KingJimmy
Aug 17, 2003
Thought this might be an interesting discussion... what is "the mystery" of Ephesians & Colossians?
Thought this might be an interesting discussion... what is "the mystery" of Ephesians & Colossians?
Eph 3:4-6 NASBBy referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which 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; to 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
The english word "mystery" is the transilteration of the Greek word musterion, which means a sacred secret.Here are all the occourences of the word mystery in the epistle to the ephesians:"Having made known unto us the mystery of His will" - Ephesians 1:9"How that by revelation He made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)" - Ephesians 3:3-4"And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:" - Ephesians 3:9"This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church." - Ephesians 5:32"And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldy, to make know the mystery of the gospel," - Ephesians 6:19Here are all the occourences of the word mystery in the epistle to the colossians:"Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to His saints, To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:" - Colossians 1:26,27"That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ," - Colossians 2:2"Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds;" - Colossians 4:3
----------------------------This is part of Appendix 193 From The Companion Bible:It is evident to all that God has made known His will "at sundry times and in divers manners" (Hebrews 1:1,2). He also kept certain things secret, and revealed them from time to time according to His purpose and counsels. Hence the word musterion is connected with several concealed or secret things in the New Testament. 1. It was used of the secrets of the kingdom; which had been concealed, until the Lord revealed them to His disciples (not to the People) in Matthew 13:10,11. It had not before been known that the kingdom would be rejected, and that there would be a long interval between that rejection and its being set up in glory. This was concealed even from the prophets who foretold it (1Peter 1:10-12). 2. In Romans 11 it is used in connection with the duration of Israel's blindness. That blindness itself was not a secret, for it had been foretold in Isaiah 6:9,10. But the duration of the blindness was kept a "secret" from Isaiah and only revealed through Paul (Romans 11:25). 3. It was used of a fact connected with resurrection, which had never before been made known to the sons of men.4. Side by side with these Divine secrets there was the secret of the [foretold] lawlessness (2Thessalonians 2:7 compare Daniel 12:4). It was already working during the dispensation covered by "Acts"; and had the nation repented at the call of those "other servants" of Matthew 22:4 (Acts 2:38; 3:12-26; etc.), those secret counsels of "the lawless one" and "the transgressors" would have "come to the full" (Daniel 8:23). But now they are postponed and in abeyance until the appointed time. 5. But "the great secret" which concerns us to-day was not revealed until after the close of that dispensation covered by "Acts". (See Acts 28:17-31)----------------------------I don't totally agree with all of the ways E.W. Bullinger seperates the idea of 'mystery' but I think its is helpful to glean some insight from his breakdown. I would think it would be better to elaborate on his third point, which should include the idea of the indwelling of Christ in our hearts as a mystery also."...the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you...""...This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."I think that 'Christ in you' is most profound and stirring mystery in the Scriptures. And its instresting to note what signifies us as being part of the body of Christ (the church) is the indwelling spirit of Christ. And as the scripture states above that this union between Christ and the Church, the Head and the Body, The Foundation and the Building is a GREAT mystery!I am not sure what bullinger means by his 5th point. hmmm.
the full list is# Mt 13:11# Mr 4:11# Lu 8:10# Ro 11:25 16:25# 1Co 2:7 4:1 13:2 14:2 15:51# Eph 1:9 3:3,4,9 5:32 6:19# Col 1:26,27 2:2 4:3# 2Th 2:7# 1Ti 3:9,16# Re 1:20 10:7 17:5,7It was a word used in the 'mystery' religions where it signified a 'secret' which would only be revealed as the the 'seeker' was initiated into various levels of the religion. (very similar to Freemasonry today) A 'mystery' was undiscoverable but had to be revealed. The word has absolutely nothing to do with the way we use the word in modern speech i.e. mysterious, meaning inexplicable. In NT Christianity God is the initiator; He does not delegate this prerogative to 'priests' or 'scribes' (priests are intermediaries, scribes are word experts.)It is the root word behind 'mime' wordless acting, and 'keeping mum' (do you have that idiom across the water?) meaning to keep a secret by staying silent. The mystics were (and are) people who cannot express their experience in words ; the problem is that so many of them have tried to.For the Christian it is a word that reminds us of our constant need for 'revelation' i.e. God's personal unveiling of hidden/secret things. We live 'not by bread alone but my every word the IS PROCEEDING out of the mouth of God.'
In a phrase, the mystery is the 'new man'. Jew and Gentiles seemlessly united into one body. Thoughts to pursue are... "are the Gentiles added to an old body; ie the Jews?" In which case it would be an 'old man' with some new additions."what is the 'old man' of Romans 6:6 and 'the body of death'? Modern translations persist in interpreting rather than translating this verse. The consequence is that we then have no comparison for the 'new man'. Our 'old self' and 'old nature' are modern psychological terms and have no bibical provenance.
"I am not sure what bullinger means by his 5th point. hmmm." (your quote.)This is Bullinger's dispensationalism at work. You will note that he regards the period of the Acts as a 'dispensation' which was followed by another dispensation. In fact he identifies different dispensations within the period of the Acts. The prevailing thought of Bullinger's dispensationalism is man's failure. This failure was demonstrated in the church under Peter, Jerusalem based. For Bullinger Peter was a failure. (When I have 'failed' as successfully as Peter I am going to start to criticise him. Meanwhile I am going to remain 'mystic' i.e. keep my mouth shut) The expansionist period of Acts was also ultimately a failure and a new dispensation is to be seem in Paul's prison letters which introduce the mystery of the church. Ultimately this dispensation failed too which brings us to Darby's 'ruined church' scenario. Bullinger believed the absence of reference to elders in 2 Timothy was proof that the church on earth had failed again and that Paul in writing to Timothy was passing the baton to individuals rather than 'the church'.One particularly dangerous aspect of dispensationalism of this nature is that it produces a 'bible within the bible' as earlier portions of the scripture are no longer as 'relevant' as dispensations change. This is often repeated by preachers who tell us that Paul had a unique revelation of the church. He was unique in that God chose him to capture the truth but Ephesians 3:5 tells us that this mystery was 'revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the spirit'.
5. But "the great secret" which concerns us to-day was not revealed until after the close of that dispensation covered by "Acts". (See Acts 28:17-31)I agree with Philologus on this one. It is Bullinger's hyper-dispensational views that cause him to see the start of the mystery as after Acts 28:17-31.The Mystery is the truth regarding the “one body” made up of both Jews and Gentiles. The revelation of the mystery although revealed to the holy apostles and prophets of the church age, was especially commissioned to Paul. One aspect of the mystery is the "heavenly" nature of the church as opposed to an earthly people. It is what ultimately distinguishes the church from the Jewish system. I think this is where many people, even some on this board, make a mistake because they cannot see and distinguish the "unique" calling of the Church but instead want to see the Church as a continuation of the Jewish system but now with Gentiles within. This makes the Church an earthly entity. They fail to see that all believers of all ages will be saved on the basis of faith but all believers of all ages do not comprise the body of Christ, which is unique to this dispensation. For those of you who oppose the word dispensation may I remind you that in Ephesians 3:9 the word translated as "administration" can also be translated as "dispensation". It is obvious to even a casual observer that the Church has not just replaced Israel or become Israel, but has superceded Israel in the economy of God. The Church is the Bride of Christ and the Church is comprised of all who are born of the Spirit and immersed into the body of Christ. Failure to see the distinction of Jew, Gentile and the Church of God(1 Cor. 10:32) and God's unique ways of dealing with each brings in confusion. To get back to Bullinger's, view I disagree with Bullinger on when the mystery came into existence because I would push it back to Acts chapter two and the day of Pentecost when the Church was born by the coming of the Spirit as sent by the Father and the Son. The uniqueness of this dispensation is the preparing of a helpmate for Christ. The one body, which is His Bride, is what He gave Himself for (Eph. 5:25). Another aspect of the mystery is that we are Christ here, as united to Him, in a scene where He has been rejected, but this is not our home and He is coming back to take us to Himself. Wonderful prospect!Kevin
Here is how I see things (though I would not yet say I am dogmatic about all of it): Forgive me if I seem rather blunt here, as I could make this post horriably long.Believers in all ages have been saved by grace through faith. Believers in all ages have been born again, from above. All can confess with David "I am a stranger in the earth" (Ps 119:19). Believers in all ages have had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit- and to be specific "the Spirit of Christ within them" (1 Peter 1:11). Because of these things, believers (Jew and Foreigner) of all ages have had an intimate relationship with God. And if they have had an intimate relationship with God, and fellowship with Him, then surely they are partakers with eachother (1 John 1:7). Thus, believing foreigners during the Old Testament are part of His people, Israel. Here is some testimony from the Old Testament regarding this:Isaiah 56:3 Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, "The LORD will surely separate me from His people." ...Psalm 87:4-6 I shall mention Rahab and Babylon among those who know Me; Behold, Philistia and Tyre with Ethiopia: 'This one was born there.' But of Zion it shall be said, 'This one and that one were born in her'; And the most High Himself will establish her. The Lord will count when He registers the peoples, 'This one was born there.' We also have to understand, it is with Israel that both the Old and New Covenants have been made. Remember Jeremiah's prophecy:Jeremiah 31:31 'Behold, days are coming,' declares the Lord, 'when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah'If it is with physical house Israel and Judah (which would become one house again after Judah's return from exile) in which the New Covenant was made, then it must be said that all Gentile believers, like the previous covenant, become partakers in the "commonwealth of Israel" (Eph 2:12). Also, at the same time, we must understand that just because one is physically a Jew, does not mean one is truly a descendant of Abraham. Just as Paul said, "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants" (Romans 9:6-7). Romans 11 spends a good deal of time talking about this. To sum up that great chapter: to be part of Israel one must do so by faith. Even if one is the descendant of Abraham according to the flesh, one cannot be part of Abraham's house apart from faith. If one does not have faith, they are broken off from Abraham's house. However, should one have faith, then one is "grafted in" and is a a "partaker with" Israel (Romans 11:17). One should keep in mind that it has never been God's desire for there to be an unbelieving child of Abraham. Take note of how the Old Covenant calls for the eradication of an unbelieving people. It spelled out life and the blessing for the faithful, death and the curse for those who were not.So, where does this leave all of us in this discussion of the mystery that in past generations was not made known? Paul calls this mystery, "the mystery of Christ" (Eph 3:5). He sums up the mystery "to be specific" (Eph 3:6a) "that the Gentiles ARE fellow heirs AND fellow members of the body, AND fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel."More to come in the next post I make... (have to go for dinner) :-)
One more thing I would like to add about the uniqueness of the Church the body of Christ. In Matthew 18:18 Christ says " I will build my Church". NOT I have built, NOT I am building, but I WILL build! In the original it is in the "future tense" just like it is translated in the English. He was not yet crucified and the Spirit had not yet formed the Church on the day of Pentecost. So if you believe that all who have ever been saved make up the Church you are mistaken. All those saints of old, like David, Samuel, Daniel, Isaiah etc, will indeed be saved but they are NOT of the Church which is His body. The Church did not exist until Pentecost.Kevin
I will build my Church". NOT I have built, NOT I am building, but I WILL build! In the original it is in the "future tense" just like it is translated in the EnglishSo, what then is the relationship of the Church to Israel?
Not just 'Israel'. What is the relationship of the church to 'our father, Abraham' and all the saints of the OT?
So, what then is the relationship of the Church to Israel? Not just 'Israel'. What is the relationship of the church to 'our father, Abraham' and all the saints of the OT?Sorry but I guess I missed seeing the above.I think the only answer I can give to this is that in Ephesians 3:17 it refers to "every family". We all have one Father as there is only one God but there are many families. Some we know about and others we may not know anything at all. Isreal would be a family distinct and unique from the Church. Angels also would make a unique family. Saints of the tribulation period will also form a family unique and distinct. What unites us to Abraham is only our common bond of faith certainly not our blood. We are not the inheritors of earthly or natural blessings. The scriptures say "who has blessed us with all "spiritual" blessings in "heavenly" places in Christ Jesus" see Eph 1:3. Also it is clear from Galatians that the teaching is not to show our relationship to Abraham but how we are sons of God. Now you can be a son of Abraham and call him your Father if you want but my Father is of heaven and I am one of His many sons that Christ is bringing to glory.Kevin
Do you mind if I pursue you?What happens to someone who is 'of the family of Israel' but who is regenerated? Which family are they part of then?I'm not sure that the Ephesians verse can be used in quite the way you use it. Most translations give 'the whole family'. The letter to the Ephesians seems to have the whole Church of Christ in view rather than a local expression. The 'whole family' translation would seem to fit the context better, although 'every' or 'whole' are both possible at this point.
Ron,I looked at all my greek and Hebrew helps and what commentaries I have in my library. Most disagree with your assessment that the word "whole" is the correct translation. Most of the modern translations I own say "every". The KJV says "whole". I know that's another debate all together but I do not find the KJV an altogether reliable translation in the light of so much scholarship since it was done.To answer your question if one is a Jew that is regenerated then he is of the Church no longer a Jew except by natural heritage. Just as I am Irish but my real citizenship is in Heaven and not of this world. From God's perspective I am not Irish but a Child of God born from above. Galatians and elsewhere clearly teaches that racial, politcal, social or sexual differences are irrelevant IF you are "in Christ". I do not see how anyone could say the Jews of the Old Testament are "in Christ"?I think most confusion comes in on this because most Christians perspective is wrong. They view everything from a man centered perspective instead of from where God see things. That is, from the view of the Eternal Purpose Of God. We must get up into the heavenlies to see correctly. This is one of the values of T. Austin-Sparks books and also DeVerne Fromke. They help you see things more clearly. Instead of having a redmpto-centric outlook and approach you gain a Christo-centric approach.Kevin
KevinI know that the majority of modern scholarship favours 'every' I think if you look at the way 'pas'(Strongs 3956)is used 'whole' must at least be considered.e.g. Matthew 2:3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all (pas) Jerusalem with him.Matthew 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all (pas) Judaea, and all (pas) the region round about Jordan,Perhaps Paul's use of 'pas' in Ephesians will make the point more clearly. Ephesians 2:21 In whom all (pas) the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: Ephesians 4:10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all (pas) heavens, that he might fill all things (pas) {fill: or, fulfil}Ephesians 4:16 From whom the whole (pas) body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every (pas) joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.I think you will see that in some of these instances 'every' would not always be appropriate. The last reference is a good example where the same word is used twice and translated differently, but appropriately each time. My point was that the context of Ephesians, the whole Church, the whole body, suggested to me that 'whole' is the more appropriate word in Eph 3:15. I'm not willing to die for my interpretation, so let it lie.I don't disagree with anything you have said in the remainder of your note. My questions are not hostile but provocations to others think through the implications of our statements. ( I am conscious that others are listening)You will be aware too that there are some who would take a very different position as to the OT saints and to 'Israel according to the flesh.'
Ron,Ok I concede that pas can be transtlated and often is as "whole" but you also concede it could be translated as every. I don't have my greek text with me but is it not pasa which would/could be why many translators say "every"? I'm going on my memory here.Another couple of points I would like to make about the uniqueness of the Church. The first relates to what I said previously that no Jewish believer before Pentecost could have been "in Christ". The new creation had not yet come into existence. A study of the "in Christ, in Him etc. passages would be very helpful to anyone that would like to see that there is indeed a unique distintion from what had preceded prior to the Cross.Another thing I would like to say is that in Revelation 21 we see the New Jesrusalem, a symbol of the Church, coming down. The New Jerusalem was not built upon the foundation of the 12 tribes of Israel but upon the 12 Apostles. Those who were among the first regenerate men in history. Another thing that distinguishes Christians from saints of old is the indwelling Spirit. In the old Testament saints were moved upon by the Spirit but did not have the Spirit as an indwelling presence. I know these thoughts are scattered but it's the best I can do at the moment.Kevin
Your scattered thoughts are worth collecting. ;-) I had not read this when I posted on the 'original sin' thread. You will see I support strongly your view of the all pervading changes wrought by genuine regeneration.Have you noticed that the Old Covenant (ie Sinai) had the external as its focus; the law written on stone, blood sprinkled, water applied, the Spirit resting on in anointing... Whereas in the New Covenant everything has gone onto the inside; the law written in our hearts, we drink the blood, we drink the water, He who was 'with' them became 'in' them. Even the anointing, now abideth 'in' us.Perhaps it is time for a new thread on the New Covenant?
your quote: "Ok I concede that pas can be transtlated and often is as "whole" but you also concede it could be translated as every. I don't have my greek text with me but is it not pasa which would/could be why many translators say "every"? I'm going on my memory here."YOu don't need to concede, this is not a battle. But I readily accept that 'pas' is most frequently translated 'every'. Its just that often in going from one language to another you can't be consistent in 'literal equivalence' although 'literal equivalence' is most desireable. (do you understand what I mean by 'literal equivalence' in translations?)'pasa' is just the nominative, singular, feminine form of 'pas'. (feminine because it is agreeing with 'family' which is feminine gender in Greek)
Ron, I know this isn't a war going on. Sorry if I make it sound like one. I enjoyed your thoughts about distinctions. A thread on the 'new covenant" would be an interesting subject to take up.:-DKevin
This discussion is locked.