This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page
Get your own Free Home Page
A Biblical Theology of ‘Mystery,’
&
Paul's Usage of the Term in Ephesians
MARK ROBERT SCHUMACHER
Summary of study
Preface
Acknowledgments
a) prolegomena or a priori?
2 Possible origins of ‘mystery’:
3 Biblical origins of ‘mystery’:
a) the point of departure - incarnation?
4 The New Testament and mystery:
6 Paul’s usage of mystery in Ephesians:
7 Practical considerations for the contemporary church
The Agonie
Philosophers have measur'd mountains,
Fathom'd the depths of seas, of states, and of kings,
Walk'd with a staffe to heav'n, and traced fountains:
But there are two vast, spacious things,
The which to measure it doth more behove:
Yet few there are that sound them; Sinne and Love
Who would know Sinne, let him repair
Unto Mount Olivet; there shall he see
A man so wrung with pains, that all his hair,
His skinne, his garments bloudie be.
Sinne is that presse and vice, which forceth pain
To hunt his cruell food through ev'ry vein
Who knows not Love, let him assay
And taste that juice, which on the crosse a pike
Did set again abroach; then let him say If ever he did taste the like.
Love is that liquour sweet and most divine,
Which my God feels as bloud; but I, as wine.
George Herbert (1593-1633)
"Truly you are a God who hides himself, O God and Savior of Israel." Isaiah 45:15
"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side has made him known." John 1:18
"But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed." 1 Peter 4:13
"In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, ..." Ephesians 3:4
SUMMARY OF STUDY
In studying for this project I quickly discovered it required a large amount of reading. I therefore found it necessary to embark on a reading program, merely to allow myself the time to collate the information and gather my thoughts. I have used two main texts in this study. The first being - The Profound Mystery: Marriage Love, Divine and Human by Geoffrey Bingham, which functions more as a framework of understanding. The second is, Eberhard Jüngel's - God as the Mystery of the World: On the Foundation of the Theology of the Crucified One in the Dispute between Theism and Atheism, as means of probing the depths of the issue of "mystery".
This project will attempt to traverse the various understandings and interpretations of the idea and meaning of "Mystery." From its suggested origins through to the "mystery of God" and what it means for us today. Particularly in the context of our relationships and church community as elucidated by Paul, who calls himself a "steward" of this mystery. What I hope will become obvious in the study is the contingency of "mystery," it is a concept that is intrinsically interdependent on other factors. The "other" is that which becomes, or always has been, associated which a particular subject, and this "marriage," or "real-imposition," becomes the essence of grasping what biblical mystery is pointing toward.
What I aim to achieve in this study is to show the need for a renewed reverence for God. It is hoped that this will have bearing on the individual's relationship with God, the community of God, and the creation of God. A life lived without this loss of "wonder", is a life lived within the intention of the One who has imparted life. It is to live a life now (as it shall be for eternity) which does not ask "why?", but rather lift's the voice in adoration and praise with an unshakeable confidence in the One who gives the gift of life and wonder, ultimately expressed in His Son Jesus Christ upon the cross.
PREFACE
There would probably be no dispute in saying that the undertaking of this project is grandiose to say the very least. There is no way that I could pretend to be able to cover adequately that which I have set out to do. Take, for example, my main text, which is the highly regarded work by Eberhard Jüngel - God as the Mystery of the World: On the Foundation of the Theology of the Crucified One in the Dispute between Theism and Atheism. Virtually the product of a lifetime of thought on the subject.
Nevertheless, this is a subject that is, in my understanding, one of cruciality to discuss because of its pertinence to the contemporary church milieu. Indeed, whereas Jüngel's goal was one of expressing the validity of thinking "God and also man on the basis of the event of God's self-disclosure which leads to the experience of God, and thus to demonstrate that the Christian truth is universally valid on the basis of its inner power"- which may be an accurate assessment of today's church, particularly Pentecostal and charismatic - a sense of "loss" still pervades it. This loss manifests itself in an all to familiarity with the blessings and gifts which God, by His grace, has bestowed upon His church.
With this in mind the study has an over-riding practical impetus. This needs to be keep in perspective in moving to the theological goal of "mystery," and what Paul is saying by using the term. Especially when considering “family," that is, God's relationship to us, ours to Him, ours to others, and to the church, yet not only "to," but also, "in" and "with."
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It is with gratitude that I acknowledge the guidance, insight, suggestions, and knowledge of Rev. Deane Metheringham, who has been a mentor to me through this somewhat allusive project. I thank him not only for his wisdom on the subject, but most importantly for being one who is continually struck with awe at the wonder of the our gracious and terrible God. It has been a great honour and privilege to sit with you in your study and discuss these things of God. Discussion that inevitably led us to worship and any such talk of God must be sensible and valuable.
Thanks also to Jonathan Button (who was at the time of this project in the theology department at Open Book), who suggested reading materials and authors, some of which I have purchased. Also to Ralph Legge who suggested material, and to David McGregor for your suggestions and use of your books.
1.
A temptation exists in a discussion such as this to begin by arguing for the validity of the very thing being discussed. If the aim was one of dialoguing with those outside the ecclesiastical realm this may be necessary. This is not the aim. The focus is essentially introspective, that is, within the church. As this is the case, assumptions can be made without having to contend with the usual issues raised by broaden ing the reading audience. The discussion is in no way a defence, even though it addresses issues that are essentially ontological. There will be attempts to give meaning in such instances, but not justification for them, and although at times it may appear to be so it is not the primary intention.
The ultimate premise of discussion is faith. This is an important point to make before this discussion of "mystery" simply because this is a biblical theology of the idea. To begin in any other manner is to negate the very terms used. In stating this, the following assumptions are made:
1. God exists more than necessarily1.
2. God has revealed himself in and through his Son Jesus Christ.
3. The Trinity is a valid way of describing God.
4. The Bible is divinely inspired.
5. The Bible "makes it possible to think God as God" (Jüngel,1983:157)
6. Man was created as a God-dependant being, yet has chosen independence.
7. The Ephesian correspondence is theologically Pauline.
Based on the premise of faith these assumptions are treated as 'fact', as "evangelical theology ... does not desire to be lacking in presuppositions" (Jüngel,1983 :154). In this way the discussion remains focussed on the point at issue. For it is the point at issue that is in need of establishing and not those things which the faith community accepts as necessary.
Paul's usage of mystery in the context of his Ephesian correspondence is primarily ecclesiological2 and practical in nature. Whereas the term is most predominant in this epistle, "biblical mystery language" is just as prevalent. Paul expounds the understanding of mystery as the conciliatory process of that which has been unequivocally other than itself (not necessarily in every respect). Yet through the Christ-event and the Pauline kerygma a harmonious "real-imposition" (see ftn.18) of the nature of these aspects takes place to extirpate the object that had originally separated them.
Biblical mystery language within Ephesians are those prepositions, adjectives and transitive verbs that either allude to, or imply, some form of relationship between that to which it refers. Such words include; with, under, in, through, join, together.
The "otherness" language of mystery expresses itself in the form of opposites; hidden/revealed, weakness/strength, absence/presence, human/divine, death/life etc. Concerning diametricals such as; death/life, sin/righteousness there can be a harmonising of these opposites for they constitute a manifestation of the one thing where the opposite becomes totally ‘other’ than its counterpart. The ultimate expression of this is the Incarnate Christs' death on the cross. He is the point of convergence in reconciling "all things," and the point of departure who effects the salvific benefits that issue out of this.
Gotthold's Emblems tells the story of one particular day in his study. Whilst reading he lifted his eyes from his book and to his terror saw his boy standing on the outside window ledge in immediate danger of falling to the ground and being dashed to pieces. The lad had been eager to know what his father was doing so many hours of the day in his study and had at last by a ladder managed with naivè courage to climb. Gotthold - trembling - helped the small boy into the room. He recounts, "So have I often tried to climb into the council chamber of God to see why and wherefore He did this and that, and thus exposed myself to the peril of falling to my own destruction." If we could only say, "I will trust in the Lord with all my heart and lean not on my own understanding" (Burgess,1988:145).
Our understanding of God shall always be in want for we shall forever be standing under Him. Man has a deeply entrenched fascination with knowing and because of this we forge on unabated to vainly attempt uncovering the unknown mysteries of the world in which we live. Such is the reason why the ancient science of philosophy is today the common man's science.
This fascination can be valuable or detrimental depending on the manner being channelled. Augustine once said because we are made for God, our hearts are restless until we find our rest in him (McGrath,1994:198). Its value is seen in the child who rushes to the Christmas tree early on Christmas morn eager to know what gift awaits him within the curious box that has been ornately wrapped. He picks it up and examines its dimensions with the intensity of a surgeon about to operate. He lifts it to his ear and gently shakes it. He peers over to his parents who derive their enjoyment from their child’s excited countenance, as he questions, "What is it daddy?"
Detrimentally it has driven men to madness, meaninglessness, despair, delusion, indulgence and idolatry. He could be the philosopher, the ascetic, the hedonist, the existentialist, the movie star, the parent or the alcoholic.
There is only one thing that separates these two and that is their orientation. One is a vain search to attain the mystery and the other is given as a gift with the giver controlling at every point the extent of that gift. The gift, however, always represents something of greater significance because inevitably it is given out of love.
Biblical mystery does not focus on the idea of the disclosure of knowledge; although revelation is intimately associated with it. It is primarily concerned with the outworking of God's love toward his fallen creatures and the ramifications of that love. He is the Father who will have, now has and has always had His family in spite of things seemingly going in the opposite direction.
The knowledge of this understanding should call us to respond in a practical sense, for theology affects the way in which we live. The wonder that pervades the child in the act of unfolding the mystery of the gift, is the same which should inundate the worshipper within the community of faith and the community in which he or she lives. The ‘sense’ of wonder/reverence/awe that is present in God's mystery has become absent by an all to familiarity with His immanent presence and loss of His transcendence. The stress is placed upon the ‘experience’ of God, which acts as a substitute for knowledge of God. The ‘personalness’ of knowing God is not negated here only the imbalance of an understanding of God that is Here-Now and not There-Then. This is the ultimate grounding of faith and the measure by which all other God-encounters are weighed.
2.
In a predicable twist of irony the etymology of ‘mystery’ is itself a mystery (Bornkamm in Kittel,1967:803). There is, however, general agreement that mys comes from the idea of "to close," that is, the mouth or the lips and having the connotation of keeping silence (ibid). It is possible that part of the word derived from an onomatopoeic that sounds something akin to the inarticulate noise made when quickly closing the lips (Krämer in Balz,1981:446). There are several traditional suggested derivations yet these merely serve to illustrate the ambiguity of the word and are of no real value in understanding the term. The suffix - tery - is a part of those terms that denote "a means to an end" (Bornkamm in Kittel,1967:803) or a location where a particular action takes place (Krämer in Balz,1981:446). There is very little known as certain of the word. It relates to something spoken, shown, heard or experienced which must not be divulged to another. This knowledge is privately kept. Other than this, much of its understanding is derived from its usage and the context in which it is found. It is, however, a term that most likely issued out of a religious environment, and tends to remain predominantly within that understanding (Bornkamm in Kittel,1967:803).
The definition began to take on more substance as it was implemented in its various settings. Each setting helped not only to shape the word but also to hinder that understanding by conflating aspects of practice or perception particular to that setting. This gave the term a distinctive definition. Yet within this an essential understanding was still present as each had originally taken the term to primarily mean the same thing.
The goal and idea of ‘mystery’ in Platonic philosophy focussed on attaining a "vision of the divine" (Bornkamm in Kittel,1967:807). There is an affinity here with the mystery religions, which serves to highlight the etymological convolution common not only within the philosophical but also in all settings that have adapted their idea of mystery. There evolved an equating of philosophical knowledge with the "vision of true being or radiant beauty" (ibid). The emphasis of which is upon enigmatic and secret knowledge that can only be comprehended by those who are intellectually proficient enough to grasp it. This process of growing into an awareness of true knowledge or divinity has been called "initiation" (ibid), a word that becomes intimately associated with mystery. The Platonic approach to philosophy was one which in essence perceives mystery more as "mystagogy" (ibid) which has the potential to bring the individual (the soul) into "union with the divine"3 (Ibid).
The very nature of gnosis is syncretistic and although there is no distinct definition of ‘mystery,’ there is no doubt that the idea is present in its thought. This syncretism was deliberate for by doing so its appeal was widened, as Frend (1984:199) points out,
[They attempted to prove] that ancient pagan religious ideas, expressed in mysterious vocabulary and cult acts, corresponded with the truth which they as perfected beings claimed to possess.
There was an emphasis on secret formulas and mysterious rites, as they were during that period, popular. The greater influence comes from the mystery cults (which will be discussed in more detail below). These cults emphasise the idea of the ‘initiate’ and being inducted into and given access to secret knowledge. Knowledge that contains soteriological value. Bornkamm (in Kittel,1967:811) explains,
The mystery event, achieved in the giving and receiving of knowledge, means also, . . ., the union of the original man and the newly born pneumatic, who is fully like that man in nature.
There is a dimension of disclosure here not merely mystery for the mystery occurs in that the redemptive knowledge is perceivable only by those who, because of their meta-earthly origin, hear the message. It is disclosure because of the mediatorial role taken on by the pneumatics. "They are thus secret divine-human revelations which assure the perfect of their origin and lead them to their destiny" (ibid:812). The identification of the one who reveals this secret redemptive knowledge is known as the redeemed redeemer, and from this the Redeemer Myth evolved.
The Gnostic syncretism connects the usage of ‘mystery’ with magic, especially power and divulging4 secret information (ibid:813). Betraying secret knowledge to the uninitiated would strip it of all power and render it ineffectual. This may have functioned simply as a way of guarding the information and ensuring its protection.
In the OT the idea of mystery is best expressed as "God disclosing his secrets to human beings" (Ladd,1993:421). In theological language this is revelation. The medium of revelation was the prophet, as in Amos 3:7 - "Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets." Although dissimilar to revelation Wisdom was understood as a medium between God and man. It was a reference to God's creative activity5. The ‘mysteries’ of God's creation made known through Wisdom are such that they are shared with the people of YHWH (Weber,1989:66).
Wisdom has built her house, she has set up her seven pillars. She has slaughtered her beasts, she has mixed her wine, she has also set her table. She has sent out her maids to call ..."Come, eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed. Leave simpleness, and live, and walk in the way of insight!" (Proverbs 9:1-6).
No more need be said here as a section has been devoted to exploring retrospectively the idea with the OT.
During the growing influence of Hellenisation the word ‘mystery’ appeared firstly in the LXX writings, most of which are contained within the Protestant apocryphal material 6 except for Daniel (Bornkamm in Kittel,1967:813). There is during this time the emergence of syncretism, with both profane and sacred uses of ‘mystery’ coming to the fore. To this point the term had almost exclusively been used in a religious environment. Yet with the growing popularity and influence of the mystery religions and incipient gnosis, along with the emergence of apocalyptic literature this began to change. For example, the influence of the Mystery religions is apparent in Wisdom 14:23; "For whilst they slew their children in sacrifices, or used secret ceremonies, or made revelling of strange rites." Concerning this are allusions to mystery teachings of the origin and nature of creation (Wisdom 6:22), although this is also characteristic of the wisdom genre as discussed above. These ideas are also alluded to in 8:4, 13, and a possible allusion to gnosis in 2:2; "... a little spark in the moving of our heart:'".7 These references are the result of influence more than dependence.
A closer examination of the influences during this period is warranted, in particular; Mystery Religions, Qumran, Rabbinic Judaism and Apocalyptic literature.
i. "Mystery" and Mystery Religion. Mystery Religions were such that they addressed deep issues and sought to provide meaning to existence, and gave a sense of hope. The meaning and connotation of "mystery" in this context is based on the Greek term musthj, which means "initiate." From this the word musthrion comes and refers to a "ritual of initiation" (Hawthorne, 1993:792) or "secret rite" with the sense of "something secret" (Ferguson,1993:235). Although, Newsome (1992:27) suggests it may relate to a Greek verb meaning "to close," which was an apparent secrecy imposed upon initiates.
Its popularity stemmed from its ability to accommodate itself to meet the needs of individuals (Newsome,1992:27). In essence all the Mysteries were passion plays8 (Barclay,1976:222), and it was these dramas that constituted the central aspects of their religious worship and belief structure (Lohse,1974:234). The ultimate aim was to attain a union with the particular god in question, thus conferring upon the initiate the title - ‘reborn.’
ii. Qumran Community. The Qumran texts usually have [Hb] râz - ‘mystery’ in a plural sense, and uses another word which when translated means something like "marvel9" (Lincoln,1990:30). The idea related to the mysteries of God that were often equated with the mysteries of wisdom, insight, knowledge, truth and the created order (Krämer in Balz,1981:447). It incorporated the present "preservation of Israel in the community of Qumran," and maintained an eschatological outlook. The use of ‘mystery’ in this context is therefore a realised eschatology. For example, "the community's participation in the angelic assembly" referred to in 1QS 11.5-8, described as one of God's "marvellous mysteries" (Lincoln,1990:30).
The idea of a medium is sustained in the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ who conveys the mysteries of the words of God to the community. In this way he makes known the ways of God. This knowledge is the responsibility of the community itself to interpret and guard; it is not shared with those outside the community. The mysteries are made known yet kept exclusive to Qumran. Being the eschatological community and apocalyptic in outlook meant that divulging the mysteries to the outside world could potentially benefit the powers opposed to God. This was referred to as mysteries of hostility or of sin.
iii. Rabbinic Judaism. The emphasis on mystery found in rabbinical literature focuses on secret doctrines, those teachings that are not openly discussed (ibid:817). An example of this is the expositions of the laws of incest, also "theosophical speculations" regarding the origins of the universe or apocalyptic events. This was a form of theologising which was more philosophical than it was theological. These disciplines were pursued with the promise that the ‘mysteries’ of the Torah would be revealed. The theosophical approach taken resulted in a mystical interpretation of the Torah, not an exegetical one. The Torah was seen as an ‘envelope’ into which rabbis would delve, most often deeper than was warranted. They would seek to unlock the secrets of creation and all other things that exist with the aid of mystical interpretation (ibid:817).
iv. Apocalyptic Literature. Apocalyptic literature suggests that God's mysteries are hidden in heaven and are "the hidden other-worldly basis of reality" (Bornkamm in Kittel,1967:815). They are also the "transcendent basis" for all things that have happened and things yet to occur - particularly in the end times (Krämer in Balz,1981:447). Throughout OT history certain of these events had been revealed to specific men, prophets of God, through various means, be they rapture, dream, vision, oracle (ibid). The one who has this revelation made known to them was said to have known "what inwardly holds the world together" (Bornkamm in Kittel,1967:815). Invariably included within this disclosure were secret names, measurements, times and "numerical relationships that make up the whole" 10 (ibid). The medium needed to interpret the revelation given him and deliver it prudently to people of understanding.11
There are two salient elements of mystery in apocalyptic; the first relates to the acts and judgements of God. This is yet to be disclosed but destined to occur. Secondly, "they are the final events and states that are already truly existent in heaven" (ibid:816). These are things that are considered divinely necessary but humanly unfathomable, understandable only at God's appointed time of disclosure at the end, giving mystery a historicity difficult to ignore (ibid).
Although this phenomenon was essentially post-NT writing it warrants examination as elements of this current discussion are present within it. They also have bearing on formulating a framework of understanding in constructing a biblical theology of mystery. Particularly as this is the twentieth century and history bears upon our understanding of this issue.
A clear definition is difficult, but it is generally excepted that Christian mysticism sought to delineate a theology of experience. An experience that almost solely centred on knowing the love of God, "a knowing or seeing so direct as to be called union with God" (Martin in Elwell,1984:744). There is a likely relationship of the terms ‘mystical’ and ‘mystery,’ probably originating from the mystery religions, but this is only an etymological relationship. There was, however, the emergence of a mystical or mystery theology that issued out of an Alexandrian school of exegesis, popularised by Clement and Origen, and their attempt to elucidate the mystery of redemption (ibid). This approach became understood as ‘contemplation.’
Important to this study is the idea that mysticism essentially embodies "the experiential union of creature and Creator [which] is inexpressible and ineffable" (ibid). Those who have had the experience attempt a valid expression usually with the aid of metaphor or imagery. Important also is purification of oneself, the stage of illumination and ultimately the mystical marriage union with God Himself (ibid:745).
In summarising this section and as an aid to guide the progression of thought a working framework will be developed from the existing definitions of mystery investigated.
The context of each definition has been predominantly religious in nature and without disregarding outright the secular usage it would be fair to suggest that mystery is a religious word. Secondly, the foremost idea seems to be that of union with the divine, with the idea of initiation also important. There is a self-disclosing of knowledge that is both redemptive and creative. This is given to a mediator to interpret and pass on to others who have been granted access to this knowledge. It is not merely cognitive, but a personal experience with this divine. The knowledge can pertain to individuals, communities or eschatology. Scripture plays a role in the disclosure of mystery.
Other observations include; power, an anti-mystery, exclusive revelation, metaphorical interpretation, the disclosure of an appointed time, it reveals God's character, is inexpressible and ineffable; metaphorical description of the union experience.
These observations do not necessarily constitute the essence and definition of mystery; they merely serve to provide a working framework that may or may not relate to a biblical theology of the term. However, it is important to trace its history for it is probable that there are elements here which provided sources of thought for the writers of Scripture, and in particular Paul. By constructing a framework there is greater control and guidance in developing a biblical theology.
Now that this is done it is appropriate to begin investigating in more depth what Scripture has to say. This begs the question of the point of departure for such an investigation. In the next section the suggestion shall be made that the Incarnation of Christ provides this point.
3.
For the Christian any relevant reasonable talk about God must be grounded firmly within Scripture, for we accept that in it God comes to us as God and reveals himself to man. In this way it does not become the responsibility of man to determine God, he is God as God determines and not God as man determines. Although God reveals himself in Scripture it did not come to us in a vacuum, its origins were historical. In this sense God comes to us in his Word and within history, be that past, present or future. In this respect, the point of departure is the Incarnation of Christ who is the Word become flesh to reveal God. Jüngel (1983:157) goes as far as to assert that the Johannine dictum of John 14:6 which says: “No man comes to the Father, but by me,” is not only soteriological but fundamental as a “proposition of evangelical theology, also with regard to the knowledge of God.” Exegetically though, this is unsettling. Barth (1956:122), however, suggests in § 15 of his The Doctrine of the Word of God volume of Church Dogmatics,
The mystery of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ consists in the fact that the eternal Word of God chose, sanctified and assumed human nature and existence into oneness with Himself, in order thus, as very God and very man, to become the Word of reconciliation spoken by God to man. The sign of this mystery revealed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the miracle of His birth, that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.
Barth’s comment is important in establishing the premise that is reflected in Jüngel’s question as to the site of God’s thinkability.13 He immediately answers by asserting the historical fact, history and time are the place where man is able to think God (ibid), an event that is not only cognitive but experiential. Yet on what level is it possible for man to actuality think God as God? The aporia consists in God becoming thinkable within a human framework and remaining God. This is precisely why revelation is crucial for in it God becomes accessible as God within the human frame-work of communication and language. This is an accessibility that maintains the integrity of the “great dissimilarity” (Jüngel,1983:288) that is essential between God and man, it is a similarity that takes place within the context of dissimilarity (ibid:288).
This identification with Christ, and which Paul expresses theologically as “in Christ ,”14 is extended to reveal similarity and the concrete difference that exists (ibid). The word that embraces this whole idea is union, a concept that will be explored in greater depth because of its pertinence to this discussion. This union is, as will be discovered, all embracing and encompasses the cosmological, and ontological realm. The Incarnation makes possible a point of convergence for these two realms and ‘locks’ them into each other and allows each to bear upon the other because of the ontological and cosmological Christ.15 The significance of this comes in legitimately stating that in Christ the idea of eternity is given access to both time and history. Not in the sense that an event has taken place within history but rather the event becomes an ever present happening of God. It is ‘locked’ into time and yet simultaneously retains a timelessness that is not necessarily past, present or future.
i. The relevance of time. The focus here is the Incarnation as the reality of revelation (Bromiley,1979:23). God has revealed himself in a form that is comprehensible to man. The premise of a biblical theology of mystery is itself a mystery for in the act of God coming to us in time; and becoming comprehensible, he takes upon himself our humanity. This is the theological thrust of Phil. 2:5-11, known as the Carmen Christi.16 It is also expressed in the phrases; “without change” and “the properties of each nature being preserved” of the Chalcedonian creed.
Philippians 2:5-11 gives the impression that Paul was wanting to emphasise Christ’s humanity as it relates to ‘emptied’ which relates, in turn, to his ‘equality’ with God and his mode of ‘existence’ both preincarnate and incarnate. The humanity of Christ is portrayed as actual, appearance and action; he was human, he was perceived to be human and he acted as a human. As his humanity is genuine, and therefore effective revelation, it points toward something of cruciality concerning redemption (O’Collins,1995:231). In this regard Schweizer (1960:62) makes the important affirmation relating to the conscious decision of the second person of the Trinity to become what he had created in obedience to his Father.17
Christ’s humiliation is not present within the ‘divesting’ of himself but in his taking upon our humanity and in his death on the cross, which in essence comes to define humanity (O’Collins,1995:232). In his functional mode of operation as fully human, Christ exhibited his true humanity in that he made himself totally dependant. As full deity and full humanity were present in completeness always Christ never ceased being ‘Son’ in relation to the Trinity. This makes the Incarnation more soluble than the crucifixion that is problematic in the sense that Jesus as man and God was for a period, seemingly, absent from himself. Quite paradoxical and ironically this is the heart of biblical mystery. Whilst on earth Jesus lived under the ‘normal’ restrictions imposed upon humanity yet as the second person of the Trinity he remained fully and essentially God. The two natures could be described as a non-illusory superimpositional essential union;18 he was - Immanuel. It exquisitely expresses the theanthropic nature of the person of Christ. Principles that have absolutely no relation to each other, even contrary to each other, become the very principles that harmoniously unite to form a single axiom. This grounds our discussion of biblical mystery upon a foundation of mystery difficult to avoid and yet necessary. It grounds the discussion not merely to the realm of time, but also to the arena of history.
ii. The relevance of history. With the entrance of the God-man into this world an event has occurred which, with every passing moment of time, is becoming more historical,19 and yet because it has occurred is nonetheless a historical event. Any discussion about the Christ-event must therefore issue out of a telling of the story of Jesus Christ (Ibid:90). From this happening (which is still unfolding) reasonable talk of Biblical mystery can begin (ibid). This and this alone can be the sole 'site' for thinking God on any level, as already discussed with the issue of time (ibid:188). As with time the event within history is not only past, but an ever present happening and an eschatological reality (ibid:189). The communication of this event is mediated through the word; the kerygma. In this it is discovered that God has not only spoken through this historical reality, but desires to perpetuate the communication of this event throughout history, bringing the past into an ever-present reality (ibid:190).
The story told therefore becomes a human way of defining God, and central to this definition is the cross (ibid:229). The event proclaimed correlates to the present event that occurs in the telling of the story, that is, it will provoke and elicit a response. This poses the question: Given that the Word of God and the word of God (without wanting to distinguish between the two) are a gift, to what degree can the benefactor truly say that he is thinking God as God? The answer must be fully!20 God necessarily reveals himself as God and yet within his revealing also remains hidden - we are told what we need to know and no more.
Understanding this ‘orientation’ assists in beginning a more rigorous Biblical structuring of mystery, which logically points toward a retrospective examination of the OT.
The scope of this discussion does not allow for an in-depth exposition of the following three areas, although it shall suffice to bring to light the salient issues to securely ground this investigation.
Considering the discussion to this point reference to God’s dealing with four figures who illustrate the thoughts thus presented will be made.
The ‘joining’ of Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:24) lays, it seems, a precedent for the understanding of ‘Family’ an intent that was creatorial for God. Add to this the idea of perpetuating life through this unique union, and it becomes a oneness that is creative in nature - it bears fruit. The idea is important in that Paul later picks up on the prophetic nature of the text (Barth in Bingham,1995:42).
Abraham is said to be God’s friend21 (James 2:23) for he trusted in what God had told him (Gen. 15:6). The term can not only refer to a friend but also to one who is beloved, which comes closer to the strength of the word's intent. In this act God admits his “friend” into his very own confidence, his very own self. He willingly condescends to Abraham’s level to relate on filial terms. In this Abraham receives, through grace, the gift of God Himself who is his “very great reward” (Gen. 15:1). It is this conferring of God’s self that is illustrated in Moses’ numinous experience on the mountain. Dyrness (1979:30) describes the call of Moses and the revealing of the divine name as “... one of the most striking and decisive moments in God’s self-revelation.” God “comes down” (Ex. 3:7,8) deliberately condescending for soteriological reasons. He commissions Moses to act as intermediary between Himself who is transcendent and inaccessible and the nation Israel (Weber,1989:32). Verse 23 is the hub of the dialogue, that is, not that God reveals His name to Moses, but that Moses becomes the recipient of God’s grace by being given access to this God and partaking in the mystery of His Divine Being. The revelation of the Divine name is of “great theological significance” (La Sor,1982:134), but even more astounding is that Moses is associated with the name. For God’s name is largely defined by His acts within history, in particular the great act of liberation from Egypt, of which Moses is, by grace, a part.
Daniel, although ‘prophetic,’ is found in the ‘Writings’ of the Hebrew canon as it is largely agreed that its genre falls under the category of apocalyptic (La Sor,1982:659). More importantly it plays a crucial role in the NT understanding of mystery (Ladd,1993:91).
The term, which Krämer (in Balz,1981:447) alleges is a Persian loanword, appears nine times22 and predominantly carries with it the sense of disclosure. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is of particular interest in that information is revealed in a hidden manner; the dream is plain but it’s meaning is oracular. Concerning this is the introduction of mystery as eschatological (Bornkamm in Kittel,1967:814). Future events are revealed to God’s chosen vessel who mediates23 the interpretation by the Spirit of God (ibid:815).
The development shifts here to an emphasis on God’s intent to establish His rule in apocalyptic power, an idea that is defined in the NT (Ladd,1993:92). There is here an important advancement in constructing a biblical foundation - that of the disclosure of God’s intent and purpose coupled with an emphasis on mediation. The significance of this is highlighted by the absence of Hellenistic influence and the like. The thought here is distinctively Hebraic.
The intimate covenant nature of the relationship existing between YHWH and Israel is graphically described by the OT prophets as that of a husband and an adulteress wife. This places the relationship within the context of love and consequently sees the prophets calling Israel back to faithfulness to YHWH and his commandments. The same passion God exudes for Israel is reflected in the NT understanding of Christ and the church (Bingham,1995:120). The whole language of covenant brings to mind the irreversible union of two (in some cases more) parties into one.
The prophet functionally gives insight. Particularly the aspect of mediation and the disclosure of God’s intent being revealed to specific individuals24 for the express purpose of administering this message to others that will evoke a response from them.
At this juncture comment can be made considering this OT retrospection concerning the character and content of mystery. Regarding content, foremost is the union of love in Genesis 2:24 that remains a prevalent theme throughout the prophets. The matrimonial language used in the depiction of YHWH’s relationship to Israel is consequently not surprising. Within the context of this is the disclosure of God’s plans and purposes to a specific individual, particularly the establishing of a kingdom, which, according to Daniel, would appear in apocalyptic power. This point relates also to the character of mystery in that invariably God reveals by way of mediation, and the mediator becomes responsible for conveying or dispensing the content.
It is now possible to turn to the NT and specifically consider Jesus with the aforementioned in mind. This requires an investigation of Jesus’ portrayal of God and his purpose, in particular the ‘kingdom of God’ and Jesus’ role as mediator/ revealer/ dispenser.
4.
The concern here is to ‘flesh-out’ the discussion by concentrating on laying an important premise. One that focuses on both Jesus and Paul as mediators in the dispensing of God’s purpose as understood in the context of mystery. Here it is important to show the salient difference being Jesus and Paul. Whereas Paul had a unique mediatorial role in dispensing God’s musthriov, Jesus is mediator par excellence. For he not only communicated such, but was in essence God’s self-gift, the “fully immanent divine gift-in-person” (O’Collins,1995:227) who effects and embodies the words that he proclaims.
Talk about God must be anthropomorphic for language is an event that takes place within the realm of this world and how that world is understood by man. Simply put there are distinct limits to what can be communicated (Jüngel,1983:258). It is for this very reason that Jesus spoke in parables to convey in a sense the unconveyable! Jüngel (ibid:261) in this regard appeal’s to Barth’s phrase the analogy of faith, which in effect designates the usage of analogy as a legitimate way of talking about God.25 In this manner Jesus is able to address man within his setting and how he relates and understands his world without a diminishing of the message proclaimed through the parables. The greater dissimilarity maintains itself without diluting the great similarity that exists. Within the context of the parable the totally other can legitimately come to the one that is totally other than the one desiring to come and in effect speak ‘plainly.’ Thielicke (in Bingham, 1995:40) alludes to this suggesting that the process of similitude can point to the “transcendent sphere of salvation”; it remains, however, cloaked within its revealing.
Christ explains the mystery of the parables in the ‘parables of the parables’ (Matt. 13:34-3526), that is, they are perceived yet unperceived, seen yet unseen, they are present within their absence (Stählin,1964:27). It is this which Ladd (1993:91) suggests is the sitz im leben of the parables. Only through an ‘encounter’ with them can the listener ‘hear’ Jesus' words. An encounter that is comparable to the successful joke which has the potential force to evoke a response even if the hearer has no desire to laugh (Jüngel,1983:296). So too does the parable meet the hearer and within the midst of that exchange bear upon the listener the crucial question, “What say ye of the Christ?”
It is interesting that Matthew describes Jesus as ‘teaching’ until the thirteenth chapter at which point the audience is introduced to the term ‘parable’ (Matt. 13:13) (Edwards,1985:47). Chapter 13 is Jesus’ discourse on the kingdom of God, particularly regarding description. Noteworthy as well is the observation that the disciples are given the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom, whilst the crowds are not. There is here a sense of initiation, or confidence similar to Abraham’s ‘friendship’ with YHWH. The manner in which the gospels present the parables alerts the reader as well as the original audience that each is being addressed. The word proclaimed becomes for the reader as present as it’s first proclamation, and therefore an ever-present reality. To each ‘hearer’ there comes an understanding of life within the kingly rule of God, as conveyed by the bearer of the kingdom. The nature of parabolic language also mediates this: “The kingdom of heaven is like ...” (Kingsbury,1988:111).
There are re-occurring theme’s in the kingdom parables that allude to the content of musthriov, and which assist in laying an important premise in this investigation. Jesus predicates his discourse with the parable of the four soils (Matt. 13:3-9, 18-23) which is not so much a description of the kingdom as such, but more about the reception of its message. The emphasis of which focuses on the harvest yielded from the message in collaboration with the individual's decision to ‘hear’ and ‘understand’. It has the potential to be a creative force in the life of the individual. It is this that finds repetition in varied forms27.
In the parable of the mustard seed, or the leaven and others, there is an unknown presence. This continues to enlarge whilst those around continue living as before quite oblivious to the fact that there is a looming influence in their midst (Ladd,1993:97). It is difficult to actually see a mustard seed grow. Although very quietly, and to the majority completely unknown, the rule of God is working “secretly among people” (ibid:93). This is also an important point: the event of the kingdom, present and eschatological, is completely devoid of human effort. Although there is human collaboration with God, it is God who causes the manifestation of the kingdom (ibid:101).
Whereas Matt. 13:11 (c/f Luke 8:10) focuses predominantly on the presence of the kingdom giving instruction and understanding, Mark 4:11 is more compelling. It relates specifically to the act of mystery breaking into history through the words and deeds of Christ (Krämer in Balz,1981:447). Christ reveals the expectation giving this experience an element of realised eschatology. Yet within its appearing it also remains hidden as there is a ‘yet to be revealed’ element to the final establishment of God’s kingly rule. This is what Ladd (1993:91) designates “fulfillment without consummation,” the kingdom has come, it is now present and yet it has appeared in advance of its apocalyptic manifestation (ibid). Absence and presence, indeed other diametricals find expression and development in Paul’s writings and it is to this concern that the discussion will now focus.
This is the formal introduction to Pauline mystery theology that aims to consider his sources, idea, usage and understanding of musthriov. Particular reference will be given to Timothy’s ‘mystery of godliness,’ and Thessalonians ‘mystery of lawlessness’.28 In establishing this, there is a foundation in preparation for Ephesians.
Paul’s role in the first century church was unquestionably unique, something to which the NT witnesses. Foremost was his capacity to receive, convey and dispense or administer the revelation given to him by God, and yet at times even Paul struggled in his attempt to express the understanding given. It’s at these times he writes in the context of musthrion.
Outside the Ephesian correspondence the Pauline corpus mentions either ‘mystery’ or ‘mysteries’ 14 times. The concern's centre on God’s plan - what he reveals and what he chooses to remain hidden. Paul emphasised the present manifestation of this revelation (Longenecker,1964:45) which “takes the Palestinian sense of Amos 3:7; Ps. 25:14; Prov. 3:32, and Sirach 3:20” (ibid). Although this was his emphasis it does not negate the eschatological aspect. On the contrary, this was important in the whole revealed and hidden element that is particular to mystery theology as has been discussed. This was to Paul the essential nature of the gospel that he proclaimed (ibid:44), that is - God has acted decisively in Christ in history (O’Brien in Hawthorne,1993:622). This is, as Paul puts it, “God’s secret wisdom” (1Cor.2:729) which he follows up with a cosmological reference to “the rulers of this age30.” Also interesting is a phrase preceding this in 1 Cor.1:25 - “the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men”. This becomes more obvious in the light of some pertinent phrases, those being; “God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong”, “He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things - and the things which are not - to nullify the things that are, ...” and most importantly, “Jesus Christ and him crucified.” Unfortunately, the scope of this discussion does not allow for a detailed explanation. Except to suggest that Paul lays an important premise here regarding the ‘view’ of the world and the ‘view’ of the kingdom. From our understanding, ‘things’ find expression in the opposite manner to which we would expect to perceive them. With the end in mind being a ‘nullifying’ of all that is not, in favour of all that is. Therefore, through the utter unexpected, God achieves his purposes because ultimately he has chosen to do so in such a manner.
Another element significant to Paul is, as Ladd (1993:412) puts it, “the consciousness of being the medium of revelation” (Rom 16:25-26). According to Ladd (ibid) this meaning gives a “clear understanding” of the way in which the NT, and in particular Paul, uses musthriov. This also highlights the mediatorial role given to Paul, and links the mystery of the gospel to its proclamation. One other reference in Romans, which finds development in Ephesians, relates to the salvation of Israel (11:25). This is not necessarily a new teaching, but rather anticipatory of a feature of Ephesians. Salvation is neither exclusive to Israel nor the Gentiles rather inclusive of both as “one new man.”
There are two curious references to mystery that warrant closer examination as they are unique and therefore significant to the discussion. The first is “the mystery of godliness” (1 Tim. 3:16) which literally means ‘the mystery of piety’ (Hanson,1982:84) and relates specifically to the content of Christian living. It is a response to grace outworked in daily living and yet required of man by God. To use Krämer’s (in Balz,1981:448) language - the 'mystery of godliness' is the “ineffable ultimate ground (root basis) of a particular mode of conduct”, from which man lives his life. The Divine life engenders the possibility and potential to live such a pietistic life. It is to outwork itself by living the life of glory in the world and in the mundane, but more particularly expressed in the midst of the faith community. The Christian is given the ability to live the life to which he is called, so although commanded it is also devoid of human effort. Hastings (1914:103) elaborates,
it also tells of man’s obligations in consequence of being initiated. It is a mystery, not “of lawlessness” but “of godliness.” Those who accept it “profess godliness,” profess reverence to the God who has made it known to them. It teaches plainly on what principle we are to regulate “how men ought to behave themselves in the household of God.”
The mystery of godliness is practical in content and affects the individual directly; it is not merely theological.
The theological component of the hymn details the essential facts about the soterio-logical history of Christ (Hanson,1982:85). According to Hanson (ibid) these are the incarnation,31 the resurrection, the proclamation, and the glorification. The surprising omission in the creedal statement is that of his crucifixion (ibid). It is not entirely clear why this is, but the inference is nonetheless present. Concerning the nature of Christ as depicted by the hymn, Calvin32 (in Oden,1989:45) makes three observations.
First, we have here an express testimony of both natures; for he declares at the same time that Christ is true God and true man. Secondly, he points out the distinction between the two natures, when, on the one hand, he calls him God, and, on the other expresses his ‘manifestation in the flesh’. Thirdly, he asserts the unity of the person, when he declares, that it is one and the same who was God, and who has been manifested in the flesh.
Paul sets a precedent for daily living through the example of Christ, both historically concerning the person of Christ and perpetually in regards to the message of Christ.
The other phrase unique to Paul is “the secret power of lawlessness”, or ‘mystery of iniquity’ (2 Thess. 2:7), to which Augustine freely admitted he had “no idea what [Paul] meant” (Motyer in Elwell,1984:742).33 It is likely that the phrase is Paul’s first use of musthriov (O’Brien in Hawthorne,1993:622), that is, if Thessalonians is among Paul’s earliest letters.34 Such an idea probably stemmed from the apocalyptic notion that there was a cosmological struggle between God and his enemies; dualism is a trait of this genre (Buttrick,1962:140). Everything about this lawless mystery, and the man associated with it, is opposite to God.35 There is then an anti-mystery that has similarities to the mystery of God (Bornkamm in Kittel,1967:824).
The ‘mystery of lawlessness’ is all that the mystery of God is not. There is a hiddenness here which is completely different from the hiddenness of God. God has chosen the weak things and in this displays his power. Reason negates the logic of this so we ignore finding power in such things. The Devil must, therefore, display his power through the sensational and the awesome as it is through this that we expect to see power. The Devil’s power is contained to the sensory world, and “ultimately he stops outside” (Stählin,1964:30) effecting no real change. Stählin (ibid:31) poignantly states,
the adversary’s mystery appears on this earth with all the pathos of liberty and of progress, the maintenance of life and national felicity. We have the treasure of divine grace in earthen vessels, but hell’s poison we quaff from beakers of gold.
The corollary follows that the world in its ignorance finds itself lured by what it believes and perceives to be good and right when it actuality it is worthless and self-destructive. It is a mystery that incurs ‘disunion’ rather than union (ibid:35).
In this section the focus has been to show the validity of analogy in discussing God and to show that Jesus is God’s parable. The kingdom is present yet also veiled and its revealing is dependant on God’s grace as it is given to the hearer. Paul highlights the mediatorial role in revelation and the relationship between the mystery of the gospel and its proclamation. He shows us that ‘godliness’ has to do with Christian living through God’s effort. Also, God’s power is veiled in weak things and through the crucified messiah all that is not of God is nullified, cancelled. Finally, the ‘mystery of lawlessness’ introduces the idea that there is an anti-mystery which expresses itself in opposition to God.
5.
Now that a defined understanding is beginning to emerge, an excurus will assist in ‘opening up’ the idea of union. This is to be done by examining (albeit in a cursory fashion) legitimate analogies of divine union in marriage to express an understanding of the relationship that exists between the human and the divine. This will signal a vestige of the relationship existing within the Trinity. To assist in this task it will be important to address the sacraments of the church and the community of faith that emerges from this union of love.
In addressing these aspects intrinsic to Ephesians at this point, will alleviate some primary exegetical considerations and there will be no need to detract from the task at hand.
God’s decision to act on behalf of and in the place of man was one of eternal commitment motivated from within and out of himself, and one that defines him as love. The divine initiative is that, as Brennan Manning (1986:159) puts it, “the Tremendous Lover has taken to the chase.” The Divine and human meet not in any majestic omnipotent display of power, but in the fragility of a babe who is in desperate need of the most fundamental of necessities - love, protection, warmth and relationship. It’s fitting that the Incarnation signifies man loving his deliverer before coming aware of the significance his love would have for us.
The union of marriage is an analogy36 expressed in creatorial terms in Genesis to be a union of love that reflects God as trinity37 , and more importantly — God as love (Bingham, 1995:13).
i. union & marriage. It is only in the knowing that takes places within the relational event understood between the I and the Thou that mystery of the ‘other’ is stripped away. This event is never an imposed phenomenon but one that issues from mutual self-giving or surrender. It is within the very dynamic that exists between the I and the Thou that elicits this gift of revealing. “I come to know myself only by relating myself to the Thou”, and visa versa. This process is a continual journey of revelation that occurs as a gift but also in a sense necessarily as a result of the interdependent relationship which exists. In the midst of this the two remain distinct entities, they will always remain I and Thou, but with the union that exists the two become much less defined. It is within the midst of this union that a new mystery is created - the mystery of two as one38 . In the act of interaction on all levels of humanity the journey of the mystery of the individual in relation to the other is tenderly sweep away, yet simultaneously the resulting union, that is born only of selfless surrender to the other, creates or bears the fruit of a new mystery which grows and does not diminish. By giving up the little I do know I receive from the Thou the gift of all that I do not know. In this sense the relationship is one of continual growth, activity and creation39 ; it is a union of hope. Paul expresses a picture of this union in 1 Corinthians 11:3 where he presents the image of ‘head’ and ‘body’. It is the place where “the Divine and the human meet in a practical outworking of marriage” (Bingham,1995:65). These glimpses or ‘snapshots’ that Paul alerts us to begin to bring the mystery of God into our sensory world. Although it is ‘matter of fact’ that God has come, something cognitive is occurring here that brings people to an understanding. The event that brings us is God’s Word; “the Spirit of wisdom and revelation” (Eph.1:17). Building upon this is inclusion into the community of faith and more specifically — tangibly participating in the sacraments as a vestige of the intangible mystery that the Word enlightens to people.
ii. union & baptism. Signs, according to Jüngel (1983:6), lead to thinking and the sacraments make mindful to the community in a sensory manner their participation in the present union of hope. The union that is one of hope is more than mere union for within its midst is the presence of another. This ‘other’ can be known as the ‘withness’ of the union, and the ‘withness’ is not easily defined. The union hightens awareness of this presence that could not be sensed unless the two were in this reciprocal self-surrendering relationship. It is the ‘comm’ — withness — in this union that leads to true union.
The Reformers expressed this ‘withness’ in a similar fashion by attempting to articulate a theology that adequately associated “the gift of heavenly grace with earthly elements” (Stählin,1964:23). This they approached by stating in a paradoxical manner that,
.. it has been vouchsafed to us to eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ in, with, and under the Bread and Wine. ... This formula ... in its paradoxical character, is directly fitted to set forth the mystery of the sacrament inaccessible to any rationalist logic .
The participation of the community in, with and under the sacrament is a participation of life that is a proclamation of death; the death of the One they fellowship with and commune. This divine mystery happens in the midst of participation; the human and Divine join in an earthly manner and the Divine invitationally causes the community to enter an experience of transcending mystery in, with and under a tangible substance (ibid:24). Luther (1943:176) says of this fellowship that it is two-fold:
on the one hand we partake of Christ and all saints, on the other hand we permit all Christians to be partakers of us, in whatever way we are able; so that by this sacrament all self-seeking love is uprooted and gives place to love which seeks the common good of all, and through mutual love there is one bread, one drink, one body, one community, — that is the true union of Christian brethren.
That communion “gives place to love” is an important observation when considering Luther’s prevailing notion that this sacrament “guides us through death into eternal life” (ibid). This is a union that celebrates not only the divine with the human, but also proclaims the all-conquering love; the place where death and life meet. Such is the same in baptism.
Baptism alerts the community — albeit in a personal sense — to the resultant new creation that has taken place in the effectual work and word of Christ. It is the new life that we participate in through katallage (Romans 5:11) (Torrance,1994:32,33); that which is ours becomes Christ’s and that which is Christ’s becomes ours. There is a double identification here in the sense that the death of Christ we identify with is in reality our own . Paul takes great pains to highlight the spiritual reality of baptism and not merely the physical rite. He does this by relating certain analogies of the rite to the union that has taken place due to the present work of the Spirit (Dunn,1970:153-156). These analogies include; circumcision, burial, resurrection, and new life (Col. 2:11-13). Dunn (ibid:130) is resolute in saying,
The fact is that for Paul baptizein has only two meanings, one literal and the other metaphorical: it describes either the water-rite pure and simple (1 Cor. 1:13-17) or the spiritual transformation which puts the believer ‘in Christ’, and which is the effect of receiving the gift of the Spirit.
i. unity and love. The emergence of the ‘new’ resultant of reciprocal self-surrendering relationship (love) in a very real sense defines God as Trinity. Unity in perfection of union could be understood as perfect relation in perpetual creation. This would suggest that God is Himself communion in community. Man is a ‘product’ of love simply because of who God is, and who God is, is love . This is the mystery of the Trinity (Bingham, 1995:6); that God Himself has laid down in the dust, as it were, and traced an outline of Himself that remains with us; within our very nature. This is primarily creatorial and outside the redemptive ontological being of man. The creation of Man as male and female makes ontological the unity of the Trinity with the distinction of the persons (ibid:14). Man, as male and female, is not individual, but community (ibid:17). This community is one that ‘loves’ for that is the nature of this community, as it takes its image from the Divine Triune Community where love is operative (ibid:27). The notion of oi]keioi (Eph.2:19) — the ‘household’ or ‘Family’ — is here present in its intended form, a sentiment that seems to be Gods intent and eschatological goal for man. There is the present form, or ‘sacramental analogy,’ but there is an eternal, partially realised, eschatological form that takes ultimate precedent in God’s over-arching intent in Christ. Jenson (in ibid:54), commenting on Jonathan Edwards says,
There was, [as] it were, an eternal society or family in the Godhead, in the Trinity of the persons. It seems to be God’s design to admit the church into the divine family as his Son’s wife.
Of course the ‘church’ is the eschatological family spoken of here, and it is the ‘natural’ family that provide the picture or analogy. The impending admission of the church into the very community of God is foreshadowed in Revelation and the marriage feast of the Lamb.
The foreshadowing of the marriage feast of the Lamb is proleptically ‘played out’ in marriage. Bingham (1995:99) remarks,
Now, transformed by redemption, he gives his fullness to his spouse, and she becomes his fullness, his body, of which he is head, and the two are ‘one flesh’, united in and by Trinitarian Unity.
Marriage here being understood in ectypal terms that Bingham (ibid) explains as a “copy derived from the archetype: it has its being by reason of the archetype”.
To speak of unity and love as Trinity is not merely to talk of being but also of action. God’s action as Trinity is demonstrated in the life and death of the Crucified One for the sake of Life . It is not merely that life and death were experienced in God, it was that they are unified in favour of Life. Death as separation points to the Moltmannian thought that “the ground of the Trinity is the separation-in-unity God experienced within himself in this event” (Grenz,1992:180). God is the Dues Absconditus and reveals himself in a trinitarian manner in the Crucified One. As Harm (in Elwell,1984:1086) says of Luther’s thought,
God’s consummate meeting place was unveiled at the cross of Christ. God is known and understood, not in strength, but in weakness, not in an awesome display of majesty and power, but in the exhibition of a love willing to suffer in order to win man back to itself.
It is all but too fascinating to see this sentiment echoed in the Incarnation, as awesome majesty was displaced by a frail babe being held by parents whom themselves were prepared to die for their son. If Incarnation is the point of departure for understanding God as musthrion, then the point of convergence is the event of the cross as the place where God in his God-forsakenness as expressed in the life/death of the Crucified One comes to man as God and becomes for man the very present God. It may be, as Moltmann (1974:72), asserts not merely “a single chapter in theology, but the key signature for all Christian theology.” This ‘point of convergence’ remains open in the eschatological present presence of God; the Spirit of God Who is pleased to live His life in the midst of His people.
ii. unity and the Church. Paul is outspoken in 2 Cor. 6:14-18 regarding the corollary of God living in the midst of his people. This fact has ramifications in the life which that community is now living within. Especially the designations: saint and sanctified, two terms virtually synonymous of the community as those who are beneficiaries of God Divine initiative (Saucy,1972:20).
The ‘withness’ in unity is the new life produced by the presence of the trinitarian God in the life of the community of faith. God is compelled in Christ to eternally commit Himself in the most intimate and vulnerable manner. Thus the picture Paul repeatedly presents is that of the marriage relationship (Bingham,1995:37,39), and at times takes this even further in his ‘new man’ analogies. The ‘profound mystery’ Paul speaks of regarding Genesis 2:24 may be a primary reference to the marriage of Christ and Church (ibid:40). Although, exegetical considerations must be made to establish if that was Paul’s use of the OT text.
The existing community is undoubtedly unique in its expression of God’s mystery. Paul’s description of the Church as the ‘Body of Christ’ in and of itself exhibits “the close relationship and communion that exist[s] between Christ and His Church.” It emphasises the now “christological mode of existence of the church as the people of God” (Ridderbos, 1975:362). This is a unity of the very things that could not (as it was understood) be unified. God and man, Jew and Gentile. Paul defines this more rigorously in Colossians, but these two mentioned are — as it were — diametrical, whether that be ontological or cultural. The diametricals are as integral as the paradoxical, for repeatedly there are seen to be elements, aspects or ideas that express themselves in one of these two manners. God’s overt salvific purpose is at work in this very idea. It is to this concern that the discussion will now focus.
6.
Paul is sometimes disputed as author, but regardless of this contention scholars do agree that Ephesians is theologically Pauline. The content suggests no particular occasion as such and lends itself more toward a generic encyclical epistle (Martin,1986:227 Moo,1992:310) that expresses mature thought (Dahl in Moo,1992:311). Passages in Acts indicate he spent time in Ephesus, and grew in affection for them. However, it is not clear whether this was the case when the letter was written (ibid:309). Indeed, Martin (1986:225) seems convinced that there was no real relationship with the readers; it was — at least for Martin — “far from intimate.”
Regarding a probable framework with which to view the letter Martin (ibid) suggests “we see it as a magnificent statement of ‘Christ-in-His-Church’,” as there is little doubt as to its ecclesiological focus (Lincoln,1990:Iiv). This certainly captures the ‘tone’. There is no doubt that prepositions are a frequent occurrence, particularly ‘e]n’ and ‘e]n xristoj ’ (ibid:226), as well as various ‘suv-’ compound verbs that support this. Another feature that requires attention is the cosmological tone — its all inclusive feel, in which the author attempts to alert the readers to God’s eternal purpose; it is extraordinarily holistic. With this in mind Martin’s (ibid:238) suggestion is helpful when he says,
In a word, the message of this magisterial epistle is that God’s ancient plan to have one people (uniting the witness of both OT and NT) is made good in the gospel of a universal and cosmic Lord, proclaimed by the apostle to the Gentiles .
This accords with much of what has been examined in chapter 3 concerning; Torah, Writings and Prophets, leaving an established framework with which to view the epistle.
Consideration will firstly be given to making a number a primary observations from the epistle. These observations will relate to those passages, phrases, words and ideas that have been discussed, and this can only be done in a cursory fashion.
Paul uses the word musthrion 7 times in total and these could be stated as; the musthrion of his will, the musthrion revealed, the musthrion of Christ, the musthrion of one Body through the gospel, the musthrion administered, the profound musthrion of Marriage and the musthrion of the gospel. The content of this discussion has already explicated mystery in each of these aspects. Particularly the notions of union, creation, revelation and mediation.
It is clear that the benefits, or ‘blessings’, issuing out of God’s grace act toward us in Christ are primarily spiritual. The reason we know of this grace act is simply because of God’s ‘good pleasure’. This plan was set in eternity and has been unfolding in history to the present and shall continue unfolding eschatalogically . Incorporating the eternal and historical ‘the plan’ embraces — on an ontological and cosmological level (4:10) — both the terrestrial and celestial realms . It is universal, soaring into eternity and then landing with both feet on the ground giving practical advice as this is the corollary of ‘the Plan’ (Lincoln, 1990:xxxvi). This is seen in the various verses that identify this plan as all encompassing in nature. Such as; “to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ” (1:10) and “far above all rule and authority, ... and God placed all things under His feet ...” (1:21,22) also “One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (4:6). Not only is there this “ta panta ”, but also a “plhrwma ” pointing to inclusivity and content.
The language in 2:11-22 reflects an analogous understanding of the temple and Jewish praxis. It points in one instance to its inadequacy and then to a new reconstruction that explicates the church and its relationship with Christ, as cornerstone. The “dividing wall of hostility” (2:14), which is most likely Paul’s use of the temple as analogy, and in particular that wall separating Jew and Gentile, is now irrelevant as the “barrier”, or power of sin — which is death — has been put to death by Christ’s own death. This resulting in peace, both to those who were ‘near’ and those ‘far away’. In Christ each is positionally identical (Lincoln,1990:177). This realised unity comes in the presence of the Spirit, and knowledge of the “bond of peace” that has displaced the “barrier of hostility”, and the eschatological element of unity in this context is in regard to faith (4:12).
Gentile inclusion, and knowledge of it, constitutes the unique aspect of Paul’s use of ‘mystery’. This he expresses with the use of carefully selected sun- compound verbs , that in effect aim to elucidate the nature of ‘mystery’, especially the aspect of union. Maurer (1971:856) elaborates by pointing out that the preposition is a “distinctive feature throughout Eph.,” highlighting, according to him, “the inner relationship of the community and also the relationship between the community and Christ”. It could be suggested that this is a form of ‘mystery language’ that requires the use of prepositions, and transitive verbs which convey a particular thought relating to Paul’s exposition of musthrion.
The mediation of God’s self-revelation in Christ is conveyed by the in-dwelling Spirit and this relational knowledge is God’s ‘grace gift’. Knowledge of the Person precedes knowledge of the purpose and yet both are mediated. As administrator Paul has a special and specific responsibility in making known the salvific revelation that was given him concerning the unitary nature of Christ’s accomplishment. Lincoln (1990:195) comments,
... the readers are reminded that the revelation of the mystery of Christ and, as part of this, their own existence as the Church and the Church’s role in the universe are inextricably bound up with the apostle Paul and the commission entrusted to him.
Paul is a concrete figure of mediation, differing from Christ, differing from the in-dwelling Spirit. Christ mediates as Himself, it is ontological mediation and Paul facilitates this by the word; Christ brings the reality of revelation, Paul brings the understanding of it. Christ is the revelation of the Word and Paul conveys the written revelation of the word. He is Dispensator Superlãtus, and as such is protologically laboured with the task of faithfully disseminating this message successively to the Church. That the Church itself may then begin the responsibility of ‘administering’ the mystery, which is the gospel. As this responsibility is realised, aided by specific ‘grace gifts’ that God bestows to each member, the Church experiences growth (not in a physical sense, but rather a new creation resulting from the nature of the relationship existing between Christ and the Church), strength and love. It is of interest that the depiction of the ‘Church and Christ’ union relationship is linked to marriage and that Paul begins his discussion on filial relationships in chapter 6 with children — the fruit (new creation that takes places in the midst of) of marriage (6:1).
There are various contrasts that present certain diametricals such as “fruit of the light” (5:9) with “fruitless deeds of the darkness” (5:11); “the eyes of your heart may be enlightened” (1:18) and “they are darkened in their understanding” (4:18); the “bond of peace” (4:3) and the “wall of hostility” (2:14). A further juxtaposition is found in 3:13 regarding suffering and glory, this is a curious verse as Paul’s personal sufferings result in the glory of ‘others’ . Finally, the “e[toimasi<% that comes from the gospel of peace ” relates to “the destruction of the wall of hostility” in that the gospel brings unity by peace who is Christ Himself. This correlation is more displacement rather than diametrical.
A final observation relates to praxis and acting in an ‘otherly’ manner. The one(s) doing this will “grieve the Holy Spirit of God” (4:30), and is living in contradiction to the relational knowledge — which is God Himself — that has come to him. There is a distinct contrast between the old and new life , for partakers of the mystery reflect the nature of the One they are in union with and are thus referred to as toij a]gioij “the saints” and this new life is also reflected by its corresponding “words and deeds” (4:25-5:2) (Lincoln,1990: Iiv,xxxvii). The designation ‘saints’ has at its source the Hebraic idea of covenantal relationship, that is reflected in the marriage union. Wilson (19:205) explains,
In early rabbinic literature, the first part of the marriage ceremony which contractually sets the couple aside in betrothal is known as kiddushin (or qiddushin), properly an act of “sanctification” or “consecration.” The basic meaning behind the term kiddushin is “be set apart,” “be holy.” Thus, from the Hebraic perspective, marriage is a “sacred bond,” “a holy relationship,” “an act of being set apart unto God and each other.”
Regarding ‘union’ Christ is the ultimate figure under whom ‘all things’ are unified through a union that centres around the notions of ‘One Body’ and ‘Marriage ’. The prevailing thought of ‘mystery’ is marriage as a picture of the Christ-Church relationship and not so much marriage itself. Although (as already discussed at length in the previous chapter) there are legitimate questions to be asked and significant parallels to draw upon in exegeting the use of the OT text (Lincoln,1990:381). The writer’s use of the text is that of a ‘archetypal pointer’ to that which has been revealed in the Christ-Church union (ibid). It implies rabbinical typological exegetical method that rests “on a correspondence between creation (Gen. 2:24) and redemption (Christ and the Church)” (ibid:382). Lincoln (ibid) points out that,
The emphatic e]gw and the particle de in v 32b make clear that the writer is stressing that this particular interpretation of Gen 2:24 ... is his own.
As for the idea of ‘One Body’, it is seen in Paul’s use of sun- compounds, depicting both the new relationships existing within the newly created entity known as the Church, and also in the relationship existing between this community and Christ. This is illustrated in 2:6 and Paul’s ‘withness’ words, this time as adjectives to express the nature of the Gentile inclusion and its relationship to Israel. Lincoln (1990:180) makes the comment of the writer that,
He is not celebrating the relationship of the Gentiles with Israel or the Jewish people as such. With the terms he uses he directs attention to unity within the Church rather than unity with Israel and her past. ... what for him is at the heart of God’s disclosure is that the Gentiles are an essential constituent of the new entity. Susswma, is evidenced nowhere else in the literature of the time and might therefore be a term which the writer has coined.
The closest translators can come is “shares in one body”, from a literal translation that means concorporate (ibid).
Regarding ‘revelation ’ Paul explains that it has been given to us to know (1:8, 9), God’s self-revealedness in Christ issues out of grace, that is, the church is given the gift of all that it does not know and this is firstly God Himself and then things about this God (Lincoln,1990:30). The ‘givenness’ of this is explicated by the writer, for following the second mention of ‘mystery’ he explains the he had already “written briefly” (3:3) regarding it, and in particular the inclusion of the Gentiles (2:11-22). Gentile inclusion, as mentioned, constitutes much of the ‘insightful’ content of Paul’s comments and highlights the hidden and revealed nature of mystery in that it is a concept present in the OT and yet not ‘seen’ (Lincoln,1990:177). The ‘chain of revelation’ does not stop at the Church but through it continues to become a testimony and proclamation. It is a testimony to the “heavenly realms” and a proclamation to the world through the administration of the gospel (Lincoln, 1990:185).
This section will attempt to coalesce in a cursory manner the observations made above into three broad areas that pertain to ‘mystery’, these being nature, content and purpose. It is probable that in many respects this will be a restatement of many of the issues that have already been investigated.
i the nature of mystery. This centres around the notion of revelation and mediation. That God reveals savingly is bound up with the very idea the God has disclosed himself in Christ, who in turn mediates ontologically that which was previously hidden. In this sense there is a distinction, and yet a connection, between the prophets of old and the mediatorial role of Paul, in that the emphasis was on information that elicited a response from the hearer. Christ, however, confronts people with Himself and ontologically actualises change in that individual. The three elements of the revelation present in the above exegesis incorporate,
The fact in history of Jesus Christ the crucified, His resurrection and exaltation as the glorified Lord, and the redemptive meaning of Jesus Christ crucified, raised and exalted (Ladd,1993:422).
Although, it is important to understand that in God’s self-disclosure he remains hidden and it is with this context that he has made Himself known to us; as Barth (1957:40) says, “we know him in His mystery.”
ii the content of mystery. This centres around the notion of union and creation, incorporating reconciliation and extirpation. It is a reconciliatory salvific self-revelation in Christ that extirpates the “other” bringing peace through His entering into the “other” (the far country) to bring those who were there back to Himself. This is his will revealed in Christ proclaimed through the gospel that we are one in Him and in union with Him because of His self-surrendered love in which He chose to be the God who freeingly loves freely by becoming His own image, by becoming most vulnerable, by becoming all that He was not and conquer it because of all that he is. The God who freeingly loves freely, is the God whose love is free and whose love frees; it is a liberal love of liberation.
This is best expressed as that love that exceeds all cognitive recognition and yet is known; it is ineffable love that can be known. It can be known only in the midst of that I Thou relationship that exists through Christ self-giving and our response to that tenderly drawing us into that same place. It is a place that was once “far away,” but is now near, and even nearer that we are to ourselves. The reason it has been brought nearer to ourself is because Christ entered the far away place where we were, because we were ontologically ‘other’ than God, and rescued us as a damsel in distress from the on-coming train. This is “Christ’s love for the church” that promises assuredly a union of bliss for eternity right now, and one that is in perpetual creation (Bingham,1995:42). For this reason Ephesians holds “deep affinities” with the Song of Solomon (ibid:117).
This emphasis indicates, as Bingham (1995:148) has suggested, that all theology is “domestic: it speaks of the Divine and celestial Family,” a family that reflects essentially who God is. It is interdependent and bears fruit, it roots out anything that would attempt to hinder, it champions the cause of one another, it looks at the other and is for the other, rather than themself . Its life is such that it literally conquers all that it is not by becoming that which it is not. Its power is within its vulnerability, its weakness and its surrender.
iii the purpose of mystery. This centres around the notion of administration and proclamation. Here it could be said that there is a two-fold purpose in mystery. The first aspect understands ‘mystery’ as essentially the historical and eschatological redemptive process. The is, ‘mystery’ is a category for the way in which God dealt with the otherness of Himself and the effect it had on creation. This he achieves through a cancelling out of the ‘other’ and bringing it to nought in Christ.
The gospel is the present purpose of mystery and the Church’s role as dispenser of that mystery is intimately associated with it. Here the eschatological mystery is proclaimed and made known to the world and the celestial world. It tells the story of Christ and all that has already taken place in Him and yet awaits a historical outworking of that whole process. The Church is charged, beginning with Paul, with disseminating God’s story in Christ and how He has put all things right. In this act God continues to come to man in and through the Church, and that He is able to come as God in the Church as He came in Christ constitutes the present reality of ‘mystery’. God, in the Church, discloses Himself in history not unlike God’s self-disclosure in Christ.
The ‘ribbon’ that holds these aspects of the nature, content and purpose of mystery together is the death of Christ on the cross. It surrounds every aspect of this discussion and the place that his glory and power was displayed precisely in a manner that it would not be expected to be displayed. It is certainly a deep an unutterable event that motivates a man who does not know God to declare of a dead man that He was the Son of God (Mark 15:39). He is the God who journeys, as Barth (1956:176) puts it, “into the Far Country.”
The Almighty exists and acts and speaks here in the form of One who is weak and impotent, the eternal as One who is temporal and perishing, the Most High in the deepest humility. The Holy One stands in the place and under the accusation of a sinner with other sinners. The glorious One is covered with shame. The One who lives forever has fallen a prey to death. ... And it is not accidental (ibid).
This is the God of mystery that venture to come to us — face to face. It is the joyful crisis that takes us by surprise, and takes us from the “far country” to that place that is nearer to us than we are to ourselves.
7.
At the introduction of this discussion the comment was made that “theology affects the way in which we live,” let that be supplemented by the point that it should affect our lives. For reflection about God, even as an intellectual exercise is an expression of worship to the God we reflect upon. This is a contributing factor to the expression of our relationship within the community of faith, and the community in which we live. All godliness is practical and yet issues out of the abundance of the God of Mystery that is worshipped. This inturn flows outward primarily in terms of relationship, and then to our responsibilities within the context of those varied and different relationships.
The tension of ‘mystery’ is apparent in the paradox that is presented us. God is closer to us than we can ever be to ourselves, and he is simultaneously so beyond us that we can scarcely open our mouth. As Motyer (in Elwell,1984:741) states,
The best theology has always maintained that the known must be balanced by the unknown, that God is a mysterium tremendum et fasinans, compelling the worshipper with awe toward him but remaining ultimately beyond the grasp of human reason and imagination.
All too often there is the situation where the worshipping community pictures a majestic all-powerful God sitting on His throne up on the platform of the Church. He becomes the immanent transcendent God, but not the God who is to feared. The God close to us is the God we know, the God who identifies with us and who has shown Himself to us. This God we worship with understanding, yet greater is the God we worship in the darkness, in utter ignorance, and still this is one and the same God. It is the God in ‘the dark cloud’ that seems to have become lost in it, or maybe, unlike Moses, we fear to fully abandon ourselves to what we may see in the darkness?
God is the One who overcomes. He overcomes our foreignness to him, he overcomes our communication barriers, he triumphs in our weakness and conquers through love. The God we worship is a circumcised God, that is, he eternally bears the commitment He has made to his creation, His objects of grace. God transcendent comes down to earth, He is the God who stoops to wash the dust from our feet, and with joy continually lifts us until there is no spot or blemish. We become servants of the Great Servant.
The message of ‘Family’ is too conspicuous to ignore. Not that the ultimate goal of man is to have a family, but to recognise and understand that we are Family. This places a responsibility on the community of God to outwork their eternal commitment to each other. God shows His commitment to us in Christ and this is the precedent for the community expressing theirs to each other. This is our fellowship and is the fruit of being caught into the life of God with the Holy Spirit.
It is also difficult to overlook the reality that even in our own experiences the things we value most are the relationships we cherish. This is even expressed in a negative sense when there is hostility between two who were at one stage very close; their hate for each other is very much an expression of the love they once shared or desire to share.
It has always been God’s intent to have us in His Family, as Jenson (in Bingham, 1995:53) explains,
The end of the creation of God was to provide a spouse for His Son Jesus Christ, that might enjoy him and on whom he might pour forth His love.
And again,
we will one day participate in the Marriage Supper of the Bride and the Lamb and we will participate in the Holy Family of the Triune God. It is according to the principle of ‘family’ that we will be partakers of the Divine nature — forever (ibid:146).
God has shown His love toward us and will continue to do so eternally, this is a compelling reality for us to love likewise.
Paul states plainly in 1 Cor. 4:1 that he has been made a steward of God’s mystery, that is, he has been entrusted with the task of administering the gospel to the Gentiles. This is carried on by the Church, who proclaim to the world the cross of Christ, and in this become a testimony of the impending fate that awaits all that oppose God’s plan. Lincoln (1990:80) relates this thought as well,
because the one who fills the Church is filling all things, there is now a continuity between the realm of salvation and the realm of creation, between the Church and the world. The whole of created reality becomes the Church’s legitimate concern, and the Church symbolises the realisation of the possibilities inherent in God’s purposes in Christ for all creation.
The “whole of created reality” as the “Church’s legitimate concern,” is a sobering reality for myself in particular. It means to live one’s life in the midst of this mystery and realise that in the midst of God we have truly been reconciled not only to God, but in some way to the creation surrounding us. This can not be in any panentheistic manner that sees God and the world as inseparable, but one that declares God’s slow hand of healing at work going on unnoticed and the fact that this is happening in, through and with the Church. In this regard our responsibility is a being and becoming in the life of God in the world that naturally involves itself in the new creation that transpires unknowingly.
8.
It has been a difficult task to write on this subject only in the sense that it seems so inadequate and elementary. It is more an introduction to ‘mystery’ than a comprehensive investigation.
The fallout from this introduction lends itself toward one underlying thought, and that is, God is very present in His absence. He has shown us in Christ that He can be God as man, that He can be God as a weak man, that He remains God as a suffering man, and is God as a dead man. He is found in the very place we do not expect Him to be.
In a world totally ‘other’ than God, He has come as His own image and brought with him His home; His kingdom. He dwells in the midst of his people, empowering them by His Spirit to live the life that comes from above here on the earth. The world we presently live in is one that is with boundaries, fences and locks, but by contrast the world from above is one that is without these restrictions. Life in God’s kingdom does not impose boundaries, doesn’t say ‘keep off’ or ‘keep out’ or even ‘authorised personnel only,’ and yet this world from above has now broken into this present world through Christ and His cross. In this regard we live unrestricted in a restricted world.
As we journey in this we can still see around about an abundance of fences and locks, not merely around the homes that contain families, but around the people themself. They have, for various reasons, placed fences around themself and declared, “Here! And no further!” They have locked and restricted places that they declare ‘out of bounds,’ and yet through Christ’s gospel of peace these walls that divide and locks that restrict have been utterly uprooted. It is a present reality that is for many tragically presently absent.
Barclay,W. The Daily Study Bible: The Gospel of John - Volume 1 Chapters 1-7 (Revised Edition) The Saint Andrew Press: Edinburgh (1975). ------------— The Daily Study Bible: Philippians, Colossians and Thessalonians The Saint Andrew Press: Edinburgh (1976). Barth,K. Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of the Word of God - Part 1 Volume 2 T&T Clark (1956). ————— Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of God - Part II Volume 1 T&T Clark (1957). ————— Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Reconciliation - Part IV Volume 1 T&T Clark (1956). Bauer,W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature trans. Arndt,W.F. & Gingrich,F.W. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago & London (1957, 1979). Bingham,G.C. The Profound Mystery: Marriage Love, Divine and Human. N.C.P.I. (1995). Bornkamm,G. "mushrion". Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: vol.IV. ed Kittel,G. trans. Bromiley,G.W. Eerdmans (1967). Bromiley,G.W. Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth T & T Clark: Edinburgh (1979). Buttrick,G,A. (Ed) The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Volume 1 (a-d) Abingdon Press (1962). Drane,J. Introducing the New Testament. A Lion Book: Oxford (1986). Dunn,J.D.G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in relation to Pentacostalism today The Westminister Press: Philadelphia (1970). Dyrness,W. Themes in Old Testament Theology Inter-Varsity (1979). Edwards,R.A. Matthew’s Story of Jesus Fortress Press: Philadelphia (1985). Elwell,W,A,(Ed). Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, Michigan (1984). Enns,P. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Moody Press: Chicago.(1989). Fee,G.D. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul Hendrickson: Massachusetts (1994). Ferguson,E. Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Second Edition) William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, Michigan (1987,93). Frend,W.H.C. The Rise of Christianity. Fortress Press: Philadelphia. (1984). Gilbrant,T&T.I. The Complete Biblical Library: Volume 9 - Study Bible, Hebrews—Jude. The Complete Biblical Library: Springfield, Missouri (1989). Greeven, “sunbibazw” in Kittel vol VII S trans. Bromiley. Grenz,S.J. & Olsen,R.E. 20th Century Theology: God and the World in a Transitional Age IVP: Downers Grove, Illinois (1992). Hanson,A.T. The New Century Bible Commentary: The Pastoral Epistles Eerdmans: Grands Rapids (1982). Hare,D.R.A. Interpretation: Matthew - A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching John Know Press: Kentucky (1993). Harm,F.R. “Theologia Crucis (Theology of the Cross)” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology ed. Elwell,W.A. Baker Book House: Michigan (1984). Hastings,J. (Ed) The Great Texts of the Bible: Thessalonians - Hebrews T&T Clark: Edinburgh (1914). Hawthorne, Martin, Reid (Ed's) Dictionary of Paul and His Letters IVP (1993). Herbert,G. "The Agonie" The Metaphysical Poets ed Gardener,H. Penguin Books (1957,66,72). Jüngel,E. God as the Mystery of the World: On the Foundation of the Theology of the Crucified One in the Dispute between Theism and Atheism. trans. Guder,D.L. T&T Clark, Ltd. 36 George Street, Edinburgh (1983). Kerr,H.T.(jr) (Ed) A Compend of Luther’s Theology The Westminster Press (1943). Kingsbury,J.D. Matthew as Story (2nd edition) Fortress Press: Philadelphia (1988). Kittel,G. & Friedrich,G. (Ed’s) Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Volume 7 S Wm. B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Michigan (1971). Krämer,H. "*********, **, *ó" Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament.: volume II. Ed's Balz,H.,Schneider,G. Eerdmans (1981). La Sor, Hubbard, Bush Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament Eerdmans: Grand Rapids Michigan (1982). Lohse,E. The New Testament Environment trans. Steely,J.E. Abingdon Press: Nashville. Longenecker,R.N. Paul, Apostle of Liberty: The Origin and Nature of Paul’s Christianity Baker Book House: Grand Rapids MI (1964). Marshall,M.T. “The Fullness of Incarnation: God’s New Humanity in the Body of Christ” Review and Expositor 93 (1996) 187-201. Manning,B. Lion and Lamb: The Relentless Tenderness of Jesus Chosen Books: Michigan (1986). Maurer. “Sunarmologew” in Kittel vol. VII S trans. Bromiley. McGrath,A.E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Blackwell: Oxford UK & Cambridge USA. (1994). Moltmann,J. The Crucified God SCM Press (1974). Motyer,S. “Mystery of Iniquity” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Ed Elwell,W.A. Baker Book House: Michigan (1984). ————— “Mystery” in Elwell (1984). Murphy,E.F. The Handbook for Spiritual Warfare Thomas Nelson (1992). Newsome,J.D. Greeks Roman Jews. Trinity Press (1992). O’Brien,P.T. “Mystery” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters ed’s Hawthorne, Martin, Reid IVP (1993). O’Collins,G.J. Christology: A Biblical, Historical and Systematic Study of Jesus Christ Oxford University Press: New York (1995). Oden,T.C. Interpretation: First and Second Timothy and Titus John Knox Press: Louisville (1989). Ridderbos,H. Paul: An Outline of His Theology Eerdmans (1975). Saucy,R.L. The Church in God’s Program Moody Press: Chicago (1972). Schweizer,E. Lordship and Discipleship SCM (1960). Staniforth,M. Early Christian Writings Penguin (1968). Torrance,T.F. Preaching Christ Today: The Gospel and Scientific Thinking W.B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Michigan (1994). Walvoord,J.F. Jesus Christ Our Lord Moody (1969). Weber,H-R. Power: Focus for a Biblical Theology. WCC Publications, Geneva (1989). Wilson,M.R. Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith W. B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Michigan & Center for Judaic-Christian Studies: Dayton, Ohio (1989).
Footnotes
1. Jüngel (1983:34) explains this with the suggestion that "if God reveals himself as the one who distinguishes between being and not being and decides in favor of being, then he cannot be placed within the same category of the necessary. As Thomas Aquinas neatly puts it, God is 'above the order of the necessary and the contingent, just as he is above all created being'. " [Thomas Aqinas, De Malo, q. 16, a. 7, ad 15.]
2. Balz,1981:448
3. Although extraordinarily early,
this is an important concept within ‘mystery’ and in particular Biblical
mystery which shall be explored in greater detail in Section 5. "The
Mystery of God: Divine and Human".
4. This divulging also includes
the process of translation, conjuration or sacred books for example must
remain in their autographic state.
5. This personification of
Wisdom was a Post-exilic and intertestamental idea.
6. This reveal the works of God. ...
Surely I keep close nothing from you. For I said, it was good to
keep close the secret of a king, ..."
7. This idea aligns more with
gnosis, but serves to highlight the point of influence.
8. The plays were based on
a story of the suffering, death and rising of some deity (Barclay,1976
:126), which were concurrent with the changing season (Drane,1986:22).
It is distinctive of Mysteries to seek the "direct emotional experience
of god" (Ibid), and as a result they were powerfully subjective and
emotionally charged (Kroeger in Elwell,1984:742). The aim for the
initiate was union with the deity and thus divinity, upon which he would
be known as a "twice-born" (Barclay,1976:126). Ferguson
(1993:235) makes the comment,
receiving initiation in a mystery was usually a matter of individual
choice - although the initiation ceremony itself was a collective, not
individual - and so was a significant expression of personal religion.
9. For example; 1QpHab 7.4,
8, 13; 1QM 3.8; 16.9; 1QS 3.21-23; 4.18; 11.34; 1QH 7.27; 10.4; 11.9, 16.
10. 1 Enoch 10:7; "And
heal the earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the healing
of the earth, that they may heal the plague, and that all the children
of men may not perish through all the secret things that the Watchers have
disclosed and have taught their sons."
11. At times, however, silence
was imposed on the oracle and in this regard holds certain affinities with
both Gnosticism and the mystery cults (Bornkamm in Kittel,1967:816).
12. Jewish mysticism falls
mainly within the framework of rabbinic literature and seems to have been
limited to a collection of mythical writings, the earliest surviving of
which are postmishniac, and include the Hekhaloth ("palaces")
and Merkabah ("chariot") and also the pseudepigrapha writing
3 Enoch is classed as Jewish mysticism. The goal was to achieve "a
visionary experience of God" (Ferguson,1993:510).
13. He asks in discussing
God's unity with perishability as the basis for thinking God: "Where
is the indisputable site of the unity of God's being and existence, which
would be as such the place where God and man are together and where God
is thinkable?" (1983:188).
14. "... identification
with Christ relates a Christian to the person and work of Christ by divine
reckoning, by the human experience of faith, and by the spiritual union
of the believer with Christ" (Walvoord,1984:542). See article
in Elwell, "Identification with Christ".
15. Lincoln (1990:35) agrees
— comments on Eph. 1:23; 4:10 — saying,
In the period of fulfillment, God has exalted Christ to heaven as cosmic
Lord, thereby ensuring the inseparable connection between heaven and earth
that enables both things in heaven and things on earth to be summed
up in him.
Although, Lincoln’s focus here is post-resurrection and the focus here
is Incarnation this momentous act in its initiative asserts the reality.
16. Drane (1986:348) believes
that the passage is a quotation from a hymn that may have already been
known to the early church. This is made probable, Schweizer (1960:61)
tells us, by the unusual language Paul uses, and theological concepts which
are alien to him. As a result the origin of the passage has become
a source of much debate.
17. This decision seems to
have incorporated a necessity to submit to a voluntary nonuse of the expression
of his deity for the duration of the Incarnation (Walvoord,1969:143).
In this act God expresses with rigid precision both what we mean and meant
to him (O’Collins, 1995:228). Allusions to such expressions of deity
may have been witnessed at the mount of transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-5),
by Paul (Acts 22:6-11) and mentioned by Christ in John 17.
18. This phrase - “non-illusory
superimpositional essential union” - is in dire need of explanation
and yet only an inadequate one can be presented. It is predominantly
analogous, particularly “non-illusory superimpositional”,
to superimpose is to present through illusion a non-reality as that which
is real. This effect may be achieved through the art of photography,
cinema, illusionists and the like. The obvious flaw is that such
effects deceive only the eyes and thus the mind and therefore are just
that - an illusion. This above phrase aims to highlight the
analogy of such an illusion, and simply renders it “non--illusory”.
Being real the natures are essentially united into one. The stress
must lay on the analogous nature of the description for it can in no way
be an explanation of such a divine mystery.
19. Jüngel (1983:78)
suggests the idea of perishability here. That is, the entering of
God into history subjects him to a deteriation of acknowledgment in the
minds of people, but also theologically with the process of historical
theology and investigation there is a similar perishing of this historical
event.
20. This will be addressed
in greater depth when the idea of ‘parable’ is explored in part 4a).
21. Found also in 1Clement’s
epistle to the Corinthians (Staniforth,1968:26,30),
Abraham, who was named the Friend, showed his loyalty by obeying the
voice of God and ... Abraham, for instance, has great things said about
him; he is even named the Friend of God; and yet, when he looks upon the
glory of God, he acknowledges with humility, I am dust and ashes.
22. Daniel 2:18f, 27, 28,
29, 30, 47; 4:9.
23. Mediation is an integral
and recurring theme in Daniel, particularly the role taken by Gabriel.
24. Amos 3:7 - “Surely
the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing
his plan to his servants the prophets”.
25. Kant (in Jüngel,1983:265)
supports this by asserting that analogy “does not signify (as is commonly
understood) an imperfect similarity of two things, but a perfect similarity
of relations between two quite dissimilar things.”
26. The quotation Jesus refers
to here is found in Psalm 78:2 - “I will open my mouth in parables,
I will utter hidden things, things from of old -” . Hare (1993:147)
comments on the direct relationship here between “parables” and “hidden
things”, placing Jesus’ parable approach within the category of “enigmatic
communications” (ibid:149) which both “conceals and reveals.”
27. The wheat and the tares
(13:24-30, 36-43); the mustard seed (13:31-32); the leaven (13:33).
28. The importance of considering
these two aspects together highlights the various “ways of evil” (Bingham,1995:142).
A point that in itself brings to the fore the apocalyptic nature of ‘mystery’.
29. Paul here contrasts the
wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God deliberately and in this passage
may even refer specifically to the ‘mystery religious’ milieu out of which
many of the members of the Corinth church may have had contact. Paul
in no way borrows the definition for his usage, but rather uses the word
in a corrective manner, and in effect re-defines it (O’Brien in Hawthorne,1993:622).
For as Longenecker (1964:45) asserts Paul’s use of ‘mystery’ aligns more
with Hebraic thought than it does Hellenistic thought.
30. God’s wisdom conceals
the message from those in the world, yet reveals it to those who have the
the Spirit of God within them (Bornkamm in Kittel,1967:819).
31. Fee (1994:765) points
out,
... in quoting this hymn Paul is not suggesting that Christ’s appearing
in ‘flesh’ was an unfortunate expression of his existence. To the
contrary, ‘he was manifested in the flesh’: the ‘mystery’ of ‘godliness’
has been revealed through Christ’s sharing our human life, despite its
weaknesses.
32. Calvin,J., Commentaries
Volume 21, trans. By W. Pringle Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society (1956);
Grand Rapids: Baker Books House (1981).
33. The passage in 2 Thess.
2:1-12, Barclay (1967b:212) tells us is “undoubtedly one of the most diffcult
passages in the whole NT”. Paul’s language and
imagery is foreign to us, but familiar to his audience. The description
of the “appearing” of the man of lawnessness echoes that of the parousia
(Murphy,1992:362).
34. Paul was in Corinth before
Gallio’s arrival (Acts 18:12) which places his visit as early as 50CE.
It was soon after this that Thessalonians would have been written, and
a matter a months until the following letter (Carson,1992:347).
35. In 2 Cor. 6:14,15 Paul
contrasts righteousness and lawlessness, Christ and Belial (meaning without
worth, useless) to indicate the total otherness these things have
in relation to each other.
36. Paul in Ephesians makes legitimate the union aspect in marriage
as analogous. It is important to note though that Paul’s usage was
specific and it would be exegetically unsettling to exceed the limits expressed.
It is also important to note that earthly marriage as analogy itself is
limited in the sense that it is a “bad copy of a good original” (Bromiley
in Bingham,1995:45).
37. Bingham (1995:34) points out,
The creation ordinance is the true ontological order and should be
followed since it represents the Trinitarian Unity of the Godhead in whose
image and likeness Man was made; that is, the man and the woman as one
together.
38. Marcus Barth (in Bingham,199547) says in this regard,
Christ’s union with the church has effected an unprecedented situation:
the new creation leaves no room for a dialectic tension or wavering between
creation and redemption. Marriage is no longer explained as a ‘creation
order’, but as an expression of renewal of all things through Jesus Christ.
39. Bromiley (in Bingham,1995:52) regards this aspect of the
union as it’s eschatological goal.
40. It is not possible to digress into a discussion as to the
extent or nature of this awareness, except to say that Paul has much to
say regarding the conscience of the individual and the reality Christ’s
redemptive work to affect and effect change to it (Rom 2:15; 13:5; 1Cor
8:7; 8:12; 10:25, 29; 1Tim 4:2; Titus1:15). Hebrews and Peter speak
of the reality of change regarding conscience in Hb 9:14; 10:22 and 1Pet3:16.
41. Stählin (1964:25) explains that “the word ‘with,’ of
the Reformation formula, has behind it a long history of theological strife”.
42. Cf. Franz Köhne, Der Ruf von der Erde nach Gott und
der Gottesdienst der Kirche, München, 1934, pp. 77ff.
43. Without Christ’s word the ritual is a mere ineffectual rite
and the fruit of the cross unrealised (Bingham,1995:115).
44. Kerr (1943:165,166) speaking of Luther states,
The significance of baptism is a blessed dying unto sin and resurrection
in the grace of God, so that the old man, which is conceived and born in
sin, is there drowned, and a new man, born in grace, comes forth and rises.
.... Man is made new for an everlasting, sinless life; but also that it
assuredly begins and effects this, and unites us with God ... through my
baptism God, Who cannot lie, has bound himself in a covenant with me ...
45. Talk of God as Trinity is absolutely crucial to maintaining
the integrity of God in human speech; it is the only responsible talk that
can be had of God. Jüngel (1983:344) agrees,
The Christian doctrine of the triune God is the epitome of the story
of Jesus Christ, because the reality of God’s history with man comes to
its truth in the differentiation of the one God into the three persons
of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the
Trinity basically has no other function than to make the story of God so
true that it can be told in a responsible way.
46. Jüngel (1983:391) is quite clear on this point:
In love, having, because it is inherently also a being had, becomes
a being. ... It may be adequate to articulate love as that event in which
an I no longer can exist for itself, so that it exists in connection with
a Thou to become a We, and thus is really and properly an I in an unsurpassable
sense.
47. This is Jüngels (1983:317) ‘material’ definition of
love, whereas his ‘formal’ definition states love as that “event of a still
greater selflessness within a great, and justifiably very great self-relatedness”.
48. Jüngel (1983:388) says of the Spirit,
It is the Spirit of love which lets God advance in the union of origin
and goal. As love, God’s being is in coming. As the Spirit
of love, God gives himself eternal future, in which God is eternally his
own origin and his own goal. For that reason, this third mode of
God has been understood as the ‘bond of love’ (vinculum caritatis)
from early on. This “bond of love” does not chain one tightly, but
rather moves those who are bound eternally “toward something new.”
As the ‘bond of love,’ the Holy Spirit is simultaneously the ‘vehicle of
eternity’ (vehiculum aeternitatis). As the Spirit of love,
God is from eternity to eternity, from age to age. As Spirit,
God is eternally not only the one “who is” and “who was,” but also
“who is to come.”
49. Some have seen a definite purpose in writing. This
reasons include: existing Jewish and Gentile Christian tension (Carson,1992:311);
instruction to new Gentile converts; a purposeful attempt to delineate
truths of the early Christain faith (ibid:312). According to Martin
(1986:225),
... Gentile believers were boasting that they were independent of Israel,
and they were becoming intolerant of their Jewish Christian brothers and
forgetful of the Jewish past of salvation-history.
Again, it is possible the letter is a corrective to “wrong-headed notion[s]”
regarding Christ relationship with the church (ibid). Marcus Barth
(in Marshall,1996:193) alternatively argues that it “is the disctinctive
message of Ephesians that no Gentile can have communion with Christ of
God unless he[sic] also has communion with Israel.” [Marcus Barth, Ephesians
1-3 Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, (1974:337)].
50. 19:8, 10;20:31, 36, 37.
51. This is assuming that Paul wrote the letter. The lack
of personal names - other than Tychicus - may also suggest that Paul had
not personally met the church, or that he intended it should be generic.
There is no reason to think the correspondance was exclusively for this
one church given the texual uncertainty of “in Ephesus”, and the all-embracing
sense that pervades the letter.
52. Or e]n au]t&, as these two
express “God’s caefully designed strategy to make known the mystery” identifying
Christ as the prevailing focus of musthrion.
53. A simple, yet profound, way of saying this can be drawn directly
out of the text itself: “Live a life of love” (5:2).
54. Refer to Chapter 3 part c). “Writings” - “the disclosure
of God’s intent and purpose”.
55. The view is one of realised eschatology that is presently
being outworked in history with an anticipation of “the total completion
of God’s purpose” in the mind of the writer (Lincoln,1990:35). See
1:21; 2:2; 3:3-10; 6:12.
56. This is seen to be so by Paul’s continued reference to the
“heavenly realms” (1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12).
57. Lincoln (1990:34) comments saying,
The elaboration ta> e]pi> toij ou]ranoij
kai> ta> e]pi> thj ghj (1:10) indicates that we are
right to take ta> pa>nta in its
widest sense of all things and all beings, that is, the cosmos as a whole
and not just humanity.
This speaks of the cosmological and ontological Christ and the established
relationship this is caused by God’s presence in the world in Christ, and
consequently man relationship with the world. Christ in the point of convergence
who “locks” together these realms with salvific intention. See Chapter
3 - Biblical origins of musthrion: “The point
of departure - Incarnation?”
58. “The fullness of him who fills everything in everyway”
(1:23); “that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of
God” (3:19); “the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (4:13).
59. This ‘faith’ seems to be pointing toward that which is
believed rather than belief, as Paul is speaking about maturity
and contrasts this with infancy or immaturity and in particular he relates
this to “teaching” (4:14).
60. 2:5 - sunezwopoihsen; 2:6 - sunhgeiren,
sunekaqisen; 2:21 - sunarmologoumenh; 2:22 - sunoikodomeisqe; 4:16 - sunarmologoumenon,
sumbibazomenon; 5:7 - summetoxoi. Sunbibazw
has at its core understanding “to reconcile by mediation” and ecoes the
nt use of “to hold together” and “to unite”. Greeven (1971:764) explains,
the accent is on the fact that the community’s life comes from Christ
and is mediated to the members by the a[fai
(“contact” “place of contact”) .... the unity of the community in
love and the fulness of the knowledge of salvation in Christ are inseparable.
Similiarly, Maurer (ibid:856) says of sunarmologew
“to fit together”,
occurs in the nt only twice in Eph., ... the use is metaphorical. ...
[and] denotes building work; “to fit together,” “to join,” esp. Stones.
The metaphors of building and bodily growth merge into one another.
Thus Eph. 2:21 refers to the growth of the temple and 4:16 to the building
of the body.
61. This idea accords with the nature of ‘mystery’, especially
if his ministry is understood as being inextricably bound up in his specific
role as dispensator superlatus (Lincoln,1990:193). It is in
God’s coming to man in Christ that we understand His coming as being essentially
for ‘others’, and that this is not only characteristic of ‘mystery’ but
also where its power is displayed. It is found precisely in the place
that its absence is expected.
62. Readiness, preparation. “The meaning epuipment
(here specifically ‘boots’), as in Modern Greek, is favoured by A. F. Buscarlet,
E. H. Blakeney, J. A. F. Gregg” (Bauer,1979:316).
63. The imagery is Isaianic (52:7) and carry’s a pre-occupation
in Paul’s thinking on various fronts in Ephesians as the salvific prose
of second Isaiah seems to assist Paul’s thought expression regarding destruction
verses restoration that leads to a new creation. This suggests
an overtly Hebraic backgroud in Paul’s thoughts.
64. As a new creation the Church is a ‘race’ that transcends
both Jew and Gentile (Lincoln,1990:177), it is in a sense the resultant
fruit of God’s dealings with Man in Christ that continues to bear fruit.
65. The focus of the writer thought is the clause in 5:32 - “oi[
duo ei]j sarka mian,” : the two shall become one flesh, as analogous
of the relationship existing between Christ and the Church (Lincoln, 1990:380).
66. Caragounis (in Lincoln,1990:381) “believes 5:32 to contain
a special usage referring simply to the incomprehensibility of the union
of the Church and Christ”.
67. Fee (1994:851,852) suggests that this is two-fold
in the sense that the ‘givenness’ (character) of the revelation and the
‘oneness’ (content) of the revelation are distinct aspects.
68. This is a testimony with eschatological intent, a declaration
to them that are ‘other’ than God that complete extirpation of their presence
is impending and certain, their fate being determined at the cross.
69. Fee (1994:662), commenting on Paul’s own role in proclaiming
God’s ‘mystery’, agrees,
the fact that Gentiles are co-heirs with the Jews and thus form with
them the one people of God (vv. 2-9), but now especially as a reality
set before the powers.
70. Jüngel (1983:219) concurs saying,
Whoever really is for others and seeks to be himself in that,
always subjects himself immediately to nothingness. In this self-determination
for the sake of others, this peculiar dialectic of being and nonbeing,
of life and death, takes place, which as pacified dialectic is called love.
Copyright © 1997 Mark Schumacher