Do we go to church or are we a community?

I was driving my son to the train back to NYC today and we became engaged in a conversation about “church”. I had recently put the finishing touches on a chapter regarding this word for my forthcoming book The Secret of God (The . It was stunning to him that I said this word is a horrible translation of the underlying Greek word (ekklaysia). Not only that, but the curious history of the English word “church” is a testimony to keeping Christians from realizing their relationship to God, Jesus and other believers.

When men began to translate the Bible into English the Greek word ekklhsia (ekklaysia) was invariably translated “congregation” (see even the Bishops Bible of 1568, the precursor of the King James Version). Yet, when James, the First, engaged scholars in England to translate the sacred texts into his (now) revered 1611 Version he forced certain rules upon the rendering body. This was after he conceded modestly to the demands of the Puritans to actually do a new translation. The Puritans, that activist group within the King’s own Anglican congregations, wanted to change church polity and purge much of the Roman Catholic trappings that remained in Anglicanism after the Reformation. James thwarted much of their upward and internal pressure by not acceding to their demands (see The Millenary Petition (1603) and the Hampton Court Conference (1604) for details on this). It is the opinion of many that the new translation was a bread crust thrown their way while the king retained the loaf of religious power.

The retention of the word “church” for ekklaysia was merely one of the many “rules of translation” that James (himself a student of theology), via his lackey Richard Bancroft, the current Archbishop of Canterbury, demanded. It helped James retain the ecclesiastic liturgy and format of an organized, top-down church government (think Roman Catholicism under another name). It made it easier to keep his thumb (more like an iron fist) on his constituency.

The better word to use in any English version is “community”. Even in our early 21^st century lives, in a Western culture, this word fits better than assembly or congregation, each of which have connotations of a group gathering at a particular place. The Greek word ekklaysia had none of that in its meaning. It is formed from two other Greek words; ek meaning “out” and kaleo meaning “to call”. They combine to mean “to call out” (in the case of a verb) and “those called out” (in the case of the noun) and therefore Christians are those called out (for a particular purpose). The secular usage of the word had been to “call out” certain Greeks in Athens to participate in political and military deliberations where issues were discussed and voted upon. The Christian community is called out for any number of purposes for the one, true God. The English translation of the word was never meant to carry structural overtones and never meant to make an institution out of what would otherwise be a bunch of people living for God.

Paul, in his letter to the Hebrews gives the only admonition to believers regarding “getting together” as a group. We don’t “go to church”; we are a community of those dedicated to the Lord Jesus and his God an ours.

^NIV Hebrews 10:25 Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another-- and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

How do we know there are theological economies in the Bible

The Fundamental Meaning of “Dispensation”
(or How do we know there are Dispensations?)

Dispensationalists (most varieties, that is) see the ages of man broken up into different theological economies . By this we mean that God had and has “rules and regulations” by which man lives and lived in different times and these rules were modified as man became unfaithful to them. Just as the parable of the steward (manager) in Luke 16 shows the rules of the “stewardship” given by his lord, so the rules of God’s economies or stewardships are shown in the various parts of the Bible.
One of the more cogent examples is found in the Garden of Eden: “eat of the trees I tell you, but don’t eat of the tree that is in the midst of the garden” – that was one of the rules. When the stewardship of the garden was “broken” (read: man was unfaithful to carry out God’s commands) a new stewardship arrangement was instituted. Man was put out of the Garden of Eden and given other tasks to perform.
Another example, which most, if not all Christians (dispensational or otherwise) understand, regards the period after Christ’s Ascension in which occurs the abrogation of the Law. Talk about a “rules change”; no longer does God require an animal sacrifice at a Temple in Jerusalem for the forgiveness of sins. No longer is the Christian required to keep the regulations of Mosaic Law surrounding this sacrificial service, which were numerous and wide-ranging.
Theological acquaintances, on more than one occasion, have asked that I “show” that oikonomia (dispensation) is used by dispensationalists “according to biblical usage”. They have said that the dispensationalist is making a theological mountain out of a mole hill and that, “The biblical usage of oikonomia, as far as we see it, is nothing more than a “job”, a “task” given to someone; a managerial position.” It made me think whether I could show them differently or whether they actually had a point. I have written my findings below.
I will attempt to show how Jesus, Paul and Peter used the term “oikonomia” and their related cognates – oikonomeo (the verb) and oikonomos (another related noun). It will be illuminating to see whether dispensationalists use the term in a similar fashion to the Biblical personalities.
Some facts about the underlying Greek forms should be known before the Biblical records are mentioned:

1. The various forms of the Greek word appear in the NT twenty (20) times. They are found five (5) times in the Gospels (used in a parable in Luke 16), once in 1 Peter 4:10 and fourteen (14) times in the Pauline Epistles.
2. The verb “oikonomeo” is used once in Luke 16:2 (parable) where it is translated “to be a steward”. The noun “oikonomos” appears ten (10) times; (Luke 12:42; 16:1,3, 8; Rom. 16:23; 1 Co. 4: 1, 2; Gal. 4:2; Tit. 1:7; 1 Peter 4:10) and is usually translated “steward” or “manager”, but “ treasurer” in Romans 16:23. The noun “oikonomia” is used nine (9) times (Luke 16: 2, 3, 4: 1 Co. 9:17; Eph. 1:10; 3:2; 3:9; Col. 1:25; 1 Tim. 1:4,) and is variously translated “stewardship”, “dispensation”, “administration” or “commission”.
3. The parable (the one in Luke 16 in which the words are used) show:
a. There are two (2) parties involved; one with authority (the ruler) to delegate duties and one designated to carry out said charges (the steward).
b. There were specific responsibilities (in this case the steward failed in his duties when he wasted the goods of the lord)
c. Accountability also plays a part. The steward may be called upon to show how well he had discharged the owner’s responsibility given him at any time. There were expectations on the part of the master as well.
d. A change could be made at any time unfaithfulness was found in the arrangement (note the phrase used: “can no longer be steward”)

So, at the time of Christ, these last points give some idea of what a “dispensational” arrangement was and how it was administered. If we were to then look at how the occurrences of the word are used in the Church epistles (all the rest except the one in Peter) we will see further evidence of the features of the concept.
1. God is the one to whom men are responsible in the stewardship commitment (note the three (3) times Paul mentions this in 1Corinthians 4:1-2 and Titus 1:7)
2. Faithfulness is required. (1 Cor. 4:2) Note that Erastus, treasurer of the city of Rome (Romans 16:2) illustrates this principal.
3. A stewardship may be terminated at a given time (Galatians 4:2). Here it came to an end because a different purpose was introduced. Paramount in this verse is the inclusion of time in the description of the steward’s term.
4. “Dispensations” are connected with the “mysteries (secrets)” of God (1 Cor. 4:1; Ephesians 3:2; Colossians 1:25). The terms are inextricably linked.
5. The term “age” and “dispensation” are also inextricably linked, but not exactly interchangeable. Take for instance Paul’s remark that the present dispensation was, “hidden for ages”, meaning a long period of time (Eph. 3:9). See also, “the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints” (Col. 1:26). Time issues again are involved and must be considered as colorization.
6. At least three (3) dispensations (as generally understood in theological circles) are mentioned by Paul (Eph. 1:10 – the “dispensation of the fullness of the times”), the “dispensation of the Secret” in Ephesians 3:9 and the one inferred by comments in Col. 1:25-26, where another preceded the present one (in which the Secret of Christ “in you” is revealed).
Now, I grant you that there are not the seven (7) or eight (8) dispensations (in chapter and verse) which some dispensationalists propose, but there are at least the three (3) and I think the logic is there to show (in my theology) eight (8). And here’s another thing; most opponents to Dispensational Theology try to say that the way we use the term is not backed up by Scripture. Look above and consider this: The concept of “atonement” is not used in the New Testament, yet theologically we all use the term (and rightfully so) to stand for what is involved in the death of Christ. Biblically the word is not used in relation to the death of the Messiah. But since by extrapolation the concept is understood, it is not unbiblical to give it a theological meaning that, as one author put it, ”is in reality more inclusive than its strict biblical usage”. Dispys infer the same theological understanding in “dispensations”. The concept is there.
I’ve passed my limit on cogitation and you’ll have to wait on a formal definition. But this is at least a beginning of a “simple word study” and certainly a dispensation is not merely a “job”.

The Embarrassment of Riches (Part 1)

An embarrassment of riches? (of his glory) – Part 1
or
The embarrassment of wretches! (Into the lake of fire) – Part 2

Note please the question mark at the end of the first phrase above and the exclamation point at the end of the second. It’s important to the story, the purpose of the ages and the end of all things, as we know it. Think I’ve overstated my approach to this wee Biblical blog?

Not really, since we as Christians have a Commission greater than the one Jesus gave to his Jewish disciples in Matthew 28. Yes, we are certainly to go preach and teach the Word (Jesus’ word was “gospel”) to all the people on the planet (Jesus’ “nations” which literally meant “Gentiles” (only)) and yes we are indeed (in a way) the “disciples of Jesus” (term used only once in Scripture of Joseph of Arimathaea being such a one (John 19:38)). But what about the commission in Ephesians 3:9-11; what do we do with that?

Even to make plain to everyone the dispensation of this secret, which for ages
past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. His intent was that
now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should
be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Now, the subject has changed, the object has changed and the message might be a bit extraordinary. The subject is not the “disciples of Jesus” except in some stretched circumstance that says all Christians are his disciples (I call this the cosmic meaning of “disciple” which word in simplicity only means “one who is taught”…by anyone). The subject is “the church” and in this day and time it’s not the one Jesus was talking about in Matthew 16:18 upon which rock Jesus was doing the building, except in some stretched (again, cosmic) circumstance that says all Christians are in the “church which is his body” and we are growing (building?) up into him in all things. Are you all following this?

Let’s talk dispensational turkey can we? Christians are not specifically the disciples of Christ. Yes we can “learn” from Jesus, in the sense that he’s giving revelation even at this time, but we are actually “members in particular” of his body, the church. It’s a symbolic body (some like the term “mystical”, but that has connotations that stretch the figure in a wrong direction, IMHO) where the church on earth has “eyes” and “ears” and “feet” (just read 1 Corinthians 12: 12-27) and Jesus is (presently) it’s “head” (Colossians 2:19). The church of Moses (see Acts 7:38) and the church of Jesus on earth and the church in the Apocalypse have their own symbology delineating them. We as the “body” church are a bit different. We actually have an “upward” and greater calling. The language of the Church is more elevated, more extravagant.

Back to our story…the object of our gospel proclamations are no longer “the nations” of the world, but rather “everyone” (highlighted in the first phrase) and “the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms” (highlighted in the last phrase). Quite a change you must admit. And why, you might ask, are we to “make plain the dispensation of the secret”?

You might further ask why we are dealing on such intimate terms with the occupants of the heavenly realm? Good question, I’m glad you asked…I don’t exactly know (perfectly) yet (in my adolescent Christian existence), but I’m thinking it has a lot to do with the second part of my essay. So just hold on there till I can write it.

Finally, the substance of our pronouncements is “the manifold wisdom of God”. How does one start to explain this? It has to do with the purpose of all the ages; both this one and “the age to come” (as well as former ages in which mankind was not). It has to do with a war in heaven between Michael and the dragon that will occur in the future.

The “riches of his (God’s) glory” (Ephesians 3:16) are an astounding birthright that has been made available to us (only) in this day and time.
In Part 2 of this short assignment I’ll open the book on the wretches.

What Did Jesus Know?

What did Jesus know?

The question of what Jesus knew about the future at the time of the Olivet Discourse has been on my mind lately. Not only am I writing a chapter of a book on it, but people have been asking me about this section of Scripture ever since I became a believer way back in the early 70’s. Indeed, I was intrigued by the speech the first time I read it and throughout Seminary.

What we find in the parallel Gospel records of the discourse (Matthew 24, 25; Mark 13 and Luke 21) can be off-putting to the logical reader. It appears that Jesus has predicted something that did not come to pass (“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”). Maybe it’s the eschatological language that’s used there, maybe it’s that predictions themselves can be enigmatic, but studious Christians want to know what’s going on. If this verse was not enough, how do reasonable Christians read the following and not get confused? “And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.” (Mark 9:1) As I've said to many friends of mine over the years; either there are a lot of very old people in Palestine today or Jesus was mistaken.

I got interested in these eschatological chapters when Hal Lindsey, author of The Late Great Planet Earth, wrote about them all those years ago. That late 60’s book was like the Left Behind series today in it’s media driven exposure and in its focus on the “end of the age” time period. In fact, both books are theologically derived from the dispensational viewpoint of Scripture, in which school I count myself a student. It’s exegesis was as confusing back then as it is to most Christians today.

Hal set forth a bizarre set of circumstances regarding the “end times” and asked his readers to look around themselves (at that time, circa 1970) and see if they see the conditions of what Jesus was describing. As naïve as I was, theologically, I bought into some of the hype and circumstance and began to peddle the wares of the end-time dispensationalist: “The end is near, repent and save yourselves; we’re gonna be in a maelstrom soon”!

The problem was, I couldn’t “put it all together” exegesis-wise. There were too many disparate interpretations out there about the “wars and rumors of war”, false messiahs and the love of people growing cold. And this is where many Christians have blown it in the “lack of logic” area.

1. They don’t take Jesus at his word. Not only did he say what I mentioned above about his return, but he also said, “Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28).

2. They aren’t curious about Daniel the prophet and what he said about the time Jesus spoke of (Do you realize that Daniel was given information that pinpointed Jesus’ first coming and his second?).

3. Finally (and this is surely the silliest…), they apply to Christians things spoken to Jews (as if there wasn’t any difference…I hear my seminary professor even today, “Oh, we’re all the people of God…”. He couldn’t interpret his Bible either).

Do you know what C. S. Lewis said about Matthew 24:34? "It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible." I agree! You have to be just plain stupid not to take the Son of God at his word, but embarrassingly enough, most Christians can’t conceive that Jesus didn’t know something. And that’s all we have before us in the texts. Jesus proclaimed a coming “great tribulation”, which Daniel says would last seven (7) years and he didn’t know what his Father had up his proverbial sleeve. If Biblical chronology had continued unchecked by an inserted time period then Jesus’ words would have come to pass as spoken.

But there was a secret “dispensation” that God introduced into His purposes; a wisdom that had been hidden “from ages and generations”, “not made known unto the sons of men”, that was “hid in God” and subsequently “by revelation made known” unto Paul and the other “holy apostles and prophets”.

Daniel’s “time of trouble” (Daniel 12:1), that “great tribulation” Jesus spoke of during the final days of his first visit to earth, will come to pass. It will be the “time of Jacob’s trouble” as the prophet Jeremiah said (30:7). It won’t be the time of the Church’s trouble.

Terminally Bland (and blind)

The Terminally Bland Church

Something on the periphery of my understanding has almost come into full view in the last couple of decades. Modern, western, Christianity can become the vanilla of all flavors of our (true) religion if left to its own devices. Churches, churches, churches; ministries, ministries, ministries…which one can be bigger than the last? Which one can be more “cutting edge” than it’s neighbor? Which ministry can be “just so”…good while making it’s followers oh so rigid (or is that spiritually constipated…take your pick)? And which can make the biggest media splash?

There are the ministries that cannot abide the eclectic; who must have order or else. The sermons must be reviewed before the speaker ascends the platform for “fear of the juice”. Hard and fast rules will be laid out so the outsiders looking in won’t judge the hoi polloi of the marching ranks. We must be milquetoast don’t ya know! We must not encourage creativity (except from the direction we think it should come). This is how they did it in the first century isn’t it? This is how Moses did it and if it’s good enough for him it should be good enough for us. Wait a minute…Moses was a little different…hey a lot of the prophets were a little different…hey…

I’ve always admired the Christian who was the “different drummer” (not just marching to it); who actually had thrown off the shackles of his/ her mummified upbringing and ventured off into their own wild blue YONDER (led by the spirit don’t ya know). And it is this individual who is continually mocked by his/her peers for not being “part of the community” or not “under the leadership of a local pastor”. But this is not necessarily the case. The individual usually just wants to be him or her…self. To be the different drummer, one must know the tune to keep in the rhythm. The song might be just a bit slower or faster, higher or lower in key, syncopated a bit differently…but the song nonetheless (read: doctrine here).

And God is into individuals. He shook Elijah out from under his (juniper) tree and Jeremiah, Ezekiel…hmmmm…most of the prophets butted heads with those who wanted them to conform. Then there’s Paul. Imagine if you will, the apostle Paul, as a Pharisee, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; getting the revelation of the Secret (read: tell the world that the Gentiles are now the equals in all ways to the Jews). He was kinda’ on his own on this one mates. Jesus trusted him!

People will make mistakes. New blood in an aging (or stodgy) church or ministry will spill out of the scratched or skinned knee; no doubt about it! But do you plan to keep them infants forever? Who will take up the torch if you won’t trust them with matches? Stop being terminally bland and let go of the keys to the car once in a while. It won’t stop the world from spinning on it’s axis.

Was Syriac the original language of Jesus?

My son sent me the following article this past Sunday: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090206/lf_nm_life/us_cyprus_bible. It involves a Bible found in Cyprus. I had read this on the news myself and my guess is that the MSS (manuscript) will be found to be old (maybe 800-1000 years), but not the 2000 years that “they” are looking for. The they in this case is the subject of today’s blog.

Near the end of the hyperlinked article someone said that they noticed some modern Syriac words in the text. It is always interesting what the pro-Syriacists do to promote their language! Note how the media portrays the dueling “experts”. “Experts were however divided over the provenance of the manuscript, and whether it was an original, which would render it priceless, or a fake.”

It was the same when I was at school in Chicago studying this very language with the foremost authority in the field, Arthur Voobus at the Lutheran School of Theology in the late 1970's (you can google him and see that I’m not just name-dropping….go ahead….I’ll wait). There was a faction (friends of mine, even!) that always insisted that Syriac (more properly the Peshitta text of the Syriac Bible) was the "language of Jesus". Their enthusiasm was boundless and the newspapers always picked up the story of this “language of Jesus” thing. Let me try to import some sanity here.

Syriac was not the language of Jesus (as the article rightly points out), but a dialect of Aramaic (“Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic - the native language of Jesus - once spoken across much of the Middle East and Central Asia.”). But this does not tell the whole story. Syriac was a dialect, but it was not spoken in Palestine. Rather, it was an unwritten language until it was given form in Turkey (specifically Edessa, the area of its origins) in the later years just before Christ. It was a dialect specifically of Imperial Aramaic; that form of Aramaic which existed in the upper Fertile Crescent from the 5th Century BC onward.

Jesus spoke Palestinian (more specifically Galilean) Aramaic, which form may be found in ancient texts such as the Genesis Apocryphon (of Dead Sea Scrolls notoriety). The Christian Scriptures, if they had an original autograph in Aramaic (the jury remains out on this matter, but I am firmly in the pro-Aramaic-original school, having done essential research on this hypothesis while in graduate school at the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute), would have been written in this language and not Syriac.

I’m not using Syriac as a piñata, but frankly, those who try to tie Jesus to this language are always being a bit disingenuous. Because Syriac was used to bring the message of Christianity to the East (even as far as India) it is revered by the Eastern Churches over against Western Christianity (whose embodiment was principally the Roman Church in the early years after the Councils started meeting). A prejudice developed against the Western church (and it's Greek Bible) in those earlier years and has given rise to the differing “experts” (the Eastern versus the Western) even today. But the scientific study of the languages of the Northwest Semitic varieties tells the true story (see the former paragraph).

Syriac, along with Coptic, Ethiopic, Old Latin, Gothic and other languages into which the Christian Scriptures were translated in the earlier centuries after the death of the apostles are great resources for textual variants (those places where the more familiar Greek MSS readings are dubious or outright forgeries). And Syriac, among all the others, is sometimes better in that it retranslates (is that a word?) the Greek, from which it is taken, back into the idiomatic language of the Original. But Syriac is still not the original language of Jesus.

I’d like to talk a bit about the Old Syriac texts of the Syriac language tradition (over against the Peshitta text of the Syriac Bible), but space and time does not permit.

Until next time...

Greetings Earthlings

My only begotten Son made me do this.

I'm amenable, but a little shy when it comes to pushing myself on the Public.

I'm an independent theologian and sometimes electrical engineer who wishes to create a legacy of words related to life and God. The Bible should fit with life, logic and it's internal scope so diligence is required on the part of the student. A casual interest is OK, but it's not what is ultimately desired.

Jesus once said, "Search the Scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life", but that was to the religious buttheads of the first century Palestine. Imagine what he expects of the person that truly wants to know (believer or unbeliever).

Hebrews 11:6 says, "Now it is impossible to please God without believing, since anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and rewards those who diligently investigate him."

So search and investigate with me and I hope we'll have a blast.

Robert Erasmus