The Omnibus Homo Sacer
Page 59
is lacking in Christ’s afflictions [ . . . ] according to the oikonomia of God, the
392
HOMO SACER II, 4
one which was given to me [ dotheisan] to make the word of God fully known,
the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now made manifest to his
saints [ . . . ]
It has been observed that, although the sense of oikonomia is here, as it is in 1 Corinthians 9:17, that of a “fiduciary duty” (“anvertrauete Amt”), the apostle seems
to imply the further meaning of “divine decision of salvation” (Gass, p. 470). But
nothing in the text authorizes us to relate oikonomia to a meaning that could
perhaps belong only to mystērion. Once again, the construction with didōmi is perspicuous: Paul has received the task to announce the good news of the coming
of the Messiah, and this announcement fulfills God’s word, whose promise of sal-
vation had remained hidden and has now been revealed. There is no reason to link
oikonomia to mystērion: the latter term is grammatically an apposition of logon tou theou, and not of oikonomian.
The interpretation of Ephesians 1:9–10 is more complex:
[God] has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will,
according to his benevolence, which he set forth [ proetheto] in Christ for the
oikonomia of the fullness of time, to unite all things in him.
Paul is here speaking about the election and redemption decided by God accord-
ing to his benevolence ( eudokia): consistently with this context, he can write that God has assigned to the Messiah the oikonomia of the fullness of time, bringing
to completion the promise of redemption. Even here oikonomia simply refers to
an activity (“Sie bezeichnet nur noch ein Tätigsein”: Richter, p. 53), and not to a
“divine design of salvation” as is wrongly suggested by O. Michel (ibid., p. 67).
The fact that Paul is able to present the attainment of the promised redemption
in terms of an oikonomia—that is, the fulfillment of a task of domestic admin-
istration—is far from irrelevant (it is most likely with reference to this passage
that the Gnostics will be able to present Jesus as “the man of the oikonomia”).
We can make similar suggestions regarding Ephesians 3:9:
To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach
to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all men see what
is the oikonomia of the mystery hidden for ages in God [ . . . ]
“The oikonomia of the mystery” is patently a contraction of the phrase used in
Colossians 1:25 (“the oikonomia of God, the one that was given to me to make the
word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations [ . . . ]”);
even here, nothing authorizes us to replace its sense of “realization, administra-
tion” with the unattested sense of “plan of salvation.”
THE KINGDOM AND THE GLORY
393
The use of the term oikonomos in 1 Corinthians 4:1 is entirely consistent with
these two passages:
Let a man so account of us, as of servants [ hypēretas] of Christ, and treasurers
[ oikonomous] of the mysteries of God. Here, moreover, it is required in oikonomoi, that a man be found faithful [ pistos].
The relation between oikonomia and mystery is here clear: it is a matter of carrying out faithfully the task of announcing the mystery of redemption hidden in
the will of God that has now come to completion.
2.3. If the textual analysis does not allow us to attribute an immediately
theological meaning to oikonomia, a different point can nevertheless be inferred
from the examination of the Pauline lexicon. Paul does not just speak of an
oikonomia of God, in the sense we have seen, but also refers to himself and the
members of the messianic community using exclusively terms that belong to the
language of domestic administration: doulos (“slave”), hypēretēs, diakonos (“servant”), oikonomos (“administrator”). Christ himself (even though the name is
synonymous with “eschatological king”) is always defined with the term that des-
ignates the master of the oikos (that is, kyrios, or dominus in Latin) and never with terms that are more openly political, such as anax or archōn. (The appellation kyrios was certainly not neutral: we know from Irenaeus, Against Heresies, I, 1, 1, that Gnostics refused to call the Savior kyrios; on the other hand, they used the
political term “archons” to designate the divine figures of the plerome.) In spite
of some very rare and only apparent exceptions (see Philippians 1:27 and 3:20;
see also Ephesians 2:19, in which politeuomai and sympolitēs are, however, used in a decidedly impolitical sense), the lexicon of the Pauline ekklēsia is “economic,”
not political, and Christians are, in this sense, the first fully “economic” men. The
lexical choice is all the more significant insofar as, in the Apocalypse, Christ—who appears in the guise of an eschatological king—is defined with an unequivocally
political term: archōn (1:5; princeps in the Vulgate).
The strongly domestic tone of the vocabulary of the Christian community is
obviously not a Pauline invention; it rather reflects a process of semantic mutation
that involves the entire political vocabulary of Paul’s times. Starting already with
the Hellenistic age and then more explicitly in the Imperial age, the political and
economic vocabularies enter a relation of mutual contamination, which tends to
render the Aristotelian opposition between oikos and polis obsolete. The anonymous author of the second book of the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise on Economy
is thus able to put economy in the strict sense (defined as idiōtikē, private) alongside an oikonomia basilikē and even an oikonomia politikē (a real nonsense from
394
HOMO SACER II, 4
Aristotle’s perspective). The contamination of the paradigms is evident in the
Alexandrian koinē and in the Stoa. In a passage from Philo, whose content Arnim
ascribed—possibly in an uncritical way—to Chrysippus, the oikia is defined as
“a polis on a small and contracted scale [ estalmenē kai bracheia],” and economy as
“a contracted [ synēgmenē] politeia.” Conversely, the polis is presented as “a large house [ oikos megas],” and politics as “a {common} economy [ koinē tis oikonomia]” (Philo, On Joseph, p. 438; see also SVF, III, 80 = Chrysippus, fragment 323).
(The modern metaphor of the political community as a “house”—“the house of
Europe” [ la “casa Europa” ] — here finds its archetype.)
Portraying the ekklēsia in domestic rather than political terms, Paul was
merely following a process that was already taking place; however, he further ac-
celerates this process in a way that involves the entire metaphorological register
of the Christian lexicon. Two examples are worthy of note: the use of oikos in
1 Timothy 3:15—in which the community is defined as “the house [not ‘city’] of
God” ( oikos theou)—and that of oikodomē and oikodomeo—terms that refer to the construction of a house—in the “edifying” sense of constructing a community (see Ephesians 4:16; Romans 14:19; 1 Corinthians 14:3; 2 Corinthians 12:19).
The implications for the history of Western politics of the fact that the messianic
community is represented from the beginning in terms of an oikonomia—not in
terms of a politics—have yet to be appreciated.
א Our textual analysis of the occurrences o
f the term oikonomia will essentially be limited to texts of the second and third century ad, a period during which the concept
receives its original form. Later developments in the theology of the Cappadocians and
in the late Byzantine theologians will occasionally be treated in Chapter 3.
2.4. The term oikonomia is used three times in Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter
to the Ephesians, in a context where the influence of the Pauline vocabulary is
evident.
In 6, 1, the term does not have any theological connotation, even if it refers
to a bishop:
The more anyone observes that a bishop is discreetly silent, the more he should
stand in fear of him. Obviously, anyone whom the Master of the household
[ oikodespotēs] puts in charge of His domestic affairs [ eis idian oikonomian], ought to be received by us in the same spirit as he who has charged him with his duty.
In 18, 2:
The fact is, our God Jesus Christ was conceived by Mary according to God’s
oikonomia from the seed of David, it is true, but also from the Holy Spirit.
THE KINGDOM AND THE GLORY
395
Here, as already noted by Gass, oikonomia does not yet mean “incarnation”; but
it is also unnecessary to presuppose, as is suggested by Gass, the intricate sense of
“a revelatory principle that, in conformity with the highest decision, had to fulfill
itself by means of Christ’s birth and death” (Gass, pp. 473–474). The syntagma
oikonomia theou is simply equivalent to “task assigned by God,” “activity per-
formed according to God’s will” (as in Paul, from whom the syntagma is derived:
this passage from Ignatius’s letter is full of Pauline quotations). It is important
to observe that, in the following passage (19, 1), Ignatius draws a distinction be-
tween oikonomia and mystērion: Mary’s virginity, her parturition, and the death of the Lord are “sensational mysteries” ( kraugēs, as in Paul, Ephesians 4:31), which have happened and been revealed according to an economy. In other words, as
in Paul, there is an “economy of the mystery” and not, as will be the case with
Hippolytus and Tertullian, a “mystery of the economy.”
Even with reference to 20, 1 (“I shall, in the subsequent letter that I intend
to write to you, still further explain the oikonomiai that I have here only touched upon, regarding the New Man Jesus Christ—the oikonomiai founded on faith
in Him and Love for Him, on His passion and Resurrection”), the translation
“divine plan” is imprecise. If the term oikonomiai is not to be understood here
in the rhetorical sense of “arrangement of the matter” (which is nevertheless a
possibility, given the reference to the composition of a text), the generic meaning
“activity ordered for a purpose” is perfectly satisfactory.
2.5. Justin, who is active in Rome around the middle of the second cen-
tury, uses the term oikonomia in the Dialogue with Trypho, in which he tries to demonstrate to the Jews that “Jesus is the Lord’s Christ” (that is, the Messiah).
In two passages from Chapters 30–31, Justin writes the following:
Even to this day, they [the demons] are overcome by us when we exorcise them in
the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, the Governor
of Judea. Thus, it is clear to all that his Father bestowed upon him such a great
power [ dynamin] that even the demons are submissive both to his name and
to the economy of his passion [ tēi tou genomenou pathous oikonomiai]. (Justin,
Dialogue with Trypho, p. 46)
If such power [ dynamis] is shown to have accomplished, and even now accom-
panies, the economy of his Passion [ tēi tou pathos autou oikonomiai], just think
how great shall be his power at his glorious coming. (Ibid., p. 47)
Here, the syntagma “economy of the passion” designates the passion conceived
as the fulfillment of a divine assignment and will, from which a power follows
( dynamis). This is equally valid for the two passages in which (as in Ignatius,
396
HOMO SACER II, 4
Letter to the Ephesians, 18, 2) the oikonomia refers to the generation of the savior through the Virgin Mary:
[Christ] deigned to become Incarnate, and be born of this virgin of the
family of David, in order that by this activity [ dia tēs oikonomias tautēs]
he might conquer the serpent [ . . . ] and the angels who followed his
example. (Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, p. 69)
[ . . . ] the ones from whom Christ was to be born in accordance with the
activity that was fulfilled through the Virgin Mary [ kata tēn oikonomian
tēn dia tēs parthenou Marias]. (Ibid., p. 180)
The sense of “assignment” is perspicuous in 67, 6: “I do not admit that he
[Christ] submitted to this, as though justification could be acquired by it, but
simply to complete the oikonomia in accordance with the will of his Father”
(ibid., p. 103); and in 103, 3: “[ . . . ] before Christ fulfilled by his crucifixion the
Father’s oikonomia” (ibid., p. 156). The passage at 134, 2 is closer to Paul’s use of the term in the letter to the Ephesians:
For, as I have said already, in each such action certain oikonomiai of the great mysteries were fulfilled [ oikonomiai tines megalōn mystēriōn en hekastēi tini toiautēi
praxei apetelounto]. I will explain what divine oikonomia and prophecy were accomplished in the marriages of Jacob. (Ibid., pp. 201–202)
As we can infer from the passage that immediately follows (“The marriages of Jacob
were prototypes [ typoi] of what Christ would do”: 134, 3), the “economy of the
mystery” refers to Paul’s typological doctrine: it is the activity that realizes the mys-
tery that had been announced typologically in the Old Testament. In the last oc-
currence of the term oikonomia, there is no direct theological implication (107, 3): Then, when Jonah was vexed because the city had not been destroyed on the
third day, as he had announced, a gourd plant sprang up out of the earth thanks
to one of God’s economies [ dia tēs oikonomias]. (Ibid., pp. 161–162)
א The text of the Apology of Aristides of Athens, probably written between ad 124
and 140, reached us in a Syriac, an Armenian, and a Greek version—the last is contained
in the Barlaam and Iosaphat (eleventh century). The discordances between these three versions do not allow us to establish whether the Greek text that we quote from here
corresponds to the original:
And having accomplished His wonderful economy [ telesas tēn thaumastēn autou
oikonomian], by a voluntary choice He tasted death on the cross, fulfilling an
august economy [ kat’ oikonomian megalēn]. ( The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher, p. 276)
THE KINGDOM AND THE GLORY
397
2.6. Theophilus of Antioch, who was bishop around ad 170, uses the term oikonomia four times, without it ever acquiring a directly theological meaning.
The first time concerns the task that God assigned to the emperor:
[The emperor] is not God but a man appointed by God [ hypo theou tetagmenos],
not to be worshipped but to judge justly. For in a certain way he has been en-
trusted with a duty from God [ para theou oikonomian pepisteuetai]. (Theophilus,
Ad Autolycum, 1, 11, p. 15)
In two other cases, the sense is in all likelihood the rhetorical acceptation, “arrange-
ment of the matter,” with reference to the narration of the Gene
sis:
No man can adequately set forth the whole exegesis and all the ordered matter
[ tēn exēgēsin kai tēn oikonomian pasan exeipein], even were he to have ten thousand mouths and ten thousand tongues. (Ibid., 2, 12, p. 45)
The narrative that concerns them [Cain and Abel] is wider than the arrangement
of my exposition [ tēn oikonomian tēs exēgēseōs]. (Ibid., 2, 29, p. 73)
The generic sense of “ordered arrangement” is also present at 2, 15 (p. 53):
The disposition of the stars corresponds to the arrangement [ oikonomian] and
order [ taxin] of the righteous and godly men who keep the law and the com-
mandments of God. For the stars that are clearly visible and radiant exist in
imitation of the prophets [ . . . ]
2.7. Tatian, who was probably a disciple of Justin in Rome, and, according to
Irenaeus, the founder of the intransigent sect of the Encratites, seems to develop
a theological meaning of the term oikonomia in a passage of the Address to the Greeks in connection with the relation between the logos and the Father. However, a careful examination of the passage shows that he actually transfers into a
theological field technical terms from the rhetorical vocabulary.
The Logos, not having separated [ chōrēsas] in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. Him (the Logos) we know to be the principle [ archēn] of the world.
But He came into being by ordered partition, not by a cut [ gegonen de kata merismon,
ou kata apokopēn]; for what is cut off [ apotmēthen] is separated from the original substance, but that which comes by participation [ meristhen], having received the
distinction of the oikonomia [ oikonomias tēn diairesin], does not render deficient that from which it is taken. (Tatian, Address of Tatian to the Greeks, 5, pp. 9–10) The terminology being used here is that of Stoic rhetoric: merismos “is an ordered disposition [ katataxis] of a kind according to places” (Diogenes, 7, 62,
in SVF, III, 215); diairesis is, along with taxis and exergasia, one of the divisions
398
HOMO SACER II, 4
of the oikonomia (itself a technical term of Hermagoras’s rhetoric, as we have
seen in Quintilian). The articulation of divine life is here conceived according
to the model of the arrangement of the matter in a discourse. This is confirmed
by the subsequent passage.