New Thoughts: (07/17/15-07/21/15)
The terminology Paul uses in the first few verses of this passage is loaded, although the significance may not be immediately obvious to us. That he speaks wisdom when among the mature is one indication. When he turns to the matter of hidden wisdom, mystery, he has in fact used a very technical term taken from the pagan religions. I posed the question of whether Paul was solely picking up on the language of the mystery religions. That would seem pretty clearly to be the case. It may be that he has picked this up more from the philosophical debates he took part in while in Athens, but it’s more likely that he’s thinking of the competing religions of the time. The real question, then, becomes that of why. Why is Paul using this terminology?
Not to get too far ahead of myself, but there is certainly the suggestion that he is drawing a comparison between these religions and the truth of Christianity. Fair enough, and doubtless true. But, why? This is a Christian church he is writing to, however dysfunctional at the time. Were they really going back to these older religions? Or, which is more likely and more of a concern for us, were there aspects of these older religions that they were effectively seeking to bolt on to Christianity? This would be the sort of syncretism which is ever a problem for us, a sort of accretion of ideas until the pure Truth is all but thoroughly obscured by what’s been added.
Before I probe the answer to this question more, I want to take a bit of time to consider what this terminology implies and how it developed. This will, I think, help us not only to understand Paul’s purpose and meaning in using such terms, but also to understand the question of why he does so.
Let’s start with the term mystery, a word we take almost directly from the Greek musterion. This is, as has been suggested, a precise, technical term with its roots in the mystery religions. It is used to refer to matters sacred to a given religion, things only made known to the initiated. One of the best known examples of these mystery religions would be the Eleusinian Mysteries. This is not to suggest that we know a great deal about what those mysteries entailed, but that they are a sect familiar to historians, and writings from devotees of that sect do inform us in some degree of their practices (although the deeper mysteries are kept secret, as can be expected). There was, in their teaching, a distinction between great and small mysteries; a distinction we will find Paul playing off of when he speaks of the Incarnation as a great mystery.
The reference to the mature, or perfect, is also something that points us towards the practices of these religions. The deeper one went into those religions, the more was revealed. There were gradations of knowledge or wisdom to be imparted. There were rites made known to the more advanced which were not even mentioned to the less advanced. Let me just interject at this point that this sort of practice is still to be found today amongst the various secret societies, such as the Masons. There is a reason why Christianity has by and large held participation in these societies to be anathema.
Finally, we might consider the implications of the term wisdom, sophia, as it would apply in the setting of the mystery religions. There is, in sophia, something more in view than simply applied knowledge. In a worldly sense, that’s probably more to be found: Wisdom as the result of combining acute intelligence with experience. It’s akin to the distinction one might find between knowing Ohm’s Law (intelligence), and recognizing how and when it might apply to real life situations (experience, applied knowledge). There is nothing wrong with such wisdom. But, it is insufficient in and of itself, and cannot attain to knowledge of God.
Here are the limits of the so-called hard sciences. They can arrive at facts and data. They can interpret the facts and data to arrive at theory and application. They can provide an explanation as to how things work, or define what things are. But, they cannot arrive at answers to questions of why or to what purpose. The wisdom of the world hits a wall, reaches a limit as to what it can know. It may, if God be willing, produce some inkling that there is a God behind what is known. But, as Romans makes exquisitely clear, man is more than capable of remaining blind to the obvious. It needs something more to move from man’s wisdom to wisdom in full.
What is wisdom in full? Leaving aside the particularly Christian applications, we might accept the idea of being familiar with divine matters and how these impact our duties as humans. Even among the pagans with their misconceptions of what it means to live godly, still wisdom would be understood as having the knowledge required to do so. There is a reason that mankind, down through the ages, has had a penchant for maxims and proverbs. Such wisdom as is imparted in these pithy sayings reflects the best thoughts of men advanced in understanding, and it is set forth in ways easy both to apprehend and retain. These things act as sort of a condensed wisdom. God is not averse to this, obviously. We have a fine selection of exactly such condensed wisdom contained in the book of Proverbs. Indeed, that’s precisely what is implied by the term
So, then, the idea of wisdom being something connecting the human with the divine is part of the understanding of these mystery religions, but it’s clearly not unique to them. It is, in fact, a tenet central to Christianity. “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom” (Ps 111:10, Pr 9:10). Further reading in Proverbs reveals an even stronger connection, with Wisdom being applied as the very personification of God (or vice versa). What is there in the pages of Scripture is something more than demonstrations of Solomon’s wit, or Asaph’s skills, or any other such expression of human brilliance. These are matters revealed by God, though written through the hands of man.
I’ll come back to the more specifically Christian application of wisdom, and particularly Paul’s sense of the matter. But, first, now that we have some of the terminology, we need to assess some of the history and development. In doing so, we will be looking at what precedes Paul’s message, what was more or less contemporary with his message, and to some degree, what developed subsequent to his message. After that, we can consider the specific sense of things which Paul imparts.
What defines a mystery religion? The name itself gives us some idea of the answer. They had their hidden knowledge revealed to the initiate in stages. There would be that which was made known to all, and that which was only made known upon entrance into the cult. There would be further mystery to be revealed only to those sufficiently progressed, matured if you will. But, it’s not so much the secretive nature of the religion that is of interest, although that has application. The subject matter of those secrets is what is more interesting. They point to another common thread.
All of these religions were involved with the gods of the underworld, which in turn had a shared motif of dying and returning to life, typically on a cyclical basis. C. S. Lewis would refer to them as the corn gods, because of their connection with the seasons, growth, and that which gives life. And it is this latter aspect in particular that the mysteries invoked: the giving of life. The secret rituals and the secret knowledge was intended to serve as a way in which the initiate had his share in the destiny or fate of the god invoked. By acting out the death and rebirth story of their god, they were themselves accounted as dying and being reborn. The fact that this was perceived as being done together with the god, and not merely in a stage reproduction, made necessary a number of purifying rites and offerings to render one fit to be in the company of a god. These preparatory routines were the little mysteries, presumably in that they were the fundamentals to be revealed to the initiate by which he might be made ready for greater matters. But, take note of this fundamental idea that the initiate was taken ‘to the border of death’, so as to undergo change that would ensure life. It would be very difficult not to perceive shades of baptism in that description. But, there are distinctions as well.
Another standard feature of the mystery religions was the injunction of silence. Having learned the secret knowledge, it was not to be shared, spoken of or written about outside the company of the initiated. What written record we have of these religions demonstrates the strength of the injunction, as one discerns a clear border beyond which the writer will say nothing. Just knowing these two aspects of the religions you can already see why it is pretty well accepted that Paul is purposely using their terms and concepts here.
These mystery religions were a relatively common feature of the landscape, covering a period of about four centuries to either side of Christ’s birth. Their influence was felt in other circles as well. The development of Greek philosophy was informed by their language if not their practice. As early as Plato the language of mystery enters into that sphere, and by the time of Philo, it has so infused the thinking of the philosophers that he would speak of the stages of consecration as ‘little and great mysteries’, which again points right back at the practice of the mystery religions. To set this in context, Plato lived from about 425 to 348 BC. Philo lived from 25 BC to 50 AD, so he was relatively contemporary with the arrival of Christianity. His primary claim to fame is the way in which he sought to combine Greek and Jewish philosophy in his very allegorical approach to understanding.
It was not only in philosophy that we find the mystery religions echoed. The Gnostic movement, which some argue didn’t arise until a few centuries later, seems pretty clearly to have been in evidence already at the time of the Apostles. The teachings of the Gnostics were by and large a reinterpretation of the mystery cults, seeking to combine all the varied mythologies involved into a single narrative. As such, assuming its presence as the early church grew, it should come as no surprise that they were seeking to incorporate the Gospel and Christ into their narrative, and then turn it around as offering a greater truth that superseded Christianity as it did all the myriad myths of the mystery religions. See? These were but echoes or shadows of the Truth. You want real truth, you have to come to us. But, you’ll need to be prepared first. You have so much to learn and only we are equipped to teach you. The influence of Gnosticism on the development of Christianity is most to be seen in the Alexandrian region, where believers were taught of advancement form the ‘little mysteries’ such as the doctrine of creation, to ‘great mysteries’, and then on to ‘supreme mysteries’. So grand were these latter mysteries that they could only be passed on in veiled form, given as ‘parable and enigma’.
Mystery religious thought also found its way into Jewish religious development, and much earlier it would seem. The Jewish apocalyptic texts played up the idea of the inscrutable wisdom of God, things only He could know, hidden in heaven, and only revealed to men through ecstatic visions overseen by angels. Mystery, in this conception is only revealed by rapture (the recipient taken into heaven) or signs and visions (sent from heaven via the angelic mediation). Two points should be recognized here. First, this branch of development in Judaism was rejected by Rabbinic Judaism. Second, of all the apocalyptic writings, only Daniel was accepted into the Jewish canon, and therefore into our own.
Now, as one looks at these ideas, it’s impossible not to see many of them reflected in Scripture. Wisdom that only God can know? Check. Truth revealed by vision? Check. Injunctions to silence? Yes and no. Let me suggest the yes first. My wife was asking just the other day about why Jesus so often told those He had ministered to not to tell anybody. What is that? It’s an injunction to silence. Mind you, it’s one that was not very well obeyed, but that doesn’t alter its nature. Why would Jesus do this? The usual argument is that He knew the crowds that would come if word got out. Of course, Jesus being fully God as He was fully man, it shouldn’t be out of the question to suppose He knew they wouldn’t be silent in the first place. If He really wanted to avoid crowds, the best bet was to avoid healing entirely and stick to teaching.
Is it just possible that Jesus had something greater in view? The influence of the mystery religions was still to be felt. If anything, they were probably gaining influence in Israel, given the influx of Hellenizing influences, as well as developments in Jewish philosophy and apocryphal systems of belief. These were current. The Essenes were current. The rise of various claimants to messianic leadership were current. The presence of ecstatics, faith healers, and religious magicians, if you will; all of this was current. All of it was counterfeit. When these men spoke of revelations given only to the select few, here was the example of Jesus, giving freely to whoever asks. When these men invoked silence upon their hearers, their hearers were silent. When Jesus invoked silence, so great was the mystery of His being that silence could not be kept. Can I say with certainty that this is the reason? No. But, it would go a fair ways towards explaining the otherwise inexplicable command.
But, here there is also a very definite distinction between Christianity and these mystery religions. Christianity is most certainly a revealed religion. We see it being revealed in the Gospels, as Jesus makes known to His few initiates that which He wishes to make known. We see it in Paul’s record, which we’ll get to later. We see it in the necessary involvement of the Holy Spirit in revealing the meaning and significance of Scripture to those whom God has called. But, here’s the distinction, and what a distinction it is! When God reveals Himself to man, He does not command silence. Indeed, He commands speech. Go! Tell them! Teach them. Make this known to the nations that all may know and all may come.
Is this universalism after all? No. He does not guarantee results from your actions. Indeed, the parable of the Sower, which is so closely connected to this idea of mystery, and limited revelation, if you will, makes it painfully clear that there is no guarantee. That doesn’t change your job description. It does make plain that the results are out of your hands. The results belong to God. The duty to speak remains with you. So, then, in the place of an injunction to silence, we have an injunction to proclaim, to go forth as heralds of the King who revealed Himself.
Let’s have a look at His revealing. This is the subject of the Gospels: “Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet…” (Mk 1:1-2). The Gospels are the presentation of the mystery of Christ’s lordship. That theme may be most directly evident in Mark, but it is present throughout all four texts. “The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (Jn 1:1-2). That so clearly echoes Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Behold! What was there all the time, from the first letters on the page, has come to pass! The King has come. The King is enthroned in heaven! Here is a great mystery: God became man, died on the cross, and was reborn.
Jesus, explaining why He teaches in parables, takes up the language of mystery. It has been revealed to you, but not to them. The insiders get to understand. The outsiders may hear the words, but understanding is withheld. For them, as for Paul and his readers, “To us God revealed them through the Spirit.” Without the indwelling Spirit of God, the parables are just nice stories. You may understand the moral as it applies to this life, but without the Spirit of the living God, you do not hear the life giving message of the King come with redemption in His hands.
Think about that as you consider Peter’s great confession. “You are the Christ! You are the Son of the living God!” And, then, hear Jesus’ reply. “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:16-17). Flesh and blood could not reveal this, could not discern this. It needed the Spirit of the Living God.
Christianity is indeed a revealed religion. The texts of the faith are texts written under the influence of revelation. The first teachers are teachers taught not by philosophical teaching nor by any man, but by God directly. The spread of Christianity, though it has involved men at every step, is not the result of man. The fruitfulness of the seed remains solely and exclusively the work of God. Where faith comes, it is because Truth has been revealed, and that revealing is not directly contained in the telling of the Truth. It comes in the hearing of the Truth.
Go back to Paul’s earlier words. “We preach Christ crucified. To the Jews, this is a stumbling block. To the Gentiles it’s foolishness. But, to the called, whether Jew or Greek, this is Christ the power and wisdom of God” (1Co 1:23-24). We could look elsewhere. “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith” (Ro 1:16-17). It’s not that a different message is spoken to those who reject and those who receive. The words are the same. The content is the same. It’s the reception that changes, and on what basis? Those who receive it, receive it by faith and in faith because they are called. And even that faith is not something you bring to the table, it is the gift of God (Eph 2:8).
Thus far, the Jewish apocalyptic writers were right. Revelation only comes from God. The knowledge is hidden unless He reveals it. But, they were wrong to insist it comes solely by ecstatic experience. No, the solely aspect of it is that it comes by the Spirit of God already imparted, already indwelling, opening the eyes and ears to receive the gospel with understanding and acceptance. “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 13:11). Welcome.
It really oughtn’t to surprise us that we see commonalities between the false religions of paganism and the Truth of Scripture. It shouldn’t surprise us that we find commonalities between philosophy and Christianity. However misled, these were efforts at perceiving and understanding the highest truths, and as Romans explains, God is evident to all. Is He not the one who promises, “If you seek, you will find” (Lk 11:9)? Is not all truth God’s truth? We should be careful, though. We should be careful in supposing that because they perceived a part of the truth we should accept all they say as true. I’ve said it many times. Plato, in ‘The Republic’, writes many things that one can find Jesus saying nearly verbatim. On the other hand, Plato says many other things that I think we must maintain are antithetical to the teaching of Christ. On the other side of the coin, we must not fall into rejecting a matter simply because it comes from philosophy, science or whatever other realm of thought you set over against the Bible. Truth is no less true for having come from the lips of the pagan. Truth is impervious to man, being rooted in God.
I note all this to say it also shouldn’t surprise us that we find Paul purposefully making use of the language of the mystery religions in presenting the gospel, particularly to the likes of the Corinthians. The concepts were familiar to the people of that city, whether or not they had been members of any of those cults. If they had not picked up the ideas from religion, they had heard them from the philosophers. The Jews had heard them as well, and Paul was no doubt familiar with that line of development. So, to accept that he is speaking with the intent of invoking thoughts of those religious and philosophical alternatives is no difficulty. It remains to ask why.
On the one hand, it would seem as though Paul is delivering a significant slap to the egos of the Corinthians. If you were more mature, maybe I could teach you something greater. But, as it is, I’ll have to stick with the basics as I did before. There’s echoes of Hebrews in that, isn’t there? “By this time, you should be teachers, but instead you need to be taught the basics again. You’re old enough for meat, but have come to need milk instead” (Heb 5:12). I would not wish to make too much of this similarity, but I would note that some of the articles I have read suggest Apollos was with Paul as he wrote this letter. I have also seen both Paul and Apollos offered as possible authors of Hebrews. If one were to accept Apollos as that author and as companion to Paul in Ephesus at this point, you could take this to be his input to the letter.
The Apostles may have spoken the truth in love, but that is not the same as saying they were gentle about it. But, is that all Paul has in view here, to knock the proud Corinthians down a peg or two? I think his target is bigger. It’s to knock down the mystery religions a peg or two, or the philosophers as the case may be. Remember that this is a city much impressed by debate. They are not unlike Athens in this regard. The Athenians had demonstrated an interest in hearing new ideas, if only for the novelty. The Corinthians also had a taste for the clash of ideas, and felt that impressive delivery and careful argumentation made the difference. Their history and their predilections made them ripe for the influence of these appeals to mystery, secret knowledge and the like.
Think about it. Secret knowledge plays to pride. I know things you don’t. I know things you can’t. You’re not smart enough, advanced enough, favored enough by the gods. Whatever the criteria, I can account myself more advanced, nearer to that perfection of maturity. And, having made the comparison, I now have cause to feel better about myself and to promote myself as properly fit to lead. Come back to Paul’s context. The church has fallen into factionalism, and at least one of those factions is built on the shaky foundation of rhetorical excellence. This is not to say that rhetorical excellence is bad. It’s just not so big a deal as they were making it out to be. Apollos was not misleading by his eloquence. It was the sinful hearts of men that were misled by their preference for fancy words over simple truths. It was the sinful hearts of men who chose to elevate the messenger above the message. Those who did so with Paul were no less sinful than those who did so with Apollos. But, this particular piece of the message would appear to be delivered to the promoters of Apollos.
Did Apollos speak wise words to you? I would have done likewise – if you were mature enough to receive what I know. You want to know mysteries? The wisdom which was given me, things God had determined long before we came to be, before the worlds came to be, I do indeed impart to those with ears to hear. But, it’s not the sort of stuff your kings and philosophers produce. They couldn’t understand it if they tried. They didn’t know it then and they don’t know it now. If they did, they wouldn’t have crucified the Lord of glory, the Son of God!
But, here’s the thing: However advanced you may have been in the intellectual arts, you were not advanced in understanding of divine Truth. You were babes, and I could only feed you the basics. Are you so adult now? Could I teach greater things were I with you now? Perhaps. But, now is not then. Understand, then, that the manner of my teaching when I was with you was not a reflection of my limitations, but rather of your own. This is not a thing said in boasting. Far be it from me! No, what wisdom I possess, I possess because God revealed it, not because of my research or my faculties. Can your philosophers say as much? Can your mystery religions claim as much?
Sure, they have their revealed knowledge, but whose knowledge is it that is revealed? Did their god inform them of these mysteries at the first instance? Or did man pass on to man? You know the answer. They seek to join in the destiny of their god, to share in his future, but what do they know of their god or his future? They know what they fabricated, and what they fabricated they pass on.
Do you think that is what has happened with this Christianity? Look around! This is not a man-made myth. This is testimony to things of which we were eye-witnesses. If you don’t trust my testimony, since I saw only the glorified, risen Savior, add it to Peter’s. His message is no different, and he was there. Add it to John’s. His message is no different, and he was there as well. This is not man revealing his own wit to man. This is the Truth as God revealed it to His messengers, and we have been faithful to present it unaltered.
You want wisdom? You have been given teachers who know how to interpret and apply Scripture, how to impart Christian truth, the Truth of God. There is wisdom. Are you mature enough to receive it? I can teach you until I exhaust all words, but if you have not been prepared to hear it to good affect it will do you no good. How shall you receive the deep things of God when you stumble in the most basic?
The NET provides a footnote on this matter, noting the use of this very technical term. Nobody was going to miss the implication. There is, however, a question of terms back in verse 1. “I didn’t come with grand words and wisdom, but rather proclaiming to you the testimony of God” (1Co 2:1). The question arises as to whether it was testimony or mystery. The evidence from the manuscripts is inconclusive. Given this movement into the language of the mystery religions, it would be enough to accept an earlier reference to the wisdom of God as mystery. If that be accepted, then we have Paul presenting God on their terms and showing him superior. But, if we take it that he wrote testimony, the comparison is that much sharper.
The mystery religions present their supposed wisdom, hidden things kept for those who have done sufficient to earn access. But, God sends us with the simple message of the cross – not grand displays of eloquence, not matters so deep that you are hard-pressed to comprehend. And, look! Because God is God, that simple message has produced the church, and you have arrived at the very life that these other religions promise but can’t deliver. They keep holding it out before you, suggesting if you will only go deeper, then the reward will be yours. But, here it has been given you at the outset. Why are you still chasing after this urge to be deeper and wiser than your companions? Why this pursuit of superiority? That’s nothing but ego-stroking, and in Christ you are all equals.
This is nearer the significance that Kittel’s finds in Paul’s line of reasoning. You have the mystery religions, and their more recent derivative Gnosticism. The Gnostics were all about hidden wisdom, all about gradations of spirituality and nearer approaches to the divine. They were all about reserving that closeness to divinity for the sufficiently advanced. But, Paul, the argument goes, insists that there is only one mystery, and that mystery is made known to all believers. The single mystery consists in the wisdom of God being revealed in His purpose of saving humanity through the crucifixion of Christ. “I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (1Co 2:2). There is no advanced class. There is not second revelation. There are no second-class Christians. There are Christians and there are non-Christians.
Further, as his argument will continue, the knowledge and acceptance of this singular mystery comes not after some elaborate ritual observance and preparation on your part. It was delivered up front. It was received not because you were sufficiently advanced, but because you were already elect. If the Spirit was not within you to produce acceptance of what you heard, the words would have passed over you to no good purpose, and you would yet be dead in your sins. Having received the mystery, having discovered the Spirit at work in you, you are already there. Life is yours in Christ.
Does this mean there’s no advancement in Christianity, no growth? Obviously not. If that were the case, there would be no grounds for Paul to speak of those who are more mature. But, their maturity does not consist in access to deeper mysteries. It consists in progress in sanctification. The seed of life is in the baby at its birth, before its birth really. That baby, being born, does not need to undergo further ordeals to arrive at life. It is alive and that’s that. That baby will, however, mature and grow both in stature and in wisdom. That is the natural order of things. The spiritual development of man is no different in this regard. Life was determined long before that moment of election, and in that moment, Life is imparted once for all. But, the elect progress in sanctification, grow in spiritual stature and wisdom. They come daily to know better how to regulate their life in light of God’s presence within and without.
When you hear concerns raised about those who promote a second baptism, and would effectively propose a Christian caste system of sorts, this is where that concern comes from. The book of Acts may show occasions where conversion and the visible or audible evidence of baptism in the Spirit are separated. In some cases, as with those Paul encountered in Ephesus, the separation appears to have been rather long. But, this is not to be taken as indicating they were lesser Christians before that point. It’s not as though the Spirit did not already indwell them prior to that occasion. They only lacked understanding, not redemption. I’m not sure I’m explaining this sufficiently, but it will do.
There is no second-class Christian. There is no distinction to be drawn between the Spirit-filled Christian as the Charismatics and Pentecostals suppose it to be, and the rest of the Christians. There is Christian and there is non-Christian. Now, I’ll readily admit that many who profess to be Christians are in fact to be accounted non-Christian. But, that’s a much different matter, and in truth, one far more difficult to discern with full accuracy. The parable of the Wheat and the Tares makes that clear. Your eyes and my eyes are not sufficient to the task of accurately distinguishing the two. There are occasions where the truth will be evident, and the fruits of the two will make it clear enough when ripe. But, as we grow? It’s not within the skill of man to say for certain, however sanctified the observer, and however possessed of the Spirit’s gifts. Even Paul, I dare say, would not lay claim to such a capacity.
It might be of some value to consider what Paul says elsewhere in regard to this mystery of revealed knowledge. The strongest statement as to its origin is probably that which he says to the Galatians. Speaking of the source of his preaching, which is to say his gospel or doctrine, he says, “I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it. I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal 1:12). His letter to the Ephesians confirms the point. “By revelation there was made known to me the mystery” (Eph 3:3). The preceding verse probably indicates the specifics of the mystery: “God’s grace which was given to me for you” (Eph 3:2). But, he proceeds to describe the matter further. This mystery of Christ was not made known to men in previous generations, but ‘has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit’ (Eph 3:5). That mystery, specifically, is the inclusion of the Gentiles as fellow heirs of the promise, partakers of the same in Christ Jesus through the gospel (Eph 3:6). As to his personal assignment, Paul recognized that he was to ‘bring to light what is the administration of the mystery […] in order that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places’ (Eph 5:9-10).
There is that in the letter to Ephesus which must inform how we hear Paul in verse 10 here. “For to us God revealed them through the Spirit.” I have already spent sufficient time on the topic of apostles in this study, and have considered prophets elsewhere, but note the conditional set on revelation here in that text. The mystery of Christ was now revealed to His holy apostles and prophets. I see two restrictions set there. First, it is specifically the mystery of Christ that is in view. What is that mystery? We have been hearing it. He died for our sins. He was sent for that very end. Creation was created for that very end. He lives that we might live. He is not God of the Jews only, but God of all, for He created all. There is therefore no distinction before God: No Jew and Gentile, no male and female, no freeman and slave. That is not to say that these categories no longer exist, certainly so far as this life is concerned. But, it is to say that no distinct advantage or disadvantage adheres to any such category. You are not in competition and you are not in opposition.
The great part of that mystery, particularly for a Pharisee such as Paul had been, was surely that the Gentiles were part of the plan. Even those who had been with Jesus might be forgiven for supposing otherwise. After all, did not Jesus Himself speak of being sent only to the children of Israel? Of course, He made exceptions to that, but His attention was clearly on the Jews who were His kin. But, the Apostles were given revelation to push them out of this mindset. Paul was not alone. Peter had seen like revelation. They were agreed on this matter, all twelve of them.
The second restriction I see is on who was granted this direct revelation: “His apostles and prophets.” I have argued previously that Paul says this with an eye to the Old and New Covenant arbiters of holy knowledge. But, it must be noted that Paul speaks of this happening ‘now’. Now it has been revealed. The phrasing would seem a little odd if his meaning was that now the apostles had been added to what the prophets already knew. Indeed, he pretty well precludes that understanding, since it hadn’t been revealed to prior generations. It’s rather like what the Kittel article mentions about the parables: That just having the explanation as Jesus had presented it did not fully impart the significance. To get the full kingdom import required the Holy Spirit’s presence to open ear and mind. So it must have been for the prophets of ancient Israel. They saw in part. They wrote it as they saw it, but they did not grasp the full power of that vision. The time was not yet for the revelation to be made. And so, the data remained hidden, as it were, in plain sight.
All of this to say that Paul’s statement cannot be said to restrict revelation knowledge to the Apostles alone. There was at least one other group, the prophets – and specifically, the New Testament prophets – who were likewise receiving a direct feed from heaven. This must open up a whole range of questions for us. Does that direct feed still operate? After all, we have no end of claimants to the prophetic mantel even now, and some of them might be legitimate. How are we to know, and who are we to say otherwise? Of course, that gets right to the question of whether the prophetic office continued beyond the apostolic age. I have not found sufficient cause to say it doesn’t. But, I certainly find sufficient cause to avoid taking any man’s claim to the office at face value.
Bringing us back to the current study, though, how does this inform our understanding of ‘us’? Certainly, there’s a wide swath of Christianity that would like to hear themselves included in that word, let alone the original recipients. Considering those recipients, though, there was no doubt a similar sense of inclusion. Knowing the discussion of gifts and offices which lies ahead, it’s clear that there were those in the room who thought themselves possessed of just such a direct connection. But, I have to say that if there was anybody who understood the significance of claiming direct revelation knowledge, and understood the weight of responsibility that entailed, it was Paul. Here was a man thoroughly trained in the handling of Torah. He knew its origins. He understood that Moses did not write as he pleased. He wrote as he was given. Paul understood that the prophets of old did not simply pronounce whatever wise advice they found appropriate to the occasion. They spoke as the mouthpieces of the Almighty. Paul very clearly understood himself to be in that same position. We will see it later in the letter as he carefully demarks where he is offering mere opinion versus imparting revealed knowledge.
In our discussions as elders and pastors of the local church, there is often mention made of the pastors carrying something of a weighted voice in our deliberations. It would be easy to interpret this as marking them out as first among equals, and I have been in churches where this was indeed the understanding. But such an understanding quickly reduces the elders to a veneer of authenticity, serving as little more than shielding yes-men. Rather, the weighted voice is weighted with responsibility, with recognition that one may be heard as having greater authority on a subject than one truly possesses. One may be heard as delivering revealed (or learned) truth rather than advised opinion. The elders are not immune from this phenomenon, and must likewise be aware of the effect when speaking and particularly when teaching. Opinion must be clearly delineated as such.
Back to Paul. “To us God revealed these things.” I cannot see that he intends to include the whole congregation of Corinthians in that statement. To do so, he must include the whole of the Church throughout the world. Further, to make such a statement would require that he also accept whatever teaching any of those churches might put forth as being on the same level as his own in terms of authority and accuracy. If the prophets of Corinth had the same direct path revelation access as Paul, then their teachings are as authoritative as his, and he has no business trying to correct anything. But, if both have the same authority, and their messages are in contradiction, how can it be revelation knowledge? Is God so changing? Is He as capricious as the so called gods of the heathens? Is truth so mutable that He can declare one thing to be true to you and the opposite to be true to me? It is – or should be – unthinkable!
With all that, I must conclude that Paul’s ‘us’ refers not to the larger body of the Church but to the specific men chosen by God to be the arbiters of revealed knowledge: His apostles first and foremost, but also some set of prophets. How could they be known? For one, their claimed revelation knowledge must accord with what has already been revealed. The unchanging God does not pronounce conflicting truths. He may reveal more as time progresses, but He doesn’t declare His previous revelation false by what is now revealed. Even as the New Covenant replaces the Old, it does not declare the Old to be wrong, only incomplete and therefore insufficient. It is superseded by new and superior terms, but it is not rejected outright. Law remains, but with Grace added. What was good is good and ever shall be good. What was evil is evil and ever shall be evil. The definition of holiness has not altered in the least. Our understanding of it, and the corollary understanding of our own sinfulness has changed. The specific economy of God’s dealings with us in light of His holiness and our sinfulness has not so much changed as come to fruition. The cross is come. The debt is paid, and our redemption made not merely possible, but real. What the prophets had seen in part, in types and shadows, has become historical reality. The long awaited Seed came, lived, died, obeyed, atoned, and ascended. He is on His throne and He shall never leave it. He reigns forever, and He has called us His own. Glory to God! I have to ask you: With that in view, with that revealed knowledge already ours, do we really have need of further revelation?
Hear Paul’s own expression of excitement as he looks at this (1Ti 3:16). “By common confession great is the mystery of godliness:
He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was vindicated in the Spirit,
Beheld by angels,
Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Taken up in glory.”
Wisdom, then, consists in understanding the divine plan of salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ. There is really nothing that needs to be added from this, and there is certainly nothing we would or could subtract.
There is no denying the desire in us to know the future more clearly. As I am in this situation of lingering between contracts, and knowing too many of my coworkers to be in the same boat, I would dearly love to know the future more clearly, particularly the immediate future. I would love to have so clear a vision of what lies ahead as to know how to comport myself, to have the confidence and comfort to take a vacation while the workload is so conducive, to initiate sundry improvements on the property over which I am steward. But, I am not granted such sight. Yet, I have this much of the future clearly before me: I am His and He is mine. He is my Provider and He knows my needs. He who knows the end from the beginning, He who established the hour and the day upon which Christ would be raised up on the cross before the first mote of matter appeared in the cosmos, is assuredly able to see to my needs, and He is utterly trustworthy. I need no prophet to know this. I need no revelation. I need but the indwelling Holy Spirit of the Almighty God, granting me ears to hear and eyes to see the leading of my Lord and King.
Lord, I thank You for this reminder this morning, not that I forget, but my nervousness can rise up without warning. I know You have me well in hand, as You have in previous times of challenge. I know, too, the dreams that have come of late, and while I would not be led about by dreams, if indeed You are attempting to catch my ear and impart instruction, then grant that I may hear with understanding, and know Your leading. I do not wish to be dull of hearing, or reject Your guidance because I don’t care for the means You choose. But, neither am I keen to be blown about by every hint and suggestion that my mind conjures up for itself. You I trust, my dreams not so much and myself barely at all. I know this: When You have made arrangements in the past, my memory says it was so clear, and yet I think at the time it probably was not. I just moved as I felt I should, did what seemed right, and awaited Your working out of the details. To date, it seems the greatest urge I have felt is to stand fast. But, I know that could easily be my own preference for the easy path. I don’t want the easy path if it is not Your path. Guide my feet, o Lord, as I know You do, and grant me to be at ease in Your hands.
As much as the language of mystery informs this passage, it’s really more a continuation of Paul’s insistence that nothing compares to the message of the cross. You want mystery? There’s nothing greater than this. You’re impressed with your philosophers and governors and such? They’re all passing away. Think about that for a minute. What was the point of philosophy? They sought after the source and significance of life. And the result is what? As Wuest translates it, they are ‘in the process of being liquidated’. They are dead men walking. You think they’ve got the answers? They killed the Lord of glory! Perhaps it’s yourself that you are so impressed by. Look at my advancement in the things of the Spirit! Hear my wise counsels. But, for all that you may have discerned, the truth remains: What God has prepared for those who love Him is far and away in excess of the highest thoughts of the wisest of men. Do you count yourself mature? To paraphrase a point made by Zhodiates, maturity is not a static state. There is no arriving, only progressing. The mature man in Christ knows only that he has so far to go, and that as far as he has come, it’s been Christ in him, not anything he has achieved on his own.
Now, bearing in mind the subject matter, which is this revelation of God’s plan, purpose and activity, it might be that where we read of understanding, we should take a particular aspect of that term into account. The movers and shakers of this age have not understood. The term is egnooken. It is one of the two main words used for knowing, and generally when there is cause to distinguish, it conveys the idea of knowledge gained by experience. We might call it earned knowledge. But, there is a more particular application of the term when it comes to matters of faith, which is that understanding relates to obtaining knowledge of divine matters. That aspect is clearly in view here. What is it that the rulers failed to understand, if not the divine matter of Messiah? What is it that these Christians to whom Paul is writing have failed to understand? It’s the divine matter of their own salvation and sanctification. They’re still stuck thinking like men of Corinth, and God has made them sons of heaven.
Hold that in view, and then consider the passage that Paul is quoting. I have to say that his quotation does not seem to follow the original all that closely, but leave that aside. My use of the passage isn’t verbatim either. “From of old they have neither heard nor understood what was heard. They have not seen any God other than You, Who acts in behalf of those who wait for Him” (Isa 64:4). God alone, he says, is the One who ‘acts in behalf of the one who waits for Him’. That is a direct rendering of the NASB. Paul has shifted the term to ‘those who love Him’. Both, I think, give us cause to pause.
In the original text, the term is chakah [OT:2442], which has the idea of awaiting, yes, but the primary sense appears to be ‘to adhere to’. Perhaps this is not the primary, but according to the BDB, it is the Piel sense of the term, which is what is present in the text. OK, what is a Piel sense? Apparently, it denotes a causative sense, i.e. the creation of some state. So, there is in some sense a state of waiting, of longing being suggested here. This is intriguing, because as I was pursuing the definitions behind Paul’s wording, I came across this aspect of that form of love he applies to this quote: agapoosin. You can see that the term is related to that agape love we speak of so often in the church. But, here is a sense to the term which might not be so familiar. It has this idea of so prizing a thing as to ‘be unwilling to abandon it or do without it’. I take that from Thayer. But, you see? The two terms, chakah and agapoosin have this common idea behind them, of adhering, holding tightly, not willing to let go for anything.
If you hunger for wisdom, if you would be possessed of real Truth, here it is: find in God the one thing you are unwilling to abandon or do without. Here is the matter of idolatry laid bare. What is an idol? It’s any other thing that you would let go of God to retain. It’s anything you value more than Him, love more than Him. This is so far beyond emotional response. There’s emotional involvement, to be sure, but it’s not the feeling of adoration that’s in view. It’s not the warmth we feel in thinking upon God. It’s the simple question of how we respond when required to choose. You have one hand on God and another on whatever it may be: Home, family, possessions, work, sports, books, music. If it came down to choosing one or the other, if you had no choice left but to let go of one or the other, which one do you grip more tightly?
What is it that is in your life which, if God said it had to go, you would instead decide He has to go? It would be a rare Christian indeed who could not, in the secret place of his most honest thoughts, recognize that there is something. We don’t want it to be that way. We are ashamed to recognize that it is that way. But, if we deny the truth of it, we cannot mature. It may even be some aspect of ministry, the stuff we are doing in His name that we actually hold to more than to God. That may seem paradoxical, and would that it were. But so corrupt are we that even in serving Him we manage to manufacture idols for ourselves, to make ministries after our own image rather than pursuing what God intends.
The Corinthians, to be sure, had rather high opinion of themselves. At least, some of them did. We can’t make such blanket statements about them any more than we can about our own compatriots. What we can say is that we are neither better nor worse, taken in whole. We, too, tend to have too high an opinion of ourselves. We are an educated society, and we value that highly. We have advanced the sciences, and we value that highly. We work what prior generations would think miracles in the realm of medicine, and we value that highly. But, we run the risk of valuing more highly than God, and that is a horrible end. We run the risk of utterly neglecting the key to wisdom.
Notice where Paul takes this. God revealed these things to us. We didn’t dig them up. We didn’t obtain this wisdom by long hours of deep thought and careful pursuit of logic. We weren’t taught this wisdom in school. We could not obtain this wisdom through apprenticeship. Man cannot, in the end, impart the wisdom. He can speak it, but he cannot bring us to the place of understanding and accepting it. That requires the Spirit of God indwelling. God revealed these things to us through the Spirit, or by His Spirit. The preposition here is dia. In the language of the philosophers, it has the purpose of introducing the instrumental means. In simple terms, He’s the one doing the work of bringing understanding.
Go back to the Isaiah passage. What eye has not seen and ear has not heard. Why? It’s not for lack of things to observe, nor is it for lack of words to hear. The Gospel has been preached. The Bible has been read. The hand of God is visible in Creation. The fault is not found in a lack of data. It’s found in a lack of comprehension. But, man, for all his proud intellect, cannot apprehend the meaning of what he sees and hears, when it comes to matters of God’s plan and purpose. Man cannot arrive at the plan of salvation under his own power, cannot fathom the reality of Messiah, cannot accept the work of redemption which God has achieved. Man has enough trouble avoiding the tendency to make himself the center of the universe. To see with comprehension of what is seen, to hear to good purpose requires the Holy Spirit. Fortunately for us, Jesus Christ, having ascended to heaven, has sent forth the Holy Spirit to indwell those who are the called.
According to Reformed teaching, He is sent to indwell before you are able to respond, because you cannot comprehend the call apart from His presence to interpret the matter to you. Glory to God! He has made it so. Jesus spoke of the coming Spirit in glowing terms. “It is to your advantage that I go away, for otherwise the Helper shall not come to you. But, if I go, I will send Him to you” (Jn 16:7). Imagine that! Here’s the Son of God, the Redeemer, telling us we’re better off with Him in heaven and the Spirit here, rather than the Spirit in heaven and Him here. Now, on one level, of course, the Triune God is always in heaven and always here. But, there is something special that transpires as the Spirit of the Living God is sent forth into the hearts of men. They awaken to what God has done. They see, if dimly, the perfection of the Holy One, and their own incurable deficiency. They begin to comprehend that they are so far from being what they should be as ought to cause them to despair of ever arriving at spiritual maturity. But, they also begin to comprehend that it’s God Himself doing the work in them, that if they will but hold on to Him against every other enticement that may seek to pull them away, He will be doing that work. Indeed, with maturity comes the realization that there really is no chance that He will let go, even if we lose our grip. God does not fail. By His Spirit, we begin to comprehend this, to internalize this, to rest in this. By His Spirit, this restful recognition does not lead us into sloth, but into joyful service and obedience.
Maturing in this way, we have to arrive at the recognition that we have nothing of which to boast but God. He has done it all, and we are the passive recipients of His largesse. And, as we grow, God is pleased to increase our understanding. But, it doesn’t come about by our prowess, although I do believe our efforts are honored. All our efforts would arrive at nothing but doctrines of devils were it not for the Holy Spirit searching out the deep things of God and bringing them to our attention as we are ready to receive them. Look around the history of theological development, even in Christian history, and you can see this to be the case. Men have attempted to shape the course of religious thought after their own best thoughts, and it has proven disastrous. But, where the pure Gospel is upheld, where men lean not on their own understanding but upon the wise counsel of the Holy Spirit, there is the power of holiness made manifest.
Paul closes out this particular point with a reference to our own situation. We each of us have our private life in thought. No matter how transparently we seek to live, the truth of the matter is that much of us remains hidden inside. We are like icebergs, the vast majority of who we are held privately in the mind, and revealed only to whom and to the degree we choose. We may decry that fact. We may find it terrible to think that we hide so much from one another. Science fiction is full of tales of empaths and telepaths and other societies where no thought is hidden from our fellow man. But, these are fantasy. The reality is that much of our thought is hidden, and just as well, for our thought life is not as it should be. But, our thoughts are not hidden from God. Were we to keep that in mind, we should no doubt be nearer the ideal thought life than we are. But, we are incapable of keeping that in mind in this fallen state, and so we know our need for repentance.
But, Paul is going somewhere else with this. He’s noting a similarity between us and our Creator. Just as no man knows our thoughts unless we speak them out, nobody can hope to discern God’s thoughts unless He chooses to speak them out. When God speaks, it is through the Spirit of God, who knows His mind. His Spirit, being perfect as He is perfect, being God as He is God, knows when to speak and when to remain silent. Wise is the man of God who does not insist on prying where the Spirit chooses not to reveal. We cannot demand revelation. We cannot demand dreams and visions. I’m not even certain we should desire them. We have a lifetime of learning to digest what is already revealed in Scripture. We have the indwelling Spirit of the living God as our lawyer, our tutor, our guide in all that pertains to life and holiness. Surely we should trust Him to make known to us that which we need to know. He is our shepherd. The sheep do not tell the shepherd where to lead them or what to feed them. The sheep are not the leaders. They are followers. We are followers of Christ, and He has provided us with the unfailing GPS of the Holy Spirit. Our destination is set and our path is mapped out. He will never need to recalculate the route, for His ways are perfect. As we rest in Him, abide in Him, and let go of our own agendas and predilections, we shall find our feet cheerfully trodding the narrow way that leads to home. And, we shall be assured of arrival in due time.
