ECT Oikonomia (dispensation/stewardship) of Grace

[Danoh]

Accurate picture of greasy Craigie Tellalie.

Why does that creature look like its wearing pajamas :chuckle:

 

[Aletheiophile]

The meaning of Oikonomia

For the time being let's suspend using any English terms for defining the Greek word Oikonomia. As we dig into the etymology (or origin) of the word "Oikonomia"
it is important to realize that this word was a really important "concept" word in Paul's time and in THAT culture. Part of practicing good hermeneutics is understanding words within the context of the culture they were written to. This opens up for us the Bible and what it teaches quite wonderfully!

The word Oikonomia is actually the same word from which we get our word "economy" from. So what does it MEAN to Paul's audience?

What did Jesus teach about this concept?:

As we begin to look at this word, a GREAT place to start is in the book of Luke chapter 16. Jesus tells a parable to His disciples and in the process gives us a great example of what the word meant to the audience of that day:

Luke 16:1-4

1 He also said to His disciples: “There was a certain rich man who had a steward, (Oikonomos) and an accusation was brought to him that this man was wasting his goods. 2 So he called him and said to him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship(Oikonomia), for you can no longer be steward(Oikonomos).’
3 “Then the steward (Oikonomos)said within himself, ‘What shall I do? For my master is taking the stewardship(Oikonomia) away from me. I cannot dig; I am ashamed to beg. 4 I have resolved what to do, that when I am put out of the stewardship(Oikonomia), they may receive me into their houses.’ ​

The parable goes on from there to tell about the manager's plan to get himself out of the pickle he is in financially, and a practical lesson is given so that Christ's disciples could learn from this parable.

The important thing as it relates to our discussion is that when Jesus told parables, He used situations from the people's everyday lives to illustrate spiritual truths. And here Jesus gives us a VERY clear understanding of what the "Oikonomia" and the "Oikonomos" meant to that culture and in that time.


As we examine this, we find four very important features within an "Oikonomia":

1. An "Oikonomia" has TWO individuals or TWO parties within what can be defined as a verticle relationship. That is to say that ONE of the parties in the "Oikonomia" is an OWNER superior to a "manager" or "steward". He basically gives this manager or steward ("Oikonomos") charge over HIS STUFF, but the owner is always OVER the "Oikonomos" his subordinate.

2. The second thing is that the owner gives the "Oikonomos" specific instructions and responsibilities. In the parable Jesus told, the manager was to be an overseer of the rich man's things.

3. The third thing we note is that at ANY time during the course of the relationship, the steward or manager may be called in to give an account of his stewardship to the owner to see if he has fulfilled his responsibilities and done the things that the owner has set out for him to do. Remember from point #1 above that the manager is ALWAYS subordinate to the owner.

4. Lastly we need to note that IF the steward or manager has failed in his responsibilities in ANY way, then the owner has the right and the option to fire or get rid of the manager if he so chooses. He could also decide to keep the same manager and change up the instructions. When he releases the manager he can again at his discretion hire another steward or manager.

Implications:

IF the manager is then released, and the owner brings in a new manager or steward, then the owner will sit down with the new manager and communicate to him directly what his responsibilities will be. These responsibilities MIGHT include a mixture of new responsibilities carried over from the previous "Oikonomia". The owner again has the discretion as to WHAT responsiblities/instructions will be kept and what responsibilities will be done away with in the new "Oikonomia".

Whatever the owner decides, the NEW manager or steward is in the same exact verticle relationship with the owner as the previous manager or steward and is accountable to HIM for how he handles his responsibilities.

A highly familiar concept:

So THIS is the term Oikonomia within it's cultural setting it's "Usus loquendi". It was such a common and readily understood term at that time, that when the Apostle Paul uses the same term to describe the "Oikonomia" given to him by God, his readers would have INSTANTLY picked up on what Paul was saying. The best way to illustrate the ready understanding that Paul's audience had with this concept is to use a very popular English word (say Basketball). If I say two guys played basketball, MOST people in our culture today will read and understand exactly what I am saying. I don't need to give a whole lot of details. Most people in our culture will easily and quickly associate this with two guys shooting a round ball into a metal rim with a net.

This is the kind of familiarity that Paul and Jesus' audiences had with the term "Oikonomia". It was a MAJOR part of their everyday lives and businesses. Much more so than today in our culture even.

Paul uses this very term to clearly articulate the "Mystery" that God gave to him so that his readers would understand it.

Ephesians 3:2-9 (NAS)
2if indeed you have heard of the stewardship(Oikonomia) of God's grace which was given to me for you;
3that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief.
4By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,
5which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;
6to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,
7of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God's grace which was given to me according to the working of His power.
8To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ,
9and to bring to light what is the administration(Oikonomia) of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; ​

When Paul uses this term in these verses his audience unmistakeably knew exactly what he was saying and would instantly bring to mind the 4 concepts we highlighted above about an Oikonomia.

At LEAST three:
Paul FURTHER teaches us that God has had AT LEAST three separate administrations or dispensations or stewardships:

1. The one PRIOR to the Oikonomia that was given to Paul by God.
2. The present one (Paul's Oikonomia)
3. An administration (Oikonomia) YET to come in the future..... (see Ephesians 1:10)

I will further post the evidence that I think teaches us from the Bible that there have been MORE THAN three Oikonomias (dispensations, stewardships, or managements).

Closing:
EACH dispensation we examine will have the same four features as articulated above. That God is the owner and the one always in the verticle position of the relationship. That mankind or some portions of mankind will be in the position subordinate to the owner in the relationship. That direct responsibilities/instructions are given by God to the men He is dealing with. That those God is dealing with are called to give an account of their stewardship. As we see from the Word of God, God often will use a single representative to communicate His instructions to those He is working with (see Moses and Paul for examples), and that the sad fact of the history of men is that men have often blown it. Sometimes God shows grace and elects NOT to make a change in the administration or the management. But He always reserves the right to do so at ANY TIME being the OWNER of all things created!

If and when God replaces the old management/stewardship with a new one, the new "Oikonomos" is called in and given specific instructions that relate to his or their "Oikonomia". God will supernaturally communicate His will or instructions with regards to the new management/stewardship/dispensation. The reason we have had MORE than one "Oikonomia" is directly related to the fact that in each one there has been a failure by the people God was dealing with to meet or fulfill the responsibilities given by God to them for THAT dispensation.

When Paul said in

Ephesians 3:2
2if indeed you have heard of the stewardship(Oikonomia) of God's grace which was given to me for you; ​

He was showing that he knew that he himself was the person who had received the new instructions from God for THIS dispensation or "Oikonomia".




- Brought to you by our own, PKevman

Can anyone tell me how this is not addressing the text according to a presupposition? Can you (editorial general you) read the text without presuppositions? Unless I am mistaken, this is an analysis of the usage of oikonomia with dispensational presuppositions. Can anyone demonstrate otherwise?

And if you want an etymological lexical understanding of oikonomia, the roots are oikos, house, and nemo, to deal out, distribute, apportion. Nemo is the root of the word Nomos, translated as law. Thus it is etymologically jurisdiction of the house. God's law is His distribution of righteousness, and in oikonomia it would be His economy of giving His righteousness to His covenant people, first through Abraham and Moses to Israel, and finally through Christ to those in Christ.

Jesus Christ is the all in all. He is the house--the temple. He is also the steward of the house. Christ is the total fulfillment of the Law, as He Himself says. He is the goal(telos) of the Law, the distribution of God's righteousness. The oikonomia of the fullness of times (Eph 1) is Christ Himself. The oikonomia was always Christ. As the Logos of God, He is the intelligent expression and reason of the Father. What is the Law but the expression and representation of God's righteousness? The distribution/management of God's house has always been Christ, old and new. It was always Christ, but fully manifested in His life, death, and resurrection.

Paul is a steward only insofar as he is in Christ. The oikonomia is not peculiarly his, but only given through Christ. As Tambora illustrates in the verticle relationship, there is a source and steward. But Paul is not the direct recipient. Christ is the intermediary. Paul is not.

Tambora raises many good and insightful points, but usage of a word must be understood according to its proper etymological and lexical definition. Context and concept must be submitted to content--not the other way around.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

And lift some weights, or grow a spine.

Saint john, are you about to clear your throat, tug at your collar, and tap your holster with your fist?

 

[way 2 go]

Paul is a steward only insofar as he is in Christ.

Paul was an apostle
Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

The oikonomia is not peculiarly his,

very unique

Act 15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
Act 15:2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

but only given through Christ.

yes, it was Jesus who cast away Israel and called Paul to go to the gentiles

Rom 11:15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world,

gentiles are saved without going through Israel

 

[Interplanner]

Can anyone tell me how this is not addressing the text according to a presupposition? Can you (editorial general you) read the text without presuppositions? Unless I am mistaken, this is an analysis of the usage of oikonomia with dispensational presuppositions. Can anyone demonstrate otherwise?

And if you want an etymological lexical understanding of oikonomia, the roots are oikos, house, and nemo, to deal out, distribute, apportion. Nemo is the root of the word Nomos, translated as law. Thus it is etymologically jurisdiction of the house. God's law is His distribution of righteousness, and in oikonomia it would be His economy of giving His righteousness to His covenant people, first through Abraham and Moses to Israel, and finally through Christ to those in Christ.

Jesus Christ is the all in all. He is the house--the temple. He is also the steward of the house. Christ is the total fulfillment of the Law, as He Himself says. He is the goal(telos) of the Law, the distribution of God's righteousness. The oikonomia of the fullness of times (Eph 1) is Christ Himself. The oikonomia was always Christ. As the Logos of God, He is the intelligent expression and reason of the Father. What is the Law but the expression and representation of God's righteousness? The distribution/management of God's house has always been Christ, old and new. It was always Christ, but fully manifested in His life, death, and resurrection.

Paul is a steward only insofar as he is in Christ. The oikonomia is not peculiarly his, but only given through Christ. As Tambora illustrates in the verticle relationship, there is a source and steward. But Paul is not the direct recipient. Christ is the intermediary. Paul is not.

Tambora raises many good and insightful points, but usage of a word must be understood according to its proper etymological and lexical definition. Context and concept must be submitted to content--not the other way around.

The last time I looked into the one described as 'the ages to come,' it was in a special as-though-historical sense; he meant to put the reader in the place of those people looking forward to the present. The present one in Christ therefore starts it and defines the rest of it. In other words, it is the familiar overlap. This present age of the law, sin and death does not end until the end of history, but Christ has started already.

 

[Aletheiophile]

Paul was an apostle
Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:



very unique

Act 15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
Act 15:2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.


yes, it was Jesus who cast away Israel and called Paul to go to the gentiles

Rom 11:15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world,

gentiles are saved without going through Israel

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to express. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[Aletheiophile]

The last time I looked into the one described as 'the ages to come,' it was in a special as-though-historical sense; he meant to put the reader in the place of those people looking forward to the present. The present one in Christ therefore starts it and defines the rest of it. In other words, it is the familiar overlap. This present age of the law, sin and death does not end until the end of history, but Christ has started already.

So what are you representing? It's not quite clear to me.

 

[way 2 go]

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to express. Do you agree or disagree?

disagree

The oikonomia is not peculiarly his,

Paul's dispensation was very unique ,
we are not circumcised into Israel to be saved
because Jesus cast away Israel and sent Paul to the gentiles

Act 15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
Act 15:2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

 

[Aletheiophile]

disagree



Paul's dispensation was very unique ,
we are not circumcised into Israel to be saved
because Jesus cast away Israel and sent Paul to the gentiles

Act 15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
Act 15:2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

The point I was trying to make was about the source of the oikonomia, not the recipient. Paul as the recipient only matters because the source is God the Father and the means is Christ. Do you disagree with that?

 

[way 2 go]

The point I was trying to make was about the source of the oikonomia, not the recipient. Paul as the recipient only matters because the source is God the Father and the means is Christ. Do you disagree with that?

my point is you can't separate them
Jesus gave the rule change with the Paul the recipient
we are back to Abraham's 1st covenant only it is post cross
Gen 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

 

[Aletheiophile]

my point is you can't separate them
Jesus gave the rule change with the Paul the recipient
we are back to Abraham's 1st covenant only it is post cross
Gen 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

Wow. I have no idea how you come up with that midrashic reading of events.

 

[way 2 go]

Wow. I have no idea how you come up with that midrashic reading of events.

Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness."
Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

 

[Aletheiophile]

Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness."
Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

Maybe if you could explain your opinion instead of simply citing prooftexts. Ever consider that I do not understand scripture in the same way that you do? Copy-pasting scripture doesn't tell me anything. I read something entirely differently from what you do. So, I still have no idea how you exegete your position.

 

[Interplanner]

Maybe if you could explain your opinion instead of simply citing prooftexts. Ever consider that I do not understand scripture in the same way that you do? Copy-pasting scripture doesn't tell me anything. I read something entirely differently from what you do. So, I still have no idea how you exegete your position.

I think he meant to show how far back the origin of 'it was credited to him as righteousness/justification' is embedded in Genesis. Not only is it that far back, it implies a complete understanding at the time. How could that expression be used at that time unless there was a complete understanding that that was a vital issue?

 

[Aletheiophile]

I think he meant to show how far back the origin of 'it was credited to him as righteousness/justification' is embedded in Genesis. Not only is it that far back, it implies a complete understanding at the time. How could that expression be used at that time unless there was a complete understanding that that was a vital issue?

I understand that. Still doesn't explain the dispensations.

 

[Interplanner]

way 2 go wrote:
we are back to Abraham's 1st covenant only it is post cross


Aleth:
I don't think he's trying to explain dispensations as found in D'ism. So you may agree more than not. The above line means that the only offer out there was the same one given to Abraham, which perhaps look different on this side of the cross, but Paul didn't think so. This is consistent with Gal 3:17 and what got voided/replaced and by whom, about which Paul is trying to correct things.

 

[way 2 go]

Maybe if you could explain your opinion instead of simply citing prooftexts.

And if you want an etymological lexical understanding of oikonomia, the roots are oikos, house, and nemo, to deal out, distribute, apportion. Nemo is the root of the word Nomos, translated as law. Thus it is etymologically jurisdiction of the house

so we could translate all that to , house rules. agree or disagree?

God's law is His distribution of righteousnes

which law or laws or house rules ?

and in oikonomia it would be His economy of giving His righteousness to His covenant people, first through Abraham and Moses to Israel, and finally through Christ to those in Christ.

you have 5 different "house rules" there

Abram house rule by faith
Abraham house rule is circumcision and heritage
Moses house rules circumcision and heritage and "the law"
Jesus house rules with Israel and "the law"
Jesus house rules without Israel and without "the law"

 

[Aletheiophile]

so we could translate all that to , house rules. agree or disagree?

No, you have misrepresented what I said. It is not house "rules." That's not what Law is. Law is the distribution of righteousness. Righteousness is the very character and conduct of God Himself. It is about the source. I will always always always point back to the source. If Law is the distribution of righteousness, which is God's character, then the Law is God distributing Himself. Is God a set of rules and regulations? Absolutely not. The appearance of ordinances in the New Testament is simply the prudence and guidance for the church to know what to expect of righteous conduct, not what to do and how to produce it. So it is not house "rules." It is the distribution of God's character to God's people.

you have 5 different "house rules" there

Abram house rule by faith
Abraham house rule is circumcision and heritage
Moses house rules circumcision and heritage and "the law"
Jesus house rules with Israel and "the law"
Jesus house rules without Israel and without "the law"

You have defined that yourself, or applied that according to dispensational theology. Dispensations of a number beyond 2 is not found anywhere in the history of theology until the end of the 18th century.

These definitions are based on a misunderstand of what law actually is and how it functions. As I've said in a previous post, it is all one house of God. Pre-Christ Israel and the in-Christ church - all one house. (Romans 11 ; Ephesians 2) The difference in the church is that God in Christ has arrived as steward, and before He acted as steward through His Word. 1 Corinthians 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. Although this properly applies to the maturation of believers, it demonstrates a principle: the OT, the law of sin and death, the physical, the natural, is only the type for the antitype of Christ. There is a continuity.

There is one oikonomia, and two forms: First by the Word, and finally by the Word incarnate -- Christ.

 

[way 2 go]

No, you have misrepresented what I said. It is not house "rules."

you said:
And if you want an etymological lexical understanding of oikonomia, the roots are oikos, house

so by your definition we have house

you said:
and nemo, to deal out, distribute, apportion. Nemo is the root of the word Nomos, translated as law.

so by your definition we have law or rules[ no difference between law or rules]

so we have distribution of house rules

That's not what Law is. Law is the distribution of righteousness.

5 different ways righteousness was distributed

Abram house rule by faith
Abraham house rule is circumcision and heritage
Moses house rules circumcision and heritage and "the law"
Jesus house rules with Israel and "the law"
Jesus house rules without Israel and without "the law"

Is God a set of rules and regulations? Absolutely not.

would Abram had righteousness counted to him had he not had believed
God in Gen 15:5 ?

If a Jew did not keep the law what happend ?
answer:
Eze 18:24 But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die.

how do you become a Christians today?
Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

God is not a set of rules and that was never implied was it?
God has chosen different dispensations through history
and you have not shown or proven otherwise.

The appearance of ordinances in the New Testament is simply the prudence and guidance for the church to know what to expect of righteous conduct, not what to do and how to produce it. So it is not house "rules." It is the distribution of God's character to God's people.

in the new testament it went from keep the law to the jews
to we are not under the law for gentiles.

You have defined that yourself, or applied that according to dispensational theology. Dispensations of a number beyond 2 is not found anywhere in the history of theology until the end of the 18th century.

I have shown them what have you done to disprove them?

Abram house rule by faith
Abraham house rule is circumcision and heritage
Moses house rules circumcision and heritage and "the law"
Jesus house rules with Israel and "the law"
Jesus house rules without Israel and without "the law"

These definitions are based on a misunderstand of what law actually is and how it functions.

opcorn:

As I've said in a previous post, it is all one house of God. Pre-Christ Israel and the in-Christ church - all one house. (Romans 11 ; Ephesians 2) The difference in the church is that God in Christ has arrived as steward, and before He acted as steward through His Word.

God acted through a few prophets with the holy spirit
now
all Christians have the holy spirit

There is one oikonomia, and two forms: First by the Word, and finally by the Word incarnate -- Christ.

:nono:

 

[Aletheiophile]

you said:
And if you want an etymological lexical understanding of oikonomia, the roots are oikos, house

so by your definition we have house

you said:
and nemo, to deal out, distribute, apportion. Nemo is the root of the word Nomos, translated as law.

so by your definition we have law or rules[ no difference between law or rules]

so we have distribution of house rules


5 different ways righteousness was distributed

Abram house rule by faith
Abraham house rule is circumcision and heritage
Moses house rules circumcision and heritage and "the law"
Jesus house rules with Israel and "the law"
Jesus house rules without Israel and without "the law"



would Abram had righteousness counted to him had he not had believed
God in Gen 15:5 ?

If a Jew did not keep the law what happend ?
answer:
Eze 18:24 But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die.

how do you become a Christians today?
Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

God is not a set of rules and that was never implied was it?
God has chosen different dispensations through history
and you have not shown or proven otherwise.


in the new testament it went from keep the law to the jews
to we are not under the law for gentiles.



I have shown them what have you done to disprove them?



opcorn:

God acted through a few prophets with the holy spirit
now
all Christians have the holy spirit






:nono: