ECT Oikonomia (dispensation/stewardship) of Grace

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame


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
 

HisServant

New member
Paul had a unique stewardship.. we get that. It was a task for him to do and ended with his death.

It in no way supports the concept of dispensationalism.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member


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.


Why do you stop the parable after the introduction? Why do you assign a different meaning to this parable than Jesus does:

9 “And I say to you, cmake friends for yourselves by unrighteous 4mammon, that when 5you fail, they may receive you into an everlasting home. 10 dHe who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much. 11 Therefore if you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? 12 And if you have not been faithful in what is another man’s, who will give you what is your eown?
13 f“No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

Jesus isn't speaking of many stewardships at all.

Are you saying that whomever was over the previous stewardship screwed God out of a bunch of money so they wouldn't be... cast into outer darkness?

Your conclusions about this parable are woefully inaccurate.

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.

Again, you are abusing this parable, claiming that this one circumstance is always the norm. On what basis do you claim that there is always two individuals? Why can a manager not have multiple people that he gives stewardship over, as in the parable of the talents? In that circumstance, the owner gave THREE men money to manage.

So, your conclusion does not follow. You are using anecdotal data to make a broad assumption.

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.

Again, go back to the parable of the talents. The owner only gave general instructions.


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.

Again, you are assuming that the arrangement in this one parable is the way ALL stewardships work. You have not shown this.

Nor have you shown that Paul's intent is to call upon this parable.

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.

And you have yet to show that the particulars of your one case represent the whole of the culture's view of stewardship.

When I say, "basketball", I could be referring to a professional basketball game with referees and uniforms and a clock and strict rules about timeouts and substitutions and fouls and other technical minutiae that go with a professional league...

Or I could be referring to a schoolyard basketball game with no clock, no referees, no substitutions, possibly not even really keeping score, just a group of kids shooting hoops.

You've taken a specific instance and stated that it must apply to all uses of stewardship in the bible without warrant.

You've also made an invalid word transfer, assuming that because "οικονομια" means something in a parable in Luke, the same thing applies in every context. That's false.

"οικονομια" can simply refer to work, a task, a responsibility, or even a plan. This is why context matters. Context always determines meaning.

So, if we remove your imposition of the Luke 16 meaning from Ephesians 3, Paul can (and likely IS) simply referring to the task and responsibility God has given him, rather than claiming for himself the entire "dispensation of grace."


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.

Unfortunately for you, Paul and Jesus' audiences would be familiar with ALL of the uses of "οικονομια", and not JUST the one Jesus used.

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.

Again, because you fail to exegete Eph 3 properly by executing a transfer fallacy, you've read something into this passage that isn't there.

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

Unfortunately, there are too many errors in this post to accept it as valid.
 

Dialogos

Well-known member
Why is there the subtle shift from Oikonomia being a responsibility or a stewardship to being a time period in redemptive history?

It always seems like this connotative shift occurs in these discussions.

Why will the author go on to argue that there are such periods of time in the bible when the bible never refers to them as Oikonomia?
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
Why do you stop the parable after the introduction? Why do you assign a different meaning to this parable than Jesus does:



Jesus isn't speaking of many stewardships at all.

Jesus is speaking of stewardship
the author is laying a foundation for the word
Oikonomia (dispensation/stewardship)


Again, you are abusing this parable, claiming that this one circumstance is always the norm. On what basis do you claim that there is always two individuals? Why can a manager not have multiple people that he gives stewardship over, as in the parable of the talents? In that circumstance, the owner gave THREE men money to manage.

So, your conclusion does not follow. You are using anecdotal data to make a broad assumption.

still laying out Oikonomia (dispensation/stewardship)

An "Oikonomia" has TWO parties within what can be defined as a verticle relationship
executive and subordinate





Again, you are assuming that the arrangement in this one parable is the way ALL stewardships work. You have not shown this.

Oikonomia (dispensation/stewardship) readily understood term except by you

Nor have you shown that Paul's intent is to call upon this parable.
Eph 3:1 For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles—
Eph 3:2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you,




And you have yet to show that the particulars of your one case represent the whole of the culture's view of stewardship.

sure did

When I say, "basketball", I could be referring to a professional basketball game with referees and uniforms and a clock and strict rules about timeouts and substitutions and fouls and other technical minutiae that go with a professional league...

Or I could be referring to a schoolyard basketball game with no clock, no referees, no substitutions, possibly not even really keeping score, just a group of kids shooting hoops.

if we have a Captain and a Sargent in the same squad
who is in charge of he two ?

You've taken a specific instance and stated that it must apply to all uses of stewardship in the bible without warrant.
Luk 16:2
Eph 3:2

Paul could be asked to give an account of his stewardship

You've also made an invalid word transfer, assuming that because "οικονομια" means something in a parable in Luke, the same thing applies in every context. That's false.

"οικονομια" can simply refer to work, a task, a responsibility, or even a plan. This is why context matters. Context always determines meaning.

Act 22:21 And he said to me, 'Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.'"

none of the other 12 had that said to them

Gal 2:7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised

you know circumcised people did not like the uncircumcised.

So, if we remove your imposition of the Luke 16 meaning from Ephesians 3, Paul can (and likely IS) simply referring to the task and responsibility God has given him, rather than claiming for himself the entire "dispensation of grace."
did they tell Paul to have his converts circumcised

Gal 2:7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised


Again, because you fail to exegete Eph 3 properly by executing a transfer fallacy, you've read something into this passage that isn't there.

:nono:

Unfortunately, there are too many errors in this post to accept it as valid.
yes you have too many errors

1Co_11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Why will the author go on to argue that there are such periods of time in the bible when the bible never refers to them as Oikonomia?

Correct.

If a Dispensation (Oikonomia) is a time period, the God Himself would be a time period.

(Col 1:25 KJV) 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;
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
Correct.

If a Dispensation (Oikonomia) is a time period, the God Himself would be a time period.

(Col 1:25 KJV) 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;

God gives the dispensations

An "Oikonomia" has TWO parties within what can be defined as a verticle relationship
executive and subordinate
 

Dialogos

Well-known member
God gives the dispensations
So why doesn't God's word call them dispensations?


Way 2 go said:
An "Oikonomia" has TWO parties within what can be defined as a verticle relationship
executive and subordinate
I don't see how this helps promote dispensationalism.

Paul's oikonomia that was given to him by God would then come to an end when ONE of the TWO parties (namely Paul) died.

That's how stewardships work.

If I made my son the steward of my estate. His stewardship would ends when he went to be with the Lord.
 

musterion

Well-known member
Why is there the subtle shift from Oikonomia being a responsibility or a stewardship to being a time period in redemptive history?

Almost no MADs do that.

Many people have a mistaken notion that a dispensation is a period of time. This is not so, however, for the word “dispense” means simply “to deal out”. The word “dispensation”, then, means “the act of dispensing or dealing out”, or “that which is dispensed or dealt out”.
https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/the-dispensation-of-grace/
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
So why doesn't God's word call them dispensations?
no idea
do you not like the term dispensation



I don't see how this helps promote dispensationalism.

Paul's oikonomia that was given to him by God would then come to an end when ONE of the TWO parties (namely Paul) died.

That's how stewardships work.

If I made my son the steward of my estate. His stewardship would ends when he went to be with the Lord.

did you get circumcised to become a Christian :nono:

we are still under the dispensation given to Paul of \ to gentiles
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
The NT is even more aggressive than that. The Old has an almost man-made flavor to it, and never was supposed to replace the Promise, Gal 3:17. It gets put in the category of 'the weak and miserable elements of the world.' All because the Biblical message is one consistent Gospel from before Israel existed and through its existence.
 
Top