know that the era we commonly refer to as "The Old Testament", "The Old Covenant", did not begin at Genesis 1:1, but at Exodus 20:4?(per Hebrews 9:22)

The "gospels" were not written to teach Christianity, but to reveal the Lord Jesus Christ in the different aspects of His person and work as Israel's Messiah, Jehovah's servant, Son of Man, and Son of God, no book being complete in itself. We must not "down play" the Lord Jesus Christ's earthly ministry-"God forbid"(Romans 3:4 and others). However, the foundation of our faith rests upon our risen, ascended, glorified, and coming Lord Jesus Christ.

We are not now, in this dispensation, to know our great Saviour as "Jesus"(a very "common" name during His times), his name of humiliation. NO, we are to recognize him, know Him, love Him, and worship Him as the risen, ascended, and glorified Lord Jesus Christ, and not as some "sweet little baby lying in the manger", who is no threat there, nor as merely a wise, itinerant teacher/preacher traveling in Israel, who is no threat there either. This is the point Paul was driving home in Philippians 2:5-11, i.e., one day soon, this same "Jesus", the one who suffered for us all, and endured the humiliation of a servant when he humbled himself in His earthly ministry and in the death of the cross, the one who was "...despised and rejected of men...."(Isaiah 53:3), the one who was thought to be "out of his mind" by even his friends(Mk. 3:21), will be acknowledged(whether willingly, or by force, I know not), not in this former state/reputation/office as just the rejected and non-threatening "Jesus", but as the risen, ascended, and glorified LORD JESUS CHRIST(and I am shouting this, and one day soon everyone, without exception, will).

We need to ask each and every believer:Are you "following Jesus", or are you a believer in and on the Lord Jesus Christ, our living "...Lord from heaven..."(1 Cor. 15:47), who "...died for our sins according to the scriptures.... was buried.....and.... rose again the third day according to the scriptures..."(1 Cor. 15: 3,4), and who now reigns in glory in heaven, and is coming again in glory?

We are to worship Him as Colossians 1:16, acknowledge Him as Colossians 1:18("the head of the Body"), praise Him for Colossians 2:10, and! pray to Him as Colossians 2:19.

And remember, the Lord Jesus Christ is not the "King of the Church"; for if He was, we would be subjects, not "joint- heirs"(Romans 8:17)!

I find it quite telling that many believers, those who were bought with a tremendous price(1 Cor. 6:20, 7:23), refer to each other as saints, and rightly so, but only because what was done by this "... the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ..."(Titus 2:13), this "...man of war..."(Exodus 15:3). And yet, we do not accord this same honour to our "Wonderful"(Isaiah 9:6) Saviour of ours, the only Saviour, who accomplished this miracle on our behalf, who made each one of us a "new creature in Christ Jesus"(2 Cor. 5:17, Galatians 6:15). Even those who followed "Jesus" in His earthly ministry, those who were "followers of Jesus", never called Him "Jesus", never exhibited such disrespect as to call Him by such a familiar name ("check it out" per Acts 17:11-"Master", yes; "Jesus", no). They honoured His person and His office. Only his enemies referred to Him as "Jesus." This is a great object lesson the LORD God would have each of us to realize, and the apostle Paul, "...the apostle of the Gentiles..."(Romans 11:13), and thus our/your apostle, not Peter, "raises the bar" with the revelation of the mystery.

How much more so those such as us, given our former miserable condition, given what we once were, "...-without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world..."(Eph. 2:12), as compared to what we have "in Christ" as a present possession, as revealed to Paul by this same risen, ascended, and glorified Lord Jesus Christ from ! heaven!

No, I no longer, as a new creature in Christ Jesus, know "Jesus". I know, acknowledge, love, serve, thank, and worship not a crucified man still hanging on the cross as a victim(being a former Roman Catholic), but a victorious "...the God of the living..."(Mk. 12:27)-a living, resurrected, ascended, and glorified LORD JESUS CHRIST! I pray each one of us will now shout the following within our hearts, and give Him His due honour, as it is written:

"Sing forth the honour of his name(my emphasis): make his praise glorious." Psalms 66:2


For, eventually:

"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name(my emphasis): That at the name of Jesus(my emphasis) every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord(my emphasis), to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:9-11

I also pray that all of us that "....have the mind of Christ...."(1 Cor. 2:16) would "...think on these things"(Philippians 4:8).

"For we preach(emphasis mine) not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord(emphasis mine); and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake." 2 Cor. 4:5

 

[zippy2006]

"Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more(my emphasis)." 2 Cor. 5:16

We are not saved by the Lord Jesus Christ's earthly ministry; we are saved by 1 Cor. 15:1-4. Paul, our apostle, tells us, in no uncertain terms, that we are not to know our Saviour any longer, in this dispensation, in His earthly ministry. We can learn(Romans 15:4) from the "4 gospels"- Matthew:the Lord Jesus Christ presented as King; Mark:Servant(and notice no geneology given in Mark-not relevant for servants); Luke: Man; John: God- as they have many beautiful intra-dispensational spiritual applications/truths. However, the body of Christ's doctrine in this age is contained in Romans-Philemon. Remove Romans-Philemon and you have no Christianity-you have Jews under the law.

Contrary to what "Joe Blow pastor/teacher/theologian with 15 titles before and after his/her name" has "spoon-fed" most(children need spoon-feeding, as opposed to adults-"milk" vs. "meat"-2 Cor. 3:2) to accept, much of Matthew-John is "Old Testament"(read Hebrews 9:16,17) "law-ground", with the Jews living under the law, not Christians under grace, who have been freed from the burdensome demands of the law(Romans 6:14,15). As an aside, did you know that the era we commonly refer to as "The Old Testament", "The Old Covenant", did not begin at Genesis 1:1, but at Exodus 20:4?(per Hebrews 9:22)

The "gospels" were not written to teach Christianity, but to reveal the Lord Jesus Christ in the different aspects of His person and work as Israel's Messiah, Jehovah's servant, Son of Man, and Son of God, no book being complete in itself. We must not "down play" the Lord Jesus Christ's earthly ministry-"God forbid"(Romans 3:4 and others). However, the foundation of our faith rests upon our risen, ascended, glorified, and coming Lord Jesus Christ.

We are not now, in this dispensation, to know our great Saviour as "Jesus"(a very "common" name during His times), his name of humiliation. NO, we are to recognize him, know Him, love Him, and worship Him as the risen, ascended, and glorified Lord Jesus Christ, and not as some "sweet little baby lying in the manger", who is no threat there, nor as merely a wise, itinerant teacher/preacher traveling in Israel, who is no threat there either. This is the point Paul was driving home in Philippians 2:5-11, i.e., one day soon, this same "Jesus", the one who suffered for us all, and endured the humiliation of a servant when he humbled himself in His earthly ministry and in the death of the cross, the one who was "...despised and rejected of men...."(Isaiah 53:3), the one who was thought to be "out of his mind" by even his friends(Mk. 3:21), will be acknowledged(whether willingly, or by force, I know not), not in this former state/reputation/office as just the rejected and non-threatening "Jesus", but as the risen, ascended, and glorified LORD JESUS CHRIST(and I am shouting this, and one day soon everyone, without exception, will).

We need to ask each and every believer:Are you "following Jesus", or are you a believer in and on the Lord Jesus Christ, our living "...Lord from heaven..."(1 Cor. 15:47), who "...died for our sins according to the scriptures.... was buried.....and.... rose again the third day according to the scriptures..."(1 Cor. 15: 3,4), and who now reigns in glory in heaven, and is coming again in glory?

We are to worship Him as Colossians 1:16, acknowledge Him as Colossians 1:18("the head of the Body"), praise Him for Colossians 2:10, and! pray to Him as Colossians 2:19.

And remember, the Lord Jesus Christ is not the "King of the Church"; for if He was, we would be subjects, not "joint- heirs"(Romans 8:17)!

I find it quite telling that many believers, those who were bought with a tremendous price(1 Cor. 6:20, 7:23), refer to each other as saints, and rightly so, but only because what was done by this "... the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ..."(Titus 2:13), this "...man of war..."(Exodus 15:3). And yet, we do not accord this same honour to our "Wonderful"(Isaiah 9:6) Saviour of ours, the only Saviour, who accomplished this miracle on our behalf, who made each one of us a "new creature in Christ Jesus"(2 Cor. 5:17, Galatians 6:15). Even those who followed "Jesus" in His earthly ministry, those who were "followers of Jesus", never called Him "Jesus", never exhibited such disrespect as to call Him by such a familiar name ("check it out" per Acts 17:11-"Master", yes; "Jesus", no). They honoured His person and His office. Only his enemies referred to Him as "Jesus." This is a great object lesson the LORD God would have each of us to realize, and the apostle Paul, "...the apostle of the Gentiles..."(Romans 11:13), and thus our/your apostle, not Peter, "raises the bar" with the revelation of the mystery.

How much more so those such as us, given our former miserable condition, given what we once were, "...-without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world..."(Eph. 2:12), as compared to what we have "in Christ" as a present possession, as revealed to Paul by this same risen, ascended, and glorified Lord Jesus Christ from ! heaven!

No, I no longer, as a new creature in Christ Jesus, know "Jesus". I know, acknowledge, love, serve, thank, and worship not a crucified man still hanging on the cross as a victim(being a former Roman Catholic), but a victorious "...the God of the living..."(Mk. 12:27)-a living, resurrected, ascended, and glorified LORD JESUS CHRIST! I pray each one of us will now shout the following within our hearts, and give Him His due honour, as it is written:

"Sing forth the honour of his name(my emphasis): make his praise glorious." Psalms 66:2


For, eventually:

"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name(my emphasis): That at the name of Jesus(my emphasis) every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord(my emphasis), to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:9-11

I also pray that all of us that "....have the mind of Christ...."(1 Cor. 2:16) would "...think on these things"(Philippians 4:8).

"For we preach(emphasis mine) not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord(emphasis mine); and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake." 2 Cor. 4:5

Thank you John it is much appreciated. I am going to read over more of this thread and see if my other questions have already been answered, but there is one related thing I was wondering about.

What is the MAD view of Atonement? Is there one, or it is all about the resurrected Christ as you said? I hate to phrase it this way when so many consider it so sacred, but was the death of Jesus Christ more of a means to the dispensation of grace rather than an end in itself with some sort of saving power for the Gentiles?

Edit: I was looking over this but I am still a bit confused about the whole atonement deal in MAD.

 

[Nick M]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the dispensation of grace (through Paul) begin after the cross?

Yes. He took the sin of the world and all its judgement. However, the Body of Christ started with Paul. We will be jumping around a bit, and I don't want to do that.

In reading through the beginnings of this thread, it seemed to me that MAD was being used as a reason to interpret certain words of Jesus as pertaining to the Jews and not the Gentiles.

You mean these words?

Matthew 10

5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel

Jesus came to sit upon the throne of David and rule from Jerusalem. He was to unite the house, and restore the lost sheep. This was known prophecy. The fact that he was dying for the sin of the world was hidden.

Romans 16:25

Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began

Nobody knew what Psalm 22 or Isaiah 53 was. It was hidden in scripture for this purpose;

1 Corinthians 2

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,

8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.


Satan would not have murdered the Son of David if he knew it would reconcile the world to God. Nobody knew what Psalm 22 meant.

Peter at Pentecost repeated the promise of the kingdom and David. He even said Jesus was resurected to sit on the throne, not for our justification. And the Holy Spirit was controlling him in Acts 2. If Israel had accepted their messiah, Israel and the great commission would have taken the gospel of grace to the four corners as they were told to do. But they did not know that part yet.

This leads to the great question of "why call Paul?" The 12 were to take the ministry as they knew it. Paul was given a revelation directly from Christ. As I said, I don't want to jump all over the place. You should focus on one point at a time to get answered. Many here will show you what we think, based on what the Bible says. Not what scholars and books say the Bible really says.


If Jesus came to save the Jews, at which point did he switch over so that he could die for the Gentiles as well? Or was he simply dying for the future Gentiles in some way? :think:[/QUOTE]

 

[Ktoyou]

It isn't dumb, but it is backwards. The dispensation of grace put the sin of the world on the cross. Christ put it there. All those opposed make the cross of no effect.

And a dispensation is an administration. Paul being given an administration of grace, as opposed to Peter's administration of circumcision changes nothing. In fact it proves that Peter is the apostle of circumcision, not just to circumcision. Otherwise, Paul does not have complete authority, as he claims.

Correct and yes, Peter preached a kingdom gospel. Paul preached the mystery of salvation of all men.

 

[zippy2006]

Yes. He took the sin of the world and all its judgement. However, the Body of Christ started with Paul. We will be jumping around a bit, and I don't want to do that.



You mean these words?

Matthew 10

5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel

Jesus came to sit upon the throne of David and rule from Jerusalem. He was to unite the house, and restore the lost sheep. This was known prophecy. The fact that he was dying for the sin of the world was hidden.

Romans 16:25

Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began

Nobody knew what Psalm 22 or Isaiah 53 was. It was hidden in scripture for this purpose;

1 Corinthians 2

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,

8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.


Satan would not have murdered the Son of David if he knew it would reconcile the world to God. Nobody knew what Psalm 22 meant.

Peter at Pentecost repeated the promise of the kingdom and David. He even said Jesus was resurected to sit on the throne, not for our justification. And the Holy Spirit was controlling him in Acts 2. If Israel had accepted their messiah, Israel and the great commission would have taken the gospel of grace to the four corners as they were told to do. But they did not know that part yet.

This leads to the great question of "why call Paul?" The 12 were to take the ministry as they knew it. Paul was given a revelation directly from Christ. As I said, I don't want to jump all over the place. You should focus on one point at a time to get answered. Many here will show you what we think, based on what the Bible says. Not what scholars and books say the Bible really says.

huh, okay thanks Nick. I've actually been reading a lot of this thread today so I am starting to understand it and I understand what you are saying here.

So in essence, Jesus Christ died for all people, but the fact that he was dying for Gentiles too was hidden at the time of the crucifixion. The great commission would have extended the dispensation of grace to the Gentiles if the Jews had been repentant. Is this right?

So the one question I have for you is: if Israel had accepted their messiah as you said, then Jesus would not have died for us would he have? Are you saying that Israel's acceptance would have somehow created a situation where Christ's death was unnecessary?

 

[Nick M]

Correct and yes, Peter preached a kingdom gospel. Paul preached the mystery of salvation of all men.

The gospel of circumcision was commited to Peter, as the gospel of uncircumcision was commited to Paul. If it was just the gospel to, then there was no need for Paul to take it to the Jew first, then the Greek.

 

[chickenman]

I was wondering if the term originated in scripture or if it originated elsewhere. The reason I was asking is that I was doing some study with Strong's and looked at the entry for dispensation. The word appears 4 times in the NT and all 4 times it carries the same meaning:

Now, as I understand dispensationism, a dispensation is defined as God giving something to men, God dispenses something. But the four occurrences of dispensation in scripture do not seem to mean the dispensing of something, they appear to mean caring for something. In fact, according to Strong's, dispensation and stewardship have the same meaning.


So I am wondering if dispensationalism is founded on a misunderstanding of the word. Your thoughts?

Hi, Cab.
I'll add a mite to STP's 37 cents...

A dispensation is a dispensing of something. Paul said: "...if ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward..."

As a result, Paul was made a steward of that which was given to him.

Everyone is a dispensationalist. Most people that believe the Bible recognize that their shoes are going to wear out over time. Yet God promised Israel that their shoes wouldn't wear out while they wandered for 40 years.

God put Adam and Eve in the garden and gave them liberty of eat of the Tree of life. Later, He kicked them out and they couldn't come back in and eat of the Tree of life. So there's a change. God dispensed something else.

Before God gave circumcision to Abraham, no one was required to be circumcised. There's another change. God dispensed something that wasn't there before.

And we're not required to be circumcised today. We, God's people, are not under a covenant of circumcision.

Etc.

Too much of a big deal is made of the word dispensation. It's a biblical word. It's just something that is dispensed.

Thanks for your questions, CM. Later!

Randy

 

[chickenman]

Hi, zippy.
John and Nick have tackled your questions up to here, I see. I'll let Nick address this post, since it was a response to him. But I would like to clarify something that you wrote.

So in essence, Jesus Christ died for all people, but the fact that he was dying for Gentiles too was hidden at the time of the crucifixion.

The scriptures foretold of Israelites AND Gentiles being saved. Gentile salvation wasn't hidden. It's just that, according to prophecy, Gentiles would essentially have to become Israelites (proselytes) in order to receive the inheritance promised to Israel (land, kingdom, New Covenant). See Is. 56, for example.

But it was never foretold that a Gentile could be saved APART from Israel, outside of the covenants of Israel. Therefore, according to prophecy ONLY God-fearing Gentiles, those aligned with Israel, would receive the promises to Israel (salvation). Whereas the mystery (or...one of the mysteries) eventually revealed to Paul was that even Gentiles who were outside of the commonwealth of Israel (no alignment with Israel at all) could be saved, as well. Completely independent and apart from Israel.

I'll let Nick address the rest, if he wants, since you had questions for him. I just wanted to clarify about those Gentiles. Let me know if I didn't.

Thanks,
Randy

 

[CabinetMaker]

Hi, Cab.
I'll add a mite to STP's 37 cents...

A dispensation is a dispensing of something. Paul said: "...if ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward..."

As a result, Paul was made a steward of that which was given to him.

Everyone is a dispensationalist. Most people that believe the Bible recognize that their shoes are going to wear out over time. Yet God promised Israel that their shoes wouldn't wear out while they wandered for 40 years.

God put Adam and Eve in the garden and gave them liberty of eat of the Tree of life. Later, He kicked them out and they couldn't come back in and eat of the Tree of life. So there's a change. God dispensed something else.

Before God gave circumcision to Abraham, no one was required to be circumcised. There's another change. God dispensed something that wasn't there before.

And we're not required to be circumcised today. We, God's people, are not under a covenant of circumcision.

Etc.

Too much of a big deal is made of the word dispensation. It's a biblical word. It's just something that is dispensed.

Thanks for your questions, CM. Later!

Randy

So if I understand you correctly, the biblical meaning of dispensation and the theological meaning are different. Biblically, a dispensation seems to be referring to the Gospel the Paul was entrusted with and his charge to share the gospel and grow the body. Theologically it refers simply to God handing out something. Is that a fair summary?

 

[chickenman]

So if I understand you correctly, the biblical meaning of dispensation and the theological meaning are different. Biblically, a dispensation seems to be referring to the Gospel the Paul was entrusted with and his charge to share the gospel and grow the body. Theologically it refers simply to God handing out something. Is that a fair summary?

No. At least not a fair summary of my point.

In trying to articulate what you believe I believe, you said: "Biblically, a dispensation seems to be referring to the Gospel the Paul was entrusted with and his charge to share the gospel and grow the body." Scripture refers to what was given to Paul as a dispensation. Eph. 3 doesn't define "dispensation", though, and therefore make that use of it the biblical definition. It simply uses the word to show that Paul was given something.

It uses the word because that's what "dispensation" is: dispensing something. And in that case, Paul was given something...something was dispensed to him. He was put in charge of something.


If I search the scriptures for οικονομια%, then I see it used as:

• stewardship in Luke 16; and verse 3 shows it as something that was given and and taken away.
• dispensation in I Cor. 9:17; and it shows it as something that was given to Paul.
• dispensation in Eph. 1:10; and it is a dispensing of the "fulness of times", when God will gather all things which are in heaven and on earth into Christ.
• dispensation in Eph. 3:2; and it shows that the grace of God was given to Paul as a revealed mystery, and Paul was made the minister of that
• dispensation in Col. 1:25; and it shows that Paul was made a minister of that which God dispensed to him for them

It's just a basic word, CM. I used to have a co-worker that was Catholic and, therefore, not a "dispensationalist". Yet she used the word regularly to talk about her priest being "given a special dispensation" from the bishop (or whatever). She would use the word in her job to refer to getting a special "dispensation" to do a non-standard task. Etc.

It's just a basic word with a basic meaning. The context is what gives specificity to it in any given case. I think too much is made of the word.

Thanks for your questions, CM, and for the manner in which you're asking them.

Have a great day!

Randy

 

[CabinetMaker]

No. At least not a fair summary of my point.

In trying to articulate what you believe I believe, you said: "Biblically, a dispensation seems to be referring to the Gospel the Paul was entrusted with and his charge to share the gospel and grow the body." Scripture refers to what was given to Paul as a dispensation. Eph. 3 doesn't define "dispensation", though, and therefore make that use of it the biblical definition. It simply uses the word to show that Paul was given something.

It uses the word because that's what "dispensation" is: dispensing something. And in that case, Paul was given something...something was dispensed to him. He was put in charge of something.

If I search the scriptures for οικονομια%, then I see it used as:

• stewardship in Luke 16; and verse 3 shows it as something that was given and and taken away.
• dispensation in I Cor. 9:17; and it shows it as something that was given to Paul.
• dispensation in Eph. 1:10; and it is a dispensing of the "fulness of times", when God will gather all things which are in heaven and on earth into Christ.
• dispensation in Eph. 3:2; and it shows that the grace of God was given to Paul as a revealed mystery, and Paul was made the minister of that
• dispensation in Col. 1:25; and it shows that Paul was made a minister of that which God dispensed to him for them

It's just a basic word, CM. I used to have a co-worker that was Catholic and, therefore, not a "dispensationalist". Yet she used the word regularly to talk about her priest being "given a special dispensation" from the bishop (or whatever). She would use the word in her job to refer to getting a special "dispensation" to do a non-standard task. Etc.

It's just a basic word with a basic meaning. The context is what gives specificity to it in any given case. I think too much is made of the word.

Well, that is where the confusion comes from for me. In working through the word "dispensation", I only find it used in the KJV. Other versions use different wording. So when I look at the meaning of the word dispensation in Strong's it does not square with the way we use the word today. The context within the KJV where the word is used tends to support a stewardship meaing of the word, not a dispensing.

In short, Paul was entrusted with a task, he was put in charge of something that was already given to us by Jesus - the gospel. Nothing new was dispensed to Paul, Paul was put in charge taking the gospel to the gentiles.

Thanks for your questions, CM, and for the manner in which you're asking them.

Have a great day!

Randy

Thanks for taking the time to answer. I am trying to get a handle on dispensationalism and part of that is trying to understand where the idea came from. I am having a little trouble reconciling Strong's with the idea of dispensing something new.

For the record, I believe that God deals with people in Covenants. God may dispense things within a covenant but if He does it is always consistent with the covenant. Hence, to me, MAD may accurately describe a period of time within the New Covenant but MAD is not a new gospel or even anything new. God was dissatisfied with how the Jews were not spreading the gospel as He intended so He expanded His delivery method, if you will.

Sorry, rambling a bit.