^{page 147 note 1} Cf. Brattgård, H., God's Stewards (Minneapolis, 1963; also in German and Swedish editions), pp. 22–137Google Scholar, on terms from the stem word οικς in biblical theology and stewardship. On dispensationalism, Bass, C. B., Backgrounds to Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, 1960Google Scholar); Bowman, J. W., ‘Dispensationalism’, Interpretation, x (1956), 170–87Google Scholar; and Aldrich, R. L., ‘A New Look at Dispensationalism’, Bibliotheca Sacra, CXX (1963), 42–9.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 2} Weth, G., Die Heilsgeschichte (Munich, 1931Google Scholar); Steck, K. G., Die Idee der Heilsgeschichte (‘Theologische Studien’, 56; Zollikon, 1959).Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 3} As quoted in Steck, , op. cit. p. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 4} A Handbook of Christian Theology (ed. Halvorson, M. and Cohen, A. C., Cleveland, 1958Google Scholar), S.V. ‘Heilsgeschichte’, p. 158.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 5} ‘Die Geschichtsanschauung des Paulus auf dem Hintergrund seines Zeitalters’ (1932), reprinted in Studien zu Paulus (Zurich, 1954), p. 58 n. 23.Google Scholar Contrast Wendland, H.-D., Geschichtsanschauung and Geschichtsbewuβtsein im Neuen Testament (Göttingen, 1938), p. 7Google Scholar: ‘for theological understanding of the New Testament a concept not to be abandoned’, though Wendland distinguishes it from notions involving direct, rational accessibility, historic supranaturalism, and any organic continuity of development.

^{page 148 note 1} From First Adam to Last: A Study in Pauline Theology (New York, 1962), p. 4 n. I.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 2} Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (Springfield, Massachusetts, 1961), p. 1050.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 3} Cf. Ott, H., ‘Heilsgeschichte’, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (3rd ed., Tübingen, 1957–1962), III, cols. 187–9.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 4} Evangelische Theologie, XXII (1961), 113–41.Google Scholar Robinson's contention, that the historicality of Heilsgeschichte is exhibited in a formula consisting of (1) blessing or thanksgiving, (2) a description of God thus addressed, and (3) a description of the divine action which prompts such blessing, should be compared with the analysis of the covenant formula, outlined by Klaus Baltzer (discussed below, n. 4, p. 154), as a background for New Testament views of Heilsgeschichte.

^{page 148 note 5} Cullmann's view is presented, for example, in Christ and Time (Philadelphia, 1950, rev. ed. 1964Google Scholar), and in Heil als Geschichte: Heilsgeschichtliche Existenz im Neuen Testament (Tübingen, 1965Google Scholar); a Festgabe an Oscar Cullmann has been announced for 1967 with the appropriate title of Oikonomia: Heilsgeschichte als Thema der Theologie. For Conzelmann cf. The Theology of St Luke (London, 1960Google Scholar) and Die Apostelgeschichte (‘Handbuch zum Neuen Testament’, 7; Tübingen, 1963Google Scholar). Dinkler's essay appeared in The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East (ed. Dentan, R. C., New Haven, 1955), pp. 133–67Google Scholar; cf., further, his article ‘Geschichte and Geschichtsauffassung, II A. Neutestamentlich’, RG ³, 11 (1958Google Scholar), cols. 1476–82.

^{page 148 note 6} For recent negative answers, cf. Vielhauer, P., ‘Zum “Paulinismus” der Apostelgeschichte’, Evangelische Theologie, x (1950–1951), 1–15Google Scholar (Eng. tr. in Perkins School of Theology Journal (Dallas), XVII (1963), 5–17Google Scholar, and now in Studies in Luke-Acts (Festschrift Paul Schubert; ed. Keck, L. E. and Martyn, J. L.; Nashville, 1966), pp. 33–50Google Scholar); and Dietzfelbinger, C., Heilsgeschichte bei Paulus? Eine exegetische Studie zum paulinischen Geschichtsdenken (‘Theologische Existenz Heute’, 126; Munich, 1965).Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 1} Cf. Wilckens, U., ‘Die Rechtfertigung Abrahams nach Römer 4’, in Studien zur Theologie der alttestamentlichen Überlieferung (ed. Rendtorff, R. and Koch, K., Neukirchen, 1961), pp. 111–27Google Scholar, and the ensuing discussion by Klein, G. and Wilckens, in Evangelische Theologie, XXIII (1963) and XXIV (1964Google Scholar), as well as the questions from Conzelmann and reply by von Rad in the same journal, XXIV (1964); also Dietzfelbinger, , op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 2} The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (New York, 1962), I, 714–23.Google ScholarDietzfelbinger, , op. cit. pp. 16–20 and 31–3Google Scholar, brings out the connexions with election.

^{page 149 note 3} Cf. Minear, P., ‘A Note on Luke xxii 36’, Novum Testamentum, VII (1964), 128–34Google Scholar; Robinson, W. C. Jr, Der Weg des Herrn: Studien zur Geschichte and Eschatologie im Lukas-Evangelium (‘Theologische Forschung’, 36; Hamburg, 1964Google Scholar); Flender, H., Heil and Geschichte in der Theologie des Lukas (‘Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie’, 41; Munich, 1965Google Scholar). In pursuing the method exemplified by Conzelmann, one must also ask to what extent the theology of Luke's predecessors (for example, Mark and Matthew) and his sources (for example, in Acts vii) exhibited heilsgeschichtlich traits.

^{page 149 note 4} From First Adam to Last, op. cit.; such lines of connexion, from Adam, Abraham, and Moses to Christ, were also pointed out by Schrenk, op. cit. pp. 70–2Google Scholar, and Wendland, , op. cit. pp. 30–3.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 5} Fridrichsen, A., The Apostle and his Message (Uppsala, 1947).Google ScholarMunck, J., Paulus and die Heilsgeschichte (Eng. tr., Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (London, 1959Google Scholar), cited hereafter). Schoeps, H. J., Paulus (Eng. tr., Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History (London, 1961), PP. 219 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 1} Most recently, in Heil als Geschichte, op. cit. p. 57.Google Scholar Cf. Christ and Time, op. cit., rev. ed., pp. 35 ff., 77 f.Google Scholar, 163 f., 220, and 223 f.

^{page 150 note 2} God in Patristic Thought (London, 1936, ² 1952), especially pp. 55–75 and 97–111.Google ScholarA Patristic Greek Lexicon (ed. Lampe, G. W. H., Oxford, 1961–), pp. 940–4.Google Scholar As the references there show, οίχονομία was employed in the church fathers with regard to creation and God's providential ordering of the world; his special interpositions into history to work redemption, of his great grace, both in Israel and in Christ; the incarnation and ένανθρώπησıς of Jesus Christ, his person, his ‘accommodation’ or self-limitation, various events in his life and work (for example, the miracle at Cana as a ‘divine arrangement’), and his passion, death, and resurrection; thus the ‘Christ event’ or ‘the whole scheme of redemption’; for divinely wrought miracles and events in later apostolic and ecclesiastical history; for God's operations in the ‘administration’ of the sacraments; and for the ‘arrangement‘ of Persons within the Godhead.

^{page 150 note 3} Detailed evidence from the sources on these points appears in my study, ‘The Use of οικονομια and Related Terms in Greek Sources to about A.D. 100, as a Background for Patristic Applications’ (microfilmed dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1957). Only after completing the present article have I had access to ‘Stewards of God: An Examination of the Terms OIKONOMOΣ and OIKONOMIA in the New Testament’, by Tooley, Wilfred, Scottish Journal of Theology, XIX (1966), 74–86Google Scholar, where the interest is in the New Testament development of the stewardship metaphor, not the origins prior to Jesus. The methods and conclusions of this independent study should be compared with what follows below and also with Brattgård, , op. cit. (n. 1, p. 147).Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 1} οίκονομείν—Ps. cxii (LXX cxi). 5; II Macc. iii. 14; III Macc. iii. 2. οίκονòμος—I Kings (LXX 3 Kingdoms) iv. 6 (bis); xvi. 9; xviii. 3; II Kings (LXX 4 Kingdoms) xviii. 18, 37; xix. 2; Isa, . xxxvi. 3Google Scholar, II (some MSS), 22; xxxvii. 7; I Chron. xxix. 6; Esther, i. 8Google Scholar; viii. g; I Esdras iv. 47, 49; viii. 67. οίκονομία—Isa. M. 19, 21. δıοıκεīν—Dan. 111. I (LXX); Wisd. viii. I, 14; xii. 18; xv. I; in Aquila, Gen. 1. 21; I Kings (LXX 3 Kingdoms) xx (xxi). 27; Prov. xviii. 14; Symmachus has the I Kings example, and Theodotion the Proverbs passage just mentioned. δıοίκησıς—Tobit i. 21. δıοıκητής—Dan. iii. 2; Tobit i. 22; II Esdras viii. 36.

^{page 151 note 2} at 4 Kingdoms xx. 13; Ps. cxiii (cxiv). 2; cxxxv (cxxxvi). 8–9; Isa. xxxix. 2; Jer. xxviii (li). 28; Dan. (θ') xi. 5 (A), and Sir. x. 4; = ⋯ρχή at Gen. i. 16 (bis); Jer. xli (xxxiv). I; Micah iv. 8; = δεσποτεία, at Ps. cii (ciii). 22; cxliv (cxlv). 13; = δυναστεία, at Ps. cv (cvi).2; Dan. xi. 5 (LXX); = ήγεμονία, Sir. vii. 4; X. I; = βασıλεία, II Chron. viii. 6; = κατ⋯ρχεıν 3 Kingdoms ix. 19 (A), X. 22a; = στρατı⋯, II Chron. xxxi. 9.

^{page 151 note 3} Kittel's, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (Stuttgart, 1933Google Scholar), S.V. οίκονòμος (by Michel, O.), v, 152Google Scholar, in the sense of steward or treasurer. Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud and Midrasch (Munich: Beck, 1922–1928), II, 217Google Scholar, on Luke, xvi. 1Google Scholar, for a household overseer, city official, or steward (often financial). Krauss, S., Griechische and Lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum (Berlin, 1898–1899; Hildesheim, 1964), II, 40Google Scholar; and Jastrow, M., A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and γerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York, 1926), p. 60.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 1} It is not found in the secondary literature cited in p. 151 n. 3, nor has it been reported in any of the scrolls or fragments from the Judaean desert to date.

^{page 152 note 2} Έφιτροφος, for example, in Krauss, , op. cit. I, 224, 189Google Scholar, 194; II, 103 f.; Jastrow, , op. cit. p. 102.Google Scholar See also Ziegler, I., Die Königsgleichnisse der Midrasch beleuchtet durch die römische Kaiserzeit (Breslau, 1903), pp. 103, 134Google Scholar, 138 f., 140, 149, 150 f., 322 f., 428; Polotsky, H. J., ‘The Greek Papyri from the Cave of Letters’, Israel Exploration journal, XII (1962), 260, cf. p. 246Google Scholar; Lieberman, S., Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1942), p. 13Google Scholar; and Belkin, S., ‘The Problem of Paul's Background’, J.B.L. LIV (1935), 52–5.Google Scholar For , see Krauss, , op. cit. I, 189, and II, 105Google Scholar; he also refers to a form , ‘Aufseherin’, 1, 189 and 194.

^{page 152 note 3} Lehnwörter, op. cit. 1, 207.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 4} Sowers, S., ‘On the Reinterpretation of Biblical History in Hellenistic Judaism’, OikonomiaGoogle Scholar (Festgabe an Cullman, , op. cit. n. 5, p. 148 above), pp. 10–15Google Scholar, notes how ‘Stoic metaphysics came to the aid of the philosophy of history for some Hellenistic Jewish writers’ (p. 10).

^{page 152 note 5} IV, 281, 5 (Cohn-Wendland ed.). Cf. I, 3, 13; II, 247, 23 n.; rv, 281, 5 (οίκονομεīν); II, 143, 18; IV, 234, 20; V, 252, 4 (δıοίκησıς); I, 1, 13 and 24, 23, and Euseb. P.E. VIII. 14 (δıοıκεīν).

^{page 152 note 6} Quaest. in Gen. 4. 110, and Quaest. in Exod. 2. 39; cf. the notes by R. Marcus, in the Loeb Classical Library edition, and Reitzenstein, R., Die Vorgeschichte der christlichen Taufe (Leipzig and Berlin, 1929), p. 117 n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 7} See below, n. 2, p. 154.

^{page 153 note 1} Theology of the New Testament (New York, 1951–1955), I, 71; II, 145 f.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 2} Cf. ‘Heilsgeschichte in Luke—Some Remarks on its Background and Comparison with Paul’, forthcoming in Texte and Untersuchungen, ‘The New Testament Today (Third International Congress on New Testament Studies, Oxford, 1965)’.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 3} The references at Luke, xvi. 1–8Google Scholar and to οίκονòμος at xii. 42 mean ‘steward’ and ’the office of steward’ basically, even though the latter passage may have additional significance as regards the theme of ‘the wise and faithful steward’ in his Lord's service, in Lucan theology.

^{page 153 note 4} Examples cited in ‘The Use of οίκονομία…’ (n. 3, p. 150 above), and, for the orators and rhetoricians, in an article in Texte und Untersuchungen, LXXVIII (1961), 370–9Google Scholar, or in Kennedy, G., The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton, 1963), pp. 303–21.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 1} Cf. Liechtenhan, R., Die göttliche Vorherbestimmung bei Paulus und in der Posidonianischen Philosophie (‘FRLANT’, n.F. 18; Göttingen, 1922Google Scholar), and Rudberg, G., ‘Posidonius und das Neue Testament’, Theologische Studien und Kritiken, CII (1930), 316–23.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 2} Schlatter, A., Wie Sprach Josephus von Gott? (‘Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie’, I; Gatersloh, 1910Google Scholar), chapter 7. Cf. Ant. IV. 47Google Scholar (= IV. 3. 2); II. 24 (= II. 3. I); XVIII. 284 (= XVIII. 8. 6); and Jewish War III. 6Google Scholar (= III. 1. 3). On Josephus' use of Tyche, cf. Brüne, B., Flavius Josephus and seine Schriften… (Gütersloh, 1913), pp. 186–92.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 3} Reumann, J., ‘οίκονομία = “Covenant” Terms for Heilsgeschichte in Early Christian Usage’, Novum Testamentwn, III (1959), 282–99.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 4} ‘Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten and Neuen Testament’, 4; Neukirchen, 1960Google Scholar, ²1965, especially the second part.

^{page 154 note 5} The famous analysis by Dodd, C. H., The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (London, 1936Google Scholar), scarcely does justice to this variety of starting-points. The suggestion is that Luke's kerygmata pick up at varying points just as recitals of a Vorgeschichte in the synagogue might begin at any of several events.

^{page 155 note 1} The question of audience is raised by Haenchen, E., Apostelgeschichte (‘Meyer Kommentar’; Göttingen, ¹³ 1962), p. 93Google Scholar, and is a barrier for any theory seeking to derive Luke's work solely from the model of Hellenistic historians.

^{page 155 note 2} Paulus (Halle, 1904, ²1907, reprinted Darmstadt, 1964), pp. 68 and 103Google Scholar; cited in Schrenk, , op. cit. p. 58 n. 23.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 3} Hoppe, Theodor, Die Idee der Heilsgeschichte bei Paulus mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Römerbriefes (‘Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie’, Band 30, Heft 2; Gütersloh, 1926Google Scholar).

^{page 155 note 4} Op. cit. Schrenk, Google Scholar specifically notes Athenodorus and Posidonius and holds that Paul knew the popular philosophical style of the Stoics and their idea of ‘world-periods’, though Israel's prophetic tradition was a formative factor too (pp. 53–6). He regards Polybius' interest in the universal sway of Rome as a secular parallel to Paul's understanding of the οίκουμήνη as his field of labour. In comparing von Hofmann's view with Paul's, Schrenk distinguishes the notion of a scientifically established course of history from all heilsgeschichtlich ideas of revelation-events obtainable only by faith (p. 58). Oίκονομια is noted in passing for its sense of Heilsplan in later Paulinism (p. 69).

^{page 155 note 5} Above, n. 5, p. 147, and n. 6, p. 148.

^{page 156 note 1} The Epistle to the Ephesians: Its Authorship, Origin and Purpose (Oxford, 1951), p. 245.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 2} ‘The Dilemma of Ephesians’, N.T.S. V (1958–1959), 101.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 3} Kuhn, K. G., ‘Der Epheserbrief im Lichte der Qumrantexte’, N.T.S. VII (1961), 334–46Google Scholar; Mussner, F., ‘Beiträge aus Qumran zum Verständnis des Epheserbriefes’, Neutestamentliche Aufsätze (Festschrift Josef Schmid; Regensburg, 1963), pp. 185–8.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 1} Robinson, J. Armitage, St Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians (London, 1903), p. 167.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 2} Op. cit. p. 92.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 3} Robertson, A. and Plummer, A., I Corinthians (‘I.C.C.’; Edinburgh, 1911), p. 189.Google ScholarWeiss, J., Der erste Korintherbrief (‘Meyer’; Göttingen, ⁹ 1910), p. 241Google Scholar, because the idea of merit and eschatological recompense seemed to him intrusive in these two verses. Others have wanted to regard all or part of ix. 17 as parenthetical.

^{page 158 note 1} Jeremias, J., ‘Chiasmus in den Paulusbriefen’, Z.N.W. XLIX (1958), 155 f.Google Scholar (= Abba (Göttingen, 1966), pp. 289 f.Google Scholar), sees a chiastic arrangement involving the opening words of ix. 1, whereby ix. I a (‘Am I not free?’) is taken up by vv. 19–27, and ix. I b (‘Am I not an apostle?’) is taken up by I c–18.

^{page 158 note 2} Cf. Käsemann, E., ‘Eine paulinische Variation des “amor fati”’, Z.Th.K. LVI (1959), 138–54Google Scholar (= Exegetische Versuche and Besinnungen), Ges. Aufs. II (Gottingen, 1964), 223–39.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 3} For example, Munck, , op. cit. p. 22.Google Scholar Cf. also the piece of tradition at Acts xxii. 17–21 (Paul as the unwilling missionary to the Gentiles); on the use of Acts material to illustrate I Cor. ix, cf. Bornkamm, G., ‘The Missionary Stance in I Corinthians 9 and in Acts’, in Studies in Luke-Acts (Schubert FestschriftGoogle Scholar), op. cit. pp. 194–207.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 4} Munck, , op. cit. p. 22Google Scholar; further references in Käsemann, , op. cit. p. 138Google Scholar ( = p. 223) n. 4. The Greek New Testament, published in 1966 by the American, British, Scottish, Netherlands, and Württemberg Bible Societies, does not, however, list this punctuation among its ‘exegetically significant’ variants.

^{page 159 note 1} Compare the punctuation adopted by most editors and commentators (for example, Allo, J. Héring, Grosheide); on the practice, cf. Bornkamm, G., ‘Paulinische Anakoluthe im Römerbrief’, Das Ende des Gesetzes (Ges. Aufs., 1; ‘Beitrage zur evangelischen Theologie’, 16; Munich, 1952, ⁴1963), PP. 76–92.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 2} So Didier, G., ‘Le Salaire du Désinteressement (I Cor. ix, 14–27)’Google Scholar, Recherches de Science Religieuse, 43, 2Google Scholar (avril-juin 1955), p. 235 (= Désintéressement du chrétien. La rétribution dans la morale de Saint Paul) (‘Théologie’, 32; Paris, 1955), p. 68Google Scholar).

^{page 159 note 3} Moffatt, J., The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (‘Moffatt New Testament Commentary’, New York, 1938), p. 121.Google Scholar Cf. Didier, , op. cit. p. 237 (= p. 69Google Scholar).

^{page 160 note 1} Windisch, Hans, Paulus and Christus: Ein biblisch-religionsgeschichtlicher Vergleich (‘Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament’, 24; Leipzig, 1934), p. 221.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 2} Cf. my article ‘“Stewards of God”—Pre-Christian Religious Application of OIKONOMOΣ in Greek’, J.B.L. LXXVII (1958), 339–49.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 1} Bornkamm, G., ‘μυστήρıον’, Kittel's Th.W.B. (Stuttgart, 1933–1994), IV, 820–31.Google ScholarBrown, R. E., ‘The Pre-Christian Semitic Concept of “Mystery”’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, xx (1958), 417–43Google Scholar; ‘The Semitic Background of the New Testament Mysterion’, Parts i and II, Biblica, XXXIX (1958), 426–48Google Scholar, and XL. (1959), 70–87. Note also the authors cited in Braun's, H. survey, ‘Qumran and das Neue Testament’, Theologische Rundschau, XXIX (1963), 207 f.Google Scholar, and cf. n. 3, p. 156 above.

^{page 161 note 2} Allo, E. B., Premiére épître aux Corinthiens (‘Etudes Bibliques’ Paris, ² 1956), pp. 68 f.Google Scholar: ⋯νθρωπος = ish; εις έλ⋯χıστον. On ὑπηρήτης), cf. s.v. in the Arndt-Gingrich translation of Bauer's, Lexicon.Google Scholar On οίκονòμος as a loan word in Hebrew, cf. above, n. 3, p. 151.

^{page 161 note 3} The usage at I Peter iv. II, and that in Ign. Pol. VI. I, could be a natural development from terms in Jesus' parable at Luke, xvi. 1 ff.Google Scholar and the gospel tradition, or a commonplace out of Greek life, or could arise out of Paul's usage.

^{page 161 note 4} ‘Die Kirche als Leib Christi in den paulinischen Antilegomena’, Theologische Literaturzeitung, LXXXVI (1961Google Scholar), Col. 251 (= Neotestamentica (Ges. Aufs., Zurich, 1963), p. 309Google Scholar): Paul is entrusted with Rom, . i. I, 5Google Scholar Col. i. 23, 25 I Tim. i. 11 Eph. iii. 2, 6–8 II Tim. ii. 11 the proclamation, I Thess. ii. 4 as δı⋯κονος Tit. i. 3 on the basis of an έπıταγή, Rom, . xvi. 26Google Scholar— Tit. i. 3 or on the basis of an — Col. i. 25, οίκονομία Eph. iii. 2 to the Gentiles, of cosmic breadth, of the mystery (‘hidden, now revealed’), etc.

^{page 162 note 1} Biblica, XXXIX (1958), 436 ff.; XL (1959), 70 fl.Google Scholar: (a) in I Cor. ii. t, 7; iv. 1; xv. 51 Paul is only beginning to arrive at the concept of God's ‘mystery'; (b) at Rom, . xi. 25Google Scholar; xvi. 25 comes a transition, whereby μυστήρıον denotes more clearly ‘God's secret plan’; (c) Colossians and Ephesians represent the full flowering. The pattern of development holds, whether one says ‘Paul’ or ‘Paul and his school'.

^{page 162 note 2} The chain or sequence through which the revelation is proclaimed here may owe something to I Cor. iii. 22 f., which runs: ‘God—Christ—you—Paul, Cephas, Apollos’; here, ‘God—the mystery, Christ—“the saints”—Paul’. But commentators are divided on who ‘the saints’ are here—the Urgemeinde, all church members, those who preach the gospel, the apostles and prophets (of Eph. iii. 5), or the angels. For all the familiar Pauline themes, there is a new schematization here.

^{page 162 note 3} Op. cit. p. 92.Google Scholar Similarly Conzelmann, H., in Die kleineren Briefe des Apostels Paulus (‘Das Neue Testament Deutsch’, 8; Göttingen, ⁹ 1962), p. 140.Google Scholar Involved is also the related problem of whether οικονομια here means the position of administrator or the activity of administering. Moule, C. F. D., Colossians (‘Cambridge Greek Testament’, Cambridge, 1957), p. 80Google Scholar, and Prümm, K., in Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible, VI (1957Google Scholar), S.V. ‘Mystères’, pp. 208 f.Google Scholar, allow for both meanings.

^{page 162 note 4} So Moule, , Col., op. cit. p. 80.Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 5} Dibelius, M., An die Kolosser, Epheser, an Philemon, rev. by Greeven, H. (‘Handbuch zum Neuen Testament’, 12; Tübingen, ³ 1953), pp. 23f.Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 6} Lohmeyer, E., Die Briefe an die Philipper, an die Kolosser and an Philemon (‘Meyer’; Göttingen, ¹¹ 1956), PP. 79f.Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 7} Masson, C., L'Épitre de saint Paul aux Colossiens (‘Commentaire du Nouveau Testament’, 10; Neuchâtel and Paris, 1950), pp. 111 f.Google Scholar: ‘…moi, le ministre selon le plan de Dieu dont l'exécution m'a été confiée en ce qui vous concerne’; cf. his note (3) on the translation.

^{page 163 note 1} So now Sanders, Jack T., ‘Hymnic Elements in Ephesians 1–3’, Z.N.W. LVI (1965), 230.Google Scholar

^{page 163 note 2} So Lohmeyer, , op. cit. p. 80.Google Scholar

^{page 163 note 3} Dibelius-Greeven, , op. cit. pp. 23 f.Google Scholar, regard the participle δοθεīσ⋯ν at Col. i. 25 as decisive for the meaning of ‘divine office’ for οίκονομια. But did Paul regard his office as ‘given’ to him or ‘forced’ on him, against his will? Grace and revelation are ‘given’, the office and task are ⋯κων (I Cor. ix. 17), ⋯ν⋯γκη (ix. 16); this holds also apparently for the view of Paul among his pupils in the Deutero-Pauline School (cf. Rom, . xvi. 26Google Scholar, έπıταγή). Hence Lohmeyer, , op. cit. p. 80Google Scholar, dismisses the objection that the participle demands the sense of ‘office’. Lohmeyer, adds, p. 80Google Scholar n. 2, that the participle δοθεīσα (plus μοı or ⋯μīν) regularly occurs with χ⋯ρıς in Paul ( Rom, . xii. 3, 6Google Scholar; xv. 15; I Cor. i. 4; iii. 10; II Cor. viii. 1; Gal. ii. 9). Rom, . xv. 15 f.Google Scholar associates this grace given, with Paul's work as λεıτουργ⋯ς among the Gentiles, and the idea of office cannot be excluded; however, the point involves more than an office. Barnabas, ix. 8Google Scholar and xix. I refer to γν⋯σıς δοθεīσα.

^{page 163 note 4} Op. cit. p. 24.Google Scholar

^{page 163 note 5} Op. cit. p. 93Google Scholar; cf. p. 245, where it is claimed that the ‘objective sense’ (an assignment for Paul) in Col. i. 25 is in Ephesians replaced by a ‘subjective one…something which is entirely within the mind of God himself’.

^{page 164 note 1} Moffatt, J., Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (New York, 1921), p. 387.Google Scholar Cf. n. 1, p. 153 above, for Bultmann's opinion that these terms and their concept of Providence had been taken over already by Paul's time, let alone the period of the Deutero-Paulines.

^{page 164 note 2} In spite of the frequent rendering at i. 10 as ‘Heilsplan’ (Dibelius-Greeven; Percy, E., Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe (Lund, 1949), p. 270Google Scholar). Cf. Masson, C., L'Épitre de saint Paul aux Éphésitns (‘Commentaire du Nouveau Testament’, 9; Neuchâtel and Paris, 1953), p. 144Google Scholar n. 6, against the view of Cullmann, O. (Christ and TimeGoogle Scholar) and Michel, O. (Th.W.B.Google Scholar) that i. 10 means ‘divine plan of salvation’. Among recent commentators, Bruce, F. F., Ephesians (London, 1961), p. 33Google Scholar, renders i. 10 as ‘the administration of God's grand purpose’; Conzelmann, H. (‘NTD’, op. cit. p. 59Google Scholar), ‘zur Ausführung in der Fülle der Zeiten’; Schlier, H., Der Brief an die Epheser (Düsseldorf, 1957), p. 63Google Scholar, ‘Durchführung’ or ‘Verwaltung’; Brown, R. E., Biblica, XL (1959), 74Google Scholar, ‘carrying out’.

^{page 164 note 3} Op. cit. p. 93.Google Scholar

^{page 165 note 1} ‘HzNT’, op. cit. pp. 72 f.Google ScholarMasson, , op. cit.Google Scholar, lists three possibilities before deciding for a sense the same as at i. 10 and III. 9. Conzelmann, , ‘NTD’, op. cit. p. 70Google Scholar, renders ‘Amt der Gnade’, but on p. 71 seems to allow the double sense of ‘office’ and ‘divine economy’.

^{page 165 note 2} Cf. above, n. 3, p. 163. Other commentators take the genitive τ⋯ς χ⋯ρıτος as epexegetical, or objective, or subjective. The genitive τ⋯ς δθεισης, which grammatically depends on it, seems to go logically with τ⋯ν οίκονομιαν (cf. Col. i. 25) and may be genitive by attraction.

^{page 165 note 3} Op. cit. pp. 342–4.Google Scholar

^{page 165 note 4} So Schlier, , op. cit. pp. 63, 147 f.Google Scholar, 155. That it does not mean Heilsplan in Ephesians is also the conclusion of Sanders, Jack T., op. cit. (above, n. I, p. 163Google Scholar). At Col. i. 25 Sanders opted for the double sense of ‘divine plan’ and ‘divine commission’, as we also decided above. However, I cannot follow the precise nuance of the several renderings given by Sanders to οικονομια in Ephesians. At i. 10 he takes it to mean ‘governance of the fulness of the times’, but in ch. iii ‘the rule, the order that gentiles also belong to the church’; here οίκονομια is, he holds, an implication of the μυστ⋯ρıν, a basic but rather narrowed principle of church order revealed to the Jewish-Christian leaders of the church. While Sanders is clear that Col. i influenced Eph. i as regards this term, it is unclear whether in his view Eph. iii influenced Eph. i or vice versa; it is further unclear where and when (at a date when Ephesians could have been composed) a Jewish-Christian hierarchy existed of such power that it ‘graciously dispensed to the gentiles the right to partake of membership in the church’, or what the assumed Jewish-Christian/Gentile-Christian dispute behind Ephesians was. I should like to be persuaded that οίκονομία at i. 10 provides the theme for the entire letter, but such an elusive term, with shifting meanings, does not provide a very lucid theme.

^{page 166 note 1} ‘Fresh Light on St Luke xvi. I, The Parable of the Unjust Steward’, N.T.S. VII (1960–1961), 198–219.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 1} Ibid. p. 201.

^{page 167 note 2} An attempt to compare Luke's work in Acts with the theological outlook in Ephesians is now found in E. Kasemann's contribution to the Paul Schubert Festschrift, Studies in Luke-Acts, op. cit. ‘Ephesians and Acts’, pp. 288–97.Google Scholar