Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 05, 1999 at 10:22:15 {6xiCHW3gJ2rRIg7iiOekOgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: Good News of the Kingdom posted by mntzion on November 05, 1999 at 08:05:20:
Can globality be attributed to Jesus’ answer for a sign, specifically in his expression about how extensive the gospel would be preached?
That discussion focuses on Jesus’ use of the expression oikoumene as found at Matthew 24:14.
In New Testament Greek the basic application of oikoumene was the Greek-speaking world, as opposed to parts of the world beyond Greek influence. In other words the basic application was to the known Greek speaking world. A quick reading of practically any reputable Greek lexicon should easily make that point. So then the question becomes twofold. 1) Was oikoumene ever applied pre-New Testament period toward the world beyond the Greek influence encompassing the idea of globality and 2) Is there any reason to understand such an extended application of oikoumene in words attributed to Jesus at Matthew 24:14?
Consider the following entry from Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon of Classical Greek (also known as the Great Scott)
oikoumen-ê (sc. gê), hê, inhabited region, v. oikeô A. au=Hdt. 7.1=lr ; then the Greek world, opp. barbarian lands, Dem. 7.35 ; pasa hê oi. IDEM=Dem. 18.48 ; in Arist.Mete.362b26, hê oi., = the inhabited world (including non-Greek lands, as Ethiopia, India, Scythia), as opp. possibly uninhabited regions, cf. Cleom.2.1 ; in Arist.Mu.392b26, hêde hê oi., = our world (= Asia, Libya, Europe); oikoumenai worlds, IBID=au=Arist. Mu. 392b31=lr ; hê philia perichoreuei tên oi. Epicur.Sent.Vat.52 ; sou (i.e. Ptolemy au=Epicur. Sent.Vat. 11 or au=Epicur. Sent.Vat. 111) tês oi. pasês basileuontos PSI5.541.7, cf. LXX 1 Es.2.3 ; loosely, the whole world, Hyp. 4.33 (prob.), Antiph.179, PMag.Lond.121.704, Luc. Halc.3, Ath.8.350a : so perh. in some passages cited under au=Ath. 8.350a11=lr.II. the Roman world, ho agathos daimôn (etc.) tês oi., i.e. the Emperor, OGI666.4,au=OGI 668.5, POxy.1021.5 (i A.D.), CIG2581-au=CIG 2,au=CIG 4416,Ev.Luc.2.1, Act.Ap.17.6, au=Act.Ap. 24.5, Sammelb.176.2 (ii A.D.), Gal.10.7, Luc.Macr. 7.
III. hê oi. hê mellousa the world to come, i.e. the kingdom of Christ, Ep.Hebr.2.5.
In the above expanded definition it’s clear that, aside from any meaning Christian exegetist may have applied (see III), oikoumene already had been used referencing “the inhabited world” and “the whole world”. It should be noted that those two usages are aside from the idea of “the Greek world”.
Continuing the discussion into oikoumene, it is also of interest to read what Great Scott has to say under the term kosmos. The entry includes this statement:
[kosmos] 3. in later Gr., = oikoumenê , the known or inhabited world, OGI458.40 (au=OGI 458.9=lr B.C.), Ep.Rom.1.8, etc.; ho tou pantos k. kurios, of Nero, SIG814.31, cf. IGRom.4.982 (Samos); ean ton k. holon kerdêsêi Ev.Matt.16.26.
What makes the above entry interesting is that is gives the specific reason for the basic meaning of oikoumene. What is the reason for the basic definition? It’s describing the known world. Quite naturally people would normally use terms based upon what they know of. This being a legitimate assumption we can naturally conclude that usually the term oikoumene means just what has been asserted countless times on this forum, the Greek speaking world. However, assuming a user has knowledge of existing inhabitants of the earth beyond Greek speaking people (meaning knowledge of global inhabitation) we cannot exclude usage of oikoumene meaning global. As represented in the Bible Jesus is such a person. According to the Bible Jesus is attributed knowledge of all creation. In that case, then Jesus would have knowledge of existing inhabitants of the earth unknown to his followers.
As presented in Great Scott, prior to Jesus and aside from the Greek speaking world there had already been expanded usage of oikoumene carrying the meaning of the inhabited world and the whole world. Those users were thinkers like Aristotle and Hyperides who intelligently and intentionally pushed their ideas and concepts beyond that known. Jesus is likewise represented as such a person except that being the Son of the only true God attributed to him the ability of speaking expansively about the known rather than the unknown. That Jesus is attributed knowledge beyond the common is substantiated at John 16:12 where Jesus said: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now."
Admittedly Jesus was forced to use expressions of the day, however, he also admitted that he had spoken of things which were not then understood. This acknowledgment can be found at John 14:25,26. According to Young’s Literal Translation it reads:
“These things I have spoken to you, remaining with you, and the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and remind you of all things that I said to you.”
So, again, considering pre-Christian usage and the universal knowledge of Jesus, it cannot be excluded that Jesus used oikoumene literally in reference to the whole world.
The information given is fine for demonstrating existing possible legitimate usage of oikoumene meaning literally the whole world. However, the possibility of such usage is not evidence that it was actually used that way. For that we must turn to the synoptic gospel.
As I’ve already pointed out, Jesus used oikoumene as recorded at Matthew 24:14. Therein it states that the good news would be preached to the [whole] world. This expression embodies the mandate to preach the gospel. Is there any occasion in which Jesus spoke of this gospel being disseminated where it is contextually suggestive that Jesus had in mind universal dissemination?
Yes, Matthew 28:18-20 is one such place. In that text Jesus first describes himself has having been bestowed with universal power/authority. Immediately after this he mandates how far and wide the gospel is to be preached when he says:
Go [therefore] and make disciples of all the nations… – Darby (bold added by Friend)
Contextually it seems reasonable that Jesus had informed his disciples of his now universal authority justifying the broad mandate he then gave. In short, the mandate was intended to be universal (worldwide) which justifies the asserted universal authority. It would seem odd to assert that Jesus intentional expression interjecting his universal authority was disconnected from the mandate to spread the good news by making disciples. It would also seem unreasonable to assert Jesus mentioned this to authorize a lesser than universal work. Jesus’ followers had not resisted his assignment for them to preach. Why now would Jesus now need to exert so much authority for a strictly localized preaching?
No, contextually, Jesus use of his new authority at Matthew 28:18 clearly demonstrated—whether it was initially understood or not—that Jesus had in fact mandated a universal (meaning global) dissemination of the good news. Contextually, Jesus assertion of universal power indicates (at least suggests) that the mandate was likewise universal in extent. I contend that the said text does more than just suggest possible world-wide preaching when a suggestion is all that is needed to consider Jesus expression at Matthew 24:14 as being global in extent. That critical connection is evidenced in that the context of both texts—Matthew 24:14 and 28:18-20—connect the preaching of Jesus’ followers to the same event of the end.
So, rationale exists for considering that Jesus’ words at Matthew 24:14 are understood as global in terms of extent. This can be said in that there was previous similar usage of the applied term and because the mandated extent of preaching is suggestively universal.
Friend