Back to Online Material

19

The Meaning Of The Mystery

Eph. 3:1a, 2-6

 

For this cause I Paul . . .

If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

 

 

Thus far our study of Ephesians has taken us through chap­ters 1 and 2:

 

·        Chapter 1 ‑ The Believer’s Riches In Christ;

·        Chapter 2 ‑ The Believer’s Reconciliation To God.

This brings us to the third section of the doctrinal half of Ephesians:

 

·        Chapter 3 ‑ The Believer’s Rank In God’s Plan.

 

This chapter can further be divided into two sections:

 

·        The Explanation Of the Mystery (3:1‑12);

·        The Encouragement To The Saints (3:13‑21).

 

As we approach this chapter of Ephesians, we should realize just how important verses 1‑12 are. We have here the most com­plete explanation of the “mystery” of the Church in all the New Testament. Many today do not understand the ministry of the Church because they do not understand the meaning of the Church, and they in-turn don’t understand either one of those because they do not know what these verses say.

 

Before going on, we should notice something very subtle in verse 1. While we’ll look more closely at verse 1 in the next chapter, we should note here how it begins, For this cause. It’s interesting that if we look at verse 14, we see that it, too, begins with these words. So, as many commentators point out, what we actually see here is that verses 2‑13 is an interruption of the thought begun in verse 1. We recall back in chapter 1:4‑14 how Paul was carried away by the sublime Truth he was writing. We see much the same thing here. Paul’s mind and heart are so full of thoughts of the Church that he continues and elabo­rates on what he started in chapter 2. He revels in the fact that the true believer is a “new man” (v. 15), that all believers, Jew and Gentile, are “in one body” (v. 16), that Gentiles, “who were afar off,” are now brought near in Christ (v. 17), that all believers have access to the Father (v. 18) and are equal citizens of His kingdom and members of His family (v. 19), and that all believers are part of God’s living Temple that continues to grow (v. 21). And now he brings all that together to show what it has created—the Church.

 

The Church is, indeed, an amazing reality. That is why it is called a “mystery” later in this passage (vs. 3-6); a “mystery” is that which was hidden and is now Divinely revealed. What a silly notion that some Bible students have that the Church existed in the Old Testament. Paul makes it very clear that in other ages it was not made known; Old Testament saints had no concept of the Church.

 

We should also point out that even though verses 2‑13 are what we call a “grammatical interruption,” they are in no way parenthetical or secondary in importance. A parenthesis is usually something said as “an aside,” a secondary thought that is not as important as the primary idea. This passage is no less important than the rest of the chapter.

 

In the next few chapters of our study we will examine this “Explanation of the Mystery” by looking at three divisions of verses 1‑12:

 

·        The Meaning of The Mystery (vs. 2‑6)

·        The Minister of The Mystery (vs. 1, 7‑8a)

·        The Ministry of The Mystery (vs. 8b‑12)

To examine the meaning of the mystery, we must study two related terms: Dispensation and Mystery.

 

I. The Term “Dispensation” (v.2)

If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

 

 

Let us first examine this often-misunderstood term and then detail how Paul uses it here.

 

The Term By Itself

 

As I shared from the pulpit, there is a reason that we should mention what follows. By this discussion we are building toward our main emphasis, namely, a specific method of Biblical interpretation. How should we interpret the Bible? Should we take the words literally, or should we allegorize them? Should be take them as they are, or should we just interpret them based on how they make us feel at the moment? The answer to those questions provides the key to whether or not we understand Biblical Truth.

 

We touched on this term dispensation back in 1:10. The Greek word, oikonomia, consists of two words: oikos (an ancient Greek word as we saw in the last chapter that means “house, dwelling place”) and nomos (a law). So the idea is “the law of a house.” The word speaks of the oversight, management, or stewardship one has over the affairs of a household. Applied to Scripture, this simply means that as the owner of His “household-world” God is overseeing, managing, and administering everything according to His will and purpose and is doing so in various stages. Dr. C. I. Scofield gives one of the best definitions of a dispensation as it is used in Scripture:

A period of time during which man is tested in re­spect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.[1]

 

In his characteristic simplicity, Harry Ironside, who has been called “the prince of dispensational preachers,” gives this description and definition of “dispensation,” or “economy:”

An economy is an ordered condition of things. Domestic economy is the ordering of a house. But the economy of one house is not necessarily the economy of every other house . . . Then there is political economy. The ordering of the affairs of one nation is not the economy of another . . . A dispensation, an economy, then, is that particular order or condition of things prevailing in one special age which does not necessarily prevail in another.[2]

 

There have been (and still are) those who reject, or at least question, the dispensational approach to understanding Scripture. There are those who even laugh and scoff at dispensationalists and look on them condescendingly, considering them little more than unscholarly simpletons. Others are just downright mean spirited and unchristian, such as one writer who calls Dispensationalism “a cult and not a branch of the Christian church” and calls dispensationalists “false teachers” and “heretics.” I do want to be loving here, but I must also say that I find such a comment not only unchristian but dishonest. Frankly, I found it so discrediting that I saw no point in reading the rest of this man’s book.[3]

 

One misrepresentation of Dispensationalism is that since it teaches that God works differently in various ages that God, therefore, in some economies works according to works and not grace. To be loving but still frank, such a comment barely deserves a response. Dispensationalism teaches no such thing. God ALWAYS works according to grace, but through the ages He has worked out that grace in different ways, He has manifested His grace in diverse manners, He has illustrated and demonstrated His grace in varied economies.

 

One of the chief charges leveled against Dispensationalism is that it is a recent system of interpretation, but that charge is patently false for two historical reasons. [4]

 

First, while it is true that Dispensationalism as a system is traced back to the 19th century Bible teacher and founder of the Plymouth Brethren John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), it is equally true that the Biblical principles that form the foundation of Dispensationalism were recognized by many leaders in the Early Church. As early as Justin Martyr (110-165), we see a realization of differing programs of God in different ages. He observed that Enoch and Noah, for example, pleased God just as much as Abraham did even though they had neither circumcision nor the Sabbath.[5] Here are obvious differences in how God dealt with men. Irenaeus (130-200) likewise recognized the differences in how God worked in the times of Adam, Noah, Moses, and the New Testament Gospel.[6] Clement of Alexandria (150-220) also recognized four dispensations of God’s rule.[7] Augustine (354-430) most certainly recognized the dispensational principle in Scripture when he wrote:

The divine institution of sacrifice was suitable in the former dispensation, but is not suitable now. For the change suitable to the present age has been enjoined by God, who knows infinitely better than man what is fitting for every age, and who is, whether He give or add, abolish or curtail, increase or diminish, the unchangeable Governor as He is the unchangeable Creator of mutable things, ordering all events in His providence until the beauty of the completed course of time, the component parts of which are the dispensations adapted to each successive age, shall be finished, like the grand melody of some ineffably wise master of song, and those pass into the eternal immediate contemplation of God who here, though it is a time of faith, not of sight, are acceptably worshipping Him.[8]

 

Indeed, as a composer of a concerto or symphony creates several movements in his composition, each one having various themes and variations, God has created His “Symphony of History” in various movements, each one with its own theme and outworking or grace, which He will ultimately bring to its conclusion for His glory.

 

Now, while we in no way want to imply that these early fathers were “Dispensationalists” in the present use of the term, they clearly demonstrate to us their understanding of differing economies in Scripture. As Charles Ryrie puts it, “they held to primitive or early dispensational-like concepts.”[9]

 

Second, later on, but still over a hundred years before Darby, French mystic and philosopher Pierre Poiret (1646-1719) became the first (in 1687) to systemize a dispensational scheme of Scripture and history that consisted of seven dispensations.[10]

 

In light of the accusation that “Dispensationalists are Arminian and weak on the Doctrines of Grace, it was only twelve years after Poiret in 1699 that a Calvinistic minister in the Church of England, John Edwards (1637-1716), published his 790-page, two-volume work, A Compleat History or Survey of All the Dispensations.

 

Likewise, in the same era, theologian and hymn writer Isaac Watts (1674-1648) defined his concept of dispensations in a forty-page essay entitled, “The Harmony of all the Religions which God Ever Prescribed to Men and All His Dispensations towards them.” It’s interesting that except for his exclusion of the Millennium (because he didn’t consider it to be a separate dispensation), it’s Watts’ outline that is identical to C. I. Scofield’s, not Darby’s as one would expect, and what non-dispensationalists would have people believe.

 

So, while Darby was without question the foremost systemizer and promoter of Dispensationalism, he most certainly was not the originator or founder of the system and technically not even the first one to systemize it. Many others before him recognized that God has worked in varying ways throughout history, and others even formulated a system. To say, as does one writer, “The essential doctrine of dispensationalism cannot be found prior to the nineteenth century,”[11] is just plain wrong.

 

I recount this history for two reasons, first, to dispel the notion that the dispensational approach is new and novel. Those who claim that it is are simply either not being thorough in their research or are not being objective in their reporting. In point of fact, Covenant Theology, the chief rival of Dispensationalism, is actually not much older, despite those who try to make it appear so. Put simply, Covenant Theology is a system of Biblical interpretation that attempts to develop the Bible’s philosophy of history on the basis of two or three covenants. Most see only two, the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, while some see a third prior to those two, the Covenant of Redemption. But this covenant principle is seldom mentioned in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, is does not appear at all in the writings of the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Melanchthon), and it was not actually systemized until the 16th Century.[12]

 

The second reason for giving the historical background is to demonstrate the importance of this approach. After many years of study, I am convinced that the dispensational approach to Scripture is essential for the proper and consistent interpretation and understanding of Scripture. Charles Ryrie offers three helps provided by the dispensational approach.[13]

 

First, and I believe foremost, it provides consistent hermeneutics. “Hermeneutics” transliterates the Greek noun hermēneia, from the verb hermēneuō, “to interpret, explain, or translate.” It’s used, for example in John 1:38, where the disciples say to Jesus, “Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master)” and verse 41 where John says to his brother, “We have found the [Messiah], which is, being interpreted, the Christ.” So, while “hermeneutics” proper speaks of how we interpret Scripture, these and other verses demonstrate that the basic principle of proper interpretation is that we simply interpret according to what words mean.

 

This, then, is exactly what the dispensational approach to Scripture does: it is the result of taking Scripture in its literal, plain, and normal meaning. In other words, every word is given the same meaning that it has in its normal usage. This sounds so reasonable that it doesn’t seem like anyone would object. But some do nonetheless, thinking the Bible, or at least parts of it, must be turned into allegory or given some hidden, mysterious meaning. Liberals, for example, deny the Bible outright as historical fact, calling it myth, allegory, and contradictory accounts. Why do they say that? There can be only one reason. They must, because if they admit the Bible’s historical accuracy, they are left to face what else It says about sin, righteousness, judgment, and redemption.

 

Even some evangelicals have problems along this line. Covenant Theology, for example, spiritualizes Old Testament circumcision so it refers now to infant baptism (or perhaps just “baby dedication,” as some Christians practice). A pastor friend of mine once asked one of his covenant theologian seminary professors, “If circumcision is now infant baptism, why do you baptize baby girls?” to which the professor had no answer. Why? Because if you do not use words in their normal usage (and recognize distinctions, as we’ll see in a moment), you will be left with irreconcilable problems.

 

Why spiritualize the Bible when we don’t do this with any other piece of literature? No one that I know of spiritualizes Shakespeare’s accurate historical plays Julius Caesar and Richard III. Neither do I know anyone who would be foolish enough to say, “Well, I have this book on how to build a car, so I think I’ll just allegorize it and build an airplane.” Do we not take all literature and take the words in their normal meaning (unless the literature itself dictates otherwise)?

 

I know this will be offensive to some, perhaps almost heresy—and I apologize in advance—but this is precisely why I don’t like John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress or any other allegory. I want Truth; I want words that mean something specific, not words that can mean anything I envision them to mean, or want them to mean, or force them to mean.

 

May I also interject here that this is why Bible translations such as the NIV and others are plainly dangerous. Why does the majority of the Church today refuse to recognize the destructiveness of “Dynamic Equivalency,” on which such translations are proudly based? This philosophy simply means that instead of translating word-for-word, the translators “have striven for more than a word-for-word translation,” choosing rather to use “a minimum of literalism, paraphrase, or outright dynamic equivalence,” which they explain as the translator seeking to “express the meaning as the biblical writers would if they were writing in English today.”[14]

 

The danger of “Dynamic Equivalence” is so obvious that it defies logic that anyone concerned with Biblical accuracy and authority would choose to use it. Without a word-for-word, literal approach, in which the Hebrew and Greek words are rendered as closely as possible into English, how on earth can we expect accuracy? And if we don’t have accuracy, how can we have authority?[15] This is an obvious disfiguring and defacing of the Words of God. It reminds me of graffiti on the side of a building. Yes, it’s still a building, but it’s been defaced so badly that you can no longer see its beauty.

 

Truth, then, can be found only in what words mean. So important is this principle, in fact, that if it is consistently followed, the interpreter will be a dispensationalist. For example, as we’ll see later, if the prophecies of the Old Testament are taken literally, a literal Millennium is the only conclusion that can be reached.[16] But aren’t there symbols, pictures, and figurative language in Scripture? Certainly, but they too are taken in their normal sense, since any “figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved.”[17] In other words, even figures of speech can only be understood if you take the words that describe it in their normal sense.

 

I would go so far to say, in fact—and I know I will be severely criticized for this—that those who hold to a consistent plain, normal interpretation of Scripture ultimately have a higher view of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture than those who hold any other view of interpretation. Those who allegorize and spiritualize Scripture have no qualms about adding their own thoughts, ideas, creeds, or methods to Scripture. Why should they? After all, if it doesn’t mean what it says, then it can mean anything. It’s the student who holds the view that “words mean something” who will have the higher view of Scripture.

 

What truly matters in Biblical interpretation can be boiled down to a single principle: What does the text say? When we study Scripture according to its language, context, and comparison to Itself (analogia scripturae, “the analogy of Scripture,” i.e. comparing Scripture with Scripture[18]), we allow the Scripture to interpret Itself. When we do that, Scripture interprets Itself. The old adage, “Well, that’s just your interpretation,” is a smoke screen to hide from the Truth of what the text says. Our motto must be, What does the text say?—not, “What do you think it says?” Or “How does it make you feel?”—rather, what does It say? If we ignore this principle, we are headed for disaster.

 

As a reminder of this, I framed and hung a small sign on one of the walls in my study. It has five large letters on it: WDTTS? (What Does The Text Say?). It is the text of God’s Word that drives me to know Truth. It is that alone to which I am committed.

 

Second, the dispensational approach answers the need of a philosophy of history. A philosophy of history simply seeks to interpret and apply history in a meaningful way. It does this by first recounting what and why something happened, second, interpreting it according to a particular unifying principle that ties all events together, and third, demonstrating how this fulfills the ultimate purpose and goal of history.

 

Dispensationalism best accomplishes this because it views the ultimate goal in human history to be the earthly Millennial Kingdom, which demonstrates the sovereignty of God over human history.[19] It also does this because it views the unifying principle of history as being God’s glory, as His glory is exhibited in the differing ways that He manifests Himself in the various dispensations.[20]

 

Third, the dispensational approach answers the need for Biblical distinctions. This simply means that there are distinctions in Scripture that must be recognized and understood. The most basic distinction in Scripture, for example, is between the Old Testament and the New. Without an understanding of this distinction, the Bible is incomprehensible.

 

Dispensationalism understands not only that distinction but others as well, most significantly, the Jew, the Gentile, and the Church.[21] I Corinthians 10:32, for example, specifically mentions these three groups by name. In a context about Christian liberty, Paul says that our liberty should never become license to offend any other believer, whether Jew, Gentile, or [a member of] the Church. The fact that he mentions Jews as separate from the Church is a clear indication that Israel was not replaced by the New Testament church but remains distinct in this age. In other words, there are unsaved Jews, and there are unsaved Gentiles, but some from both groups are made one in Christ’s Body, the Church.[22]

 

So, as Scripture clearly demonstrates, God has different ways of “managing” His plan and purpose from age to age. We shall see why He has done so later in our study, but for now we actually see seven dispensations in Scripture; that is, there have been (and will be) seven specific ways in which God has (and will) deal with man. To better understand our present text—If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward—let us brief­ly describe these dispensations. We do so for a very special reason, namely, when we understand this overview of human history, we will then understand what God will ultimately do in that human history, which is the earthly, millennial reign of Jesus Christ.

 

First, the Dispensation of Innocence covered the time from the creation of man to the fall of man (Gen. 1:28‑3:24). God dealt with man according to innocence; that is, God made man with no knowledge of sin. Does God still work this way? Of course not. That is why we recognize distinctions in Scripture. Even in this perfect condition, however, man still disobeyed God’s command not to eat of the forbidden tree and was judged for it.

 

Second, the Dispensation of Conscience lasted from the fall to the flood (Gen. 4‑8:14). God dealt with man accord­ing to man’s conscience; each man “knew good and evil” (3:22) and was to respond to God through promptings of his conscience and in that response was to bring blood sacrifice (4:4‑7). We have many today who say, “Oh, just let your conscience be your guide,” but if we allow this, we will fail God every time. Indeed, God is no longer dealing with man in this way. Our guide must not be our conscience; rather, our guide must be the Word of God! Man failed miserably in that dispensation and God judged severely through the universal flood.

 

Third, the Dispensation of Human Government lasted from the flood to the Tower of Babel (Gen. 8:15‑11:9, or 32 if you include the genealogy). In that age God allowed man to govern himself and in so doing establish God’s name. But man in no way established God’s name; rather he established his own name and built a tower to symbolize it (11:4). God judged man by confounding the language, which in turn scat­tered the people over all the Earth.

 

Fourth, the Dispensation of Promise (or the Patriarchs) covered the time from the Tower of Babel to Israel’s arrival at Sinai (Gen. 11:10‑Ex. 19:2). God dealt by giving His formed nation the promised land as long as they remained in it. But they disobeyed by going to Egypt where God allowed them to be enslaved as judgment.

 

Fifth, the Dispensation of the Law began with the giving of the Mosaic Law (Ex. 19:3), has been interrupted by the Church Age, and will conclude at the close of the Tribulation Period. This is often a misunderstood dispensation. God dealt in this age by giving specific laws for men to follow; they were to keep all the Law (Jas. 2:10). Many say that this dispensation ended at Pentecost, that is, at the beginning of the Church Age (Acts 2:1). But this is not accurate; the dispensation of Law did not end, but rather was interrupted. The Church Age, as we’ll see in a moment, must be viewed as a parenthesis.

 

In other words, God dealt with the Jews according to the 613 commandments of the Mosaic Law, which covered every aspect of life, He then interrupted this to “visit the nations [Gentiles] to take out of them a people for His name [the Church]” (Acts 15:14), and will return to His dealing with the Jews during “Daniel’s 70th Week,” the Tribulation Period. God’s people failed God’s test miserably, breaking God’s Law repeatedly (Jer. 31:32; Ezek. 16; cf. Rom. 10:1-3) and were judged several times throughout the economy, especially the captivities in Babylon and Assyria.

 

Sixth, the Dispensation of Grace (or the Church) lasts from Pentecost to the Rapture of the Church (Acts 2:1 through Rev. 4:l). Again, this age is parenthetical; it is unique. God is now dealing according to the finished work of Christ on the cross. But, as always, the majority of men will fail and God will judge.

 

Seventh, the Dispensation of the Millennium (Latin mille, “1,000,” and annum, “year”) will last from the Second Coming of Christ to the Great White Throne Judg­ment (Rev. 20). During that marvelous time God will deal according to Christ’s rule on the earth; He will rule with a “rod of iron” (19:15) and reign for a thousand years (20:4, 6). The result will, of course, be that man will fail as he follows Satan (who is loosed for a time at the close of the Millennium, 20:7‑8).

 

It is singularly important to point out that one of the capstones of Covenant Theology is a rejection of a literal Millennium, in favor of either Amillennialism[23] or Post-Millennialism.[24] As I meditate on this fact, I am troubled. With a wave of an allegorical hand, Covenant Theology dismisses prophecies that speak of literal Kingdom

 

Without going into detail, it can be stated with certainty that, regardless of what anyone might say to the contrary, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the prominent position of the Early Church from the first to the third century was that of Premillennialism, the view that states that the Lord Jesus will return to the Earth to establish His literal, physical, political reign over the whole Earth for 1,000 years. As the renowned 19th Century Church historian Philip Schaff wrote:

The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millennarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius.[25]

 

How significant that is! Oddly, however, Covenant theologians do not consider this to be at all significant. With this fact established, we are forced to ask the question, “While in the first three centuries after the Apostolic Age most students of Scripture held to the future establishment of Christ’s literal Kingdom, what happened to change it?”

 

Among other reasons, one major reason for the drift away from a premillennial view in the third and fourth centuries was the theology of Alexandrian teacher Origen (c. 185-c.254). He became enamored with pagan Greek philosophy and was strongly influenced by its dualism, which taught that matter is evil and only the nonphysical is good. This resulted in his viewing a literal, physical kingdom with physical blessings as evil and prompted him to develop the idea of a spiritual kingdom where Christ simply rules presently in the hearts of believers, which is the definition of Amillennialism. What is the root of Amillennialism? Pagan dualism. Does this not put Amillennialism in a whole new light? What is the matter with evangelicals that they would believe such a view?

 

We should also note that for similar reasons, Augustine (354-430) also rejected Premillennialism. Not only did Greek philosophy influence his thinking, but his own immoral living before his conversion did as well and drove him toward asceticism and the rejection of literal, physical, and therefore “carnal,” Kingdom blessings. Like many today, Augustine “experience” effected his theology.

 

Another major reason for the shift was Origen’s new method of interpreting the Bible, called the Allegorical or Spiritualizing Method, which looks at words as symbols of something else besides the normal meaning of the words. In essence then, the interpreter, no matter how sincere his motives or godly his aims, can make the text say whatever he wants it to say. Origen did just that and ended up in several heresies, such as rejection of a physical resurrection and universal salvation for all men and even fallen angels. The potential apostasy of this kind of interpretation cannot be overemphasized.[26]

 

To illustrate, how many so-called “Bible study groups” have spawned heresy? Popular today is the practice of people getting together without qualified leadership and just “sharing.” Someone will read a verse and then ask the group, “What do you think that means? How does it strike you? How does it make you feel?” But all that is irrelevant. What matters is what the text says in its plain, normal meaning.

 

Looking at another side of this, however, are those who allegorize Scripture in another way, one of the chief areas of which is again the interpretation of prophecy. One example is how some fanciful interpret Revelation 9, where we find the description of the plague of locusts that sting like scorpions, which will inflict mankind during the Tribulation Period. One commentator writes about his Vietnam veteran friend who thought this has to be describing Cobra attack helicopters and that the torment of the sting will be nerve gas sprayed from the aircraft’s tail. The commentator admits that this might be “conjecture” but that it does “fit the composite description.”[27]

 

Another commentator writes that these locusts may be of the insect or animal variety, but that they might be men with jet packs strapped to their backs, who emit a chemical substance from a canister that inflicts a painful sting.[28]

 

Still another commentator says that the old opinion of this being B-29 bombers that sting from their tail (because of the tail guns) is “fanciful,” but then turns right around and says they are “spirit-beings who probably will not be seen by men, but whose effects will be strongly felt.” He continues by saying that “they are not to be taken literally, nor symbolically, but spiritually.”[29]

 

May we ask these men, What’s wrong with the plain interpretation that this plague will be a literal plague of locusts that sting like scorpions? Why ignore Revelation 9:5 that plainly says the plague will last 5 months, which is the natural life-span of locusts? Compare these fanciful interpretations with that of rock solid expositors, such as William Newell, who not only brings out what we’ve noted here, but who also has this to say about other “interpretations:”

Now no one who believes the Bible has any trouble believing the record of that last plague. Nor has any one any right to have any difficulty about the terrible locust plague of Revelation 9. It is because of the fog of unbelief, and the super-fog of “historical interpretation,” that this passage has been considered “hard to understand.” If we do not believe that God means what He so plainly and explicitly says in Revelation 9, let us say we do not believe it, and be honest. But let us not dare to bring in vain imaginations and call them interpretations of Scripture.[30]

 

All this is a vivid illustration of allegorizing and spiritualizing Scripture. This kind of Biblical interpretation is dangerous because it allows every person to think of something different. Was this God’s intention? Certainly not! It matters not what we think Scripture means, rather what It really does mean according to the plain language of Scripture.

 

Spiritualizing Scripture is also a common practice among preachers. I recently read about the pastor who preached on Jericho. He told how God gave the Israelites the city, how they marched around the city seven times, and how the walls fell down. His “application” of this truth was that if a young man believed God had given him a girl, he could claim her, march around her seven times, and the walls of her heart would fall down! Believe it or not, that couple (and other couples) got married on that basis, but as you might expect, marital problems came soon after.[31] Other preachers are “hyper-typers,” teaching such things as each pillar of the temple having a deeper symbolic meaning.

 

Does this mean that the Bible never speaks figuratively? Of course not. But when Scripture is used figuratively, It makes it plain that It is doing so. When Paul writes about putting on the “armor of God” (Eph. 6:11-17), for example, he makes it very plain that this is figurative, illustrative language. Certainly, the Word of God is not a literal sword, but It is our only offensive weapon (as was the soldier’s sword), and It is used in much the same way. Hebrews 4:12 gives us the same analogy, saying the Word of God is sharper than a two-edged sword, cutting through pretense, and discerning not only our thoughts but even our very intentions.

 

The late Dr. David Cooper summed up the matter very well when he said:

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore; take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicated clearly otherwise.[32]

 

Again, the main reason many shy away from a plain interpretation of the Bible is to escape what It demands. As we’ll see in the chapters that follow, taking the Bible plainly is demanding. The Word of God has something to say about every aspect of human life; It leaves nothing to chance and never leaves us to “decide for ourselves.”

 

Coming back to the term “Millennium,” with an allegorical approach, even the prefix mille (1,000) becomes meaningless, for it no longer means 1,000, rather an indefinite period of time. The Amillennialist really should call himself something else entirely, such as the concocted Latin word, Multiennialist, and refer to his doctrine as Multiennialism (“many years”). If one is going to allegorize a new doctrine into existence, he might as well create a new word for it.

 

Try as I may, I just do not understand why some evangelicals practice a plain, normal, literal interpretation of Scripture in most areas of doctrine except Eschatology. As would a student in the classroom, I must raise my hand and say, “I don’t get it.” It simply makes no sense. While they believe literal truths such as Christ’s death and resurrection and many others, when it comes to Eschatology they just take off into the mist.

 

Even less do I understand why any evangelical would hold to Amillennialism, for not only is it the result of allegory, but it is also the historical and present position of Roman Catholicism, which it adopted directly from Augustine’s confusion.

 

Consider something else. What blessings men miss out on by such hopeless interpretation! How tragic that they reject the truth that our Lord will come to Earth and rule and reign with perfect justice (Is. 32:1), that former enemies, such as Egypt and Israel, will be at peace with each other for the first time (Is. 19:23-25), and that the whole world will be at peace as the nations “beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Is. 2:4). How sad that they cannot enjoy the thought that, “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them” (Is. 11:6-9). How sad that they can’t look forward to the time when humanity will know great longevity of life (Is. 65:20-22), and when the Earth will again be as Eden (Is. 51:3). How sad that they can’t rejoice in the fact that the Earth will experience more productivity than its known since the Fall, when “the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose” and become useful again (Is. 35:1-7).

 

Now, we have reviewed the seven dispensations so that we can ask the following question: Why has God dealt in seven distinct ways? This is a very pertinent question, one which gives great credibility to Dispensationalism. One reason, as mentioned earlier, is to ultimately show His glory in each age. I am convinced, however, that there is another reason, namely: God has dealt in these seven ways to give man every opportunity to believe, and He uses SEVEN (the number of “perfection”) so man will have no excuse when he stands be­fore God in judgment. For example, no man will be able to say to God, “Oh, if only I had been innocent, without the knowledge of sin,” because man failed that test in the Dispensation of Innocence. No man will be able to say, “God, if only You would have given us a perfect ruler who would have told us everything to do,” because man will fail that test in the Millennial Kingdom. In every dispensation the majority of men disobey God’s command; only a small portion, the “remnant,” obey and receive God’s reward.

 

The Term Within Our Text (v. 2)

If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

 

Every dispensation has a “steward,” a man to whom the responsibility of carrying out the commands of the dispensation is given. Notice each of the seven again:

 

·        Innocence – Adam

·        Conscience – Noah

·        Human Government – Noah

·        Promise – Abraham

·        Law – Moses

·        Grace (Church) – Paul

·        Millennium – Christ

 

Therefore, the point of our text is that Paul was given the greatest amount of knowledge and responsibility concerning the present dispensation. This does NOT mean Paul was the only one who had knowledge of this age. There were others who knew of this age, but Paul knew more than anyone else. (We’ll see more of this when we study the term “mystery.”)

 

Specifically then, what dispensation is spoken of in our text?—the dispensation of the grace of God. I have encountered some dispensationalists who do not like to say, “The Dispensa­tion of Grace.” They prefer the title “Dispensation of the Church” because “Dispensation of Grace” makes it sound like this is the only age in which there has been grace. But this admirable objection is unnecessary. While it is quite true that the basis of salvation is always grace no matter what dis­pensation, there has never been a greater display of grace than in this age. In fact, the display of God’s grace in this age is so great that previous dispensations shrink by comparison. We do not mean to say that other dispensations were minor or less important; rather no other dispensation has had God’s grace so greatly manifested.

 

We can prove this thought in a couple of ways. First, this can be proven by just thinking of the definition of grace. As we examine in Ephesians 2:7‑9, grace can be defined as:

The unmerited favour of God toward man manifested primarily through the person and work of Jesus Christ, apart from any merit or works of man.

 

So, may we say: yes, every dispensation is based on grace, but the primary manifestation of grace was the finished work of Jesus Christ. No other display of God’s grace has equaled that!

 

If that proof is not enough, we submit a second. God has never been as close to man than He is in this age. Let us illu­strate by going through the dispensations again:

 

·        INNOCENCE – God WITH man

·        CONSCIENCE

·        HUMAN GOVERNMENT     God TO Man

·        PROMISE

·        LAW:

1.EARLY – God AMONG men (in the Tabernacle; Ex. 25:8)

2.MIDDLE – God THROUGH man (as He dealt with and through the Prophets; Jer. 37:2; Hag. 2:1; etc.)

3.LATTER – God AS man (coming of Christ; Jn. 1:14; Phil. 2:7)

·        GRACE ‑ God IN man (Jn. 14:16‑20)

Do you see the progression? God has progressively come closer and closer down through the ages, but never has He been as close as He is in this age, for He is now IN us.

 

May we meditate a moment on John 14:16‑20:

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

 

How thrilling! The words “At that day” can refer only to the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and the words “ye in Me” refer to the believer being in the Body of Christ, the Church. But the focal point is the phrase, “I in you,” which refers to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit WITHIN the believer. And it is all because of grace!

 

Oh, that we would see that we live in the greatest age ever known! Once again this great theme grace is in view. As we have seen, there is more about grace in Ephesians than in any other book of Scripture. In fact, this theme is so grand that it declares that we are now living in the dispensation of the grace of God.

 

II. The Term “Mystery” (vs. 3-6)

How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

 

The second term that demands our attention is the term mystery. As we did with the term “dispensation,” let us examine two things.

 

The Term By Itself

 

We examined the history of the Greek word mystery (mustērion) back in Chapter 4, so we will not repeat it here. Rather, let us go deeper into the New Testament usage. Basically, the New Testament meaning of mystery is, “That which was hidden, now Divinely revealed.” Kenneth Wuest, however, a noted Greek scholar, offers a much better one: “A sacred purpose of God which when uncovered [by God] is understood by the Spirit‑taught believer.”[33]

 

That definition is excellent since just because God has revealed a truth, that doesn’t mean men automatically understand it. God must not only uncover a mystery, He must also explain it through the Holy Spirit. For example, God re­vealed the mystery of the Church to the Apostles and Prophets, but the Holy Spirit had to give them (and their hearers and readers) understanding.

 

Paul further emphasizes this point by adding the word revelation. We first encountered this word back in 1:17, where we saw that the Greek apokalupsis, in the theological sense, speaks of the uncovering or disclosure of previously hidden things and that it is the Holy Spirit Who does this. It’s interesting that while this word is used occasionally in Classical Greek and the Septuagint in the literal sense, such as physically uncovering or stripping a person, it is rarely found in the religious or theological sense.[34] Similarly, the equivalent Latin word revelatio (“revelation”) “was absolutely unknown in classical Latin,” being “born in ecclesiastical Latin.”[35]

 

This illustrates how dramatic this word was in the New Testament usage. Used predominantly (but not exclusively) by Paul, it paints the picture of God majestically revealing Himself to His creatures. In comparing this word to relatively synonymous words, Greek scholar Richard Trench writes:

  . . . apokalupsis is the more comprehensive and grander word. It depicts the progressive and immediate unveiling of the otherwise unknown and unknowable God to His church throughout the ages . . . The world may know something of God (His eternal power and Godhead) from the things that are seen . . . (Rom. 1:20). But there is no apokalupsis except to the church.[36]

 

Most significant are Trench’s words “the otherwise unknown and unknowable God.” God must reveal Himself if man is to ever know Him. Joseph Parker, 19th Century Congregationalist preacher and contemporary of Charles Surgeon in London, wrote this about revelation: “After reading the doctrines of Plato, Socrates, or Aristotle, we feel the specific difference between their words and Christ’s is the difference between an inquiry and a revelation.”[37] Indeed, man can only ask questions in his scientific, moral, political, religious, and philosophic quests, but he can never find Truth until God reveals it. And where has God revealed Himself? In dreams, visions, and ecstatic utterances as some claim today? NO. God has already revealed to us all that He is going to reveal in His Word and through His Spirit.

 

So, there are several “mysteries” in the New Testament. We examined one of these back in Ephesians 1:9 (Chapter 4). We found there the mystery of bringing man back into fellowship with God. The context clearly showed how Christ redeemed us and then how God has now revealed this fact to us. That was something men could not even begin to imagine. Yes, they were looking for Messiah, but they had no idea how God would through Messiah’s one sacrifice save all those who would believe. In the Old Testament sacrifice, there were thousands of sacrifices made every year, day after day, of animals and produce, but Jesus made one sacrifice for sin. There wasn’t a chair anywhere in sight in the Temple or Tabernacle sanctuaries because the priest’s job was never finished, but when Jesus’ work of redemption was complete and He uttered those words, “It is finished”  (Jn. 19:30), He “sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb. 1:3). All that was a mystery to the Old Testament saint, but through Paul God reveals it to spirit-taught believers in this age.

 

Further, the Old Testament saint could never have conceptualized how Jews and Gentiles would be made one. Yes, God said that through Abraham, all nations would be blessed (Gen. 13:1), but how He would accomplish that was hidden, until now. This leads us right to the use of mystery here in our text.

 

The Term Within Our Text (vs. 3‑6)

 

How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

 

The mystery of the Church is, without question, the most vivid and dramatic mys­tery revealed in the New Testament, and this short passage is the most vivid explanation of it. We find here four facts concerning the mystery of the Church.

 

First, what the mystery is: That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel (v. 6). We look at this verse first for the sake of clarity and immediate understanding. In short: The previously hidden truth that is now Divinely revealed is that Jew and Gentile are now one in Christ. How marvelous this is! Both Jew and Gentile equally inherit salvation and the blessings it brings; both are equal members in the Body of Christ. Such an idea was so far beyond conception that a Gentile would of thought it laughable and a Jew would have thought it repugnant. In his commentary on Ephesians, John MacArthur well states how radical this idea was:

 . . . it is difficult for us to realize how incredibly revolutionary that truth was to Jews of Paul’s day. In spite of the fact that the Old Testament teaches that Gentiles will be blessed by God (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14), that Gentiles will bless God (Psalm 72), that the Messiah will come to Gentiles (Isa. 11:10; 49:6; 54:1–3; 60:1–3), that they will be saved by the Messiah (Hos. 1:10; Amos 9:11ff.), and that they will receive the Holy Spirit (Joel 2:28–29), the idea of including Gentiles in one body with Jews was the spiritual equivalent of saying that lepers were no longer to be isolated, that they were now perfectly free to intermingle and associate with everyone else as normal members of society. In the minds of most Jews, their spiritual separation from Gentiles was so absolute and so right that the thought of total equality before God was inconceivable and little short of blasphemy.

 

But Paul goes to great lengths to demonstrate that this is precisely what God has done in Christ. He has brought an unthinkable unity through the Savior’s blood.

 

Once again Paul uses incredibly descriptive and significant words. In the original, the three terms fellowheirs, of the same body, and partakers all begin with the same Greek prefix, a fact that is, of course, missed in any English translation. The prefix is sun, which means “together, together with” implying a close connection. The first root word, then, is klēronomos, which means “an heir, a sharer by lot.” When the prefix is added (sugklēronomos), the meaning is “a joint heir, a joint-participant.” This word appears in Hebrews 11:9 where Isaac and Jacob are said to be heirs with Abraham. We also find it in I Peter 3:7, where wives are said to be “heirs together” with their husbands of grace. This was especially significant, for in every religion on earth, except Biblical Christianity, the woman is inferior to the man in every way. It is Christianity that makes men and women truly equal. While there are differing roles and responsibilities, spiritually they share exactly the same position, privilege, and prize.

 

So Paul is telling the Ephesians that they are fellowheirs with Jews, equal in spiritual blessings and inheritance. As Paul has said previously, Gentiles were once “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants” (2:12), but now have the same spiritual “riches” (1:18), “inheritance” (1:11, 14, 18), and “blessings” (1:3).

 

The root behind the phase of the same body is sōmos or sōma, meaning “body, an organized whole made up of parts and members.”[38] When the prefix is added, the result is sussomos, which is found only here in the New Testament and which some believe Paul actually invented to further make his point,[39] pictures all the parts belonging to and together in the same body. If being fellowheirs is not enough to convince his readers of this amazing unity, being of the same body certainly is. As Martyn Lloyd-Jones writes:

This is what demolishes all attempts to perpetuate a distinction between the Jew and the Gentile. It is not, says Paul, that the Gentiles are simply added on somewhat loosely; they are compacted together as joints together in the same body, and no one joint is more “in the body” than any other joint.[40]

 

Finally, the root behind partakers is metochos, meaning partaking of something or participating in something. It’s also used to speak of a partner, as in Luke 5:7, where Peter and the others in his boat had so many fish in their net that “they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them.” When the prefix is added (summetochos), the idea is intensified that we are “partners together.” How can we be more together than being partners? Think of it this way: yes, two people might be in a business partnership, but are they always together in their thinking, totally unified on every issue? Here, however, we are “partners together.” This word appears only one other place in Scripture, here in Ephesians, in fact, where Paul tells us that we are not to be “partakers with” (or participants in) the actions and attitudes of “the children of disobedience” (5:3-7).

 

So, as Paul goes on to write, we are partakers, participants, and partners of his promise in Christ by the gospel. As I studied this phrase, I became distressed at how many commentators and expositors miss a fine point of truth because of their misguided reliance on the Critical Text. Even though the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts contain the word autou (third person personal masculine pronoun meaning “of him”) for the word his, the Critical Text (and therefore modern translations) omit it on the basis of only four so-called “older manuscripts.”[41] The reason it is there is to show whose promise is being referred to, namely, his, that is, God’s Old Testament promise of salvation even for Gentiles (Gen. 12:3; Is. 42:1-4; 49:5-6; 56:3-8). His promise was then realized in Christ and accomplished by the gospel, that is, faith and trust in the finished work of Christ on the cross to save men from their sin.

 

These three terms are further underscored by another subtlety in the Greek. The so-called “older manuscripts” (and, therefore, the Critical Text and modern translations) create another problem, this time by actually inserting a word. On the basis again of only four manuscripts, they insert the word “Jesus” after Christ while the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts omit the word “Jesus,”[42] as does our Authorized Version. Does this difference really matter?‑YES. Some insist that “Jesus” should be present. They maintain that if it is omitted, then Paul is saying that Gentiles are fellow­ partakers of the Messianic promises, which they say is not true. In other words, “Jesus” should be inserted to differ­entiate between Jew and Gentile; not only should we have Christ, which is distinctly Jewish, but we should also have “Jesus,” which is typically Gentile. May we submit, however, that this view is not accurate because it totally reverses what Paul has been saying. “Jesus” should not be in the verse because Paul’s emphasis is that Jew and Gentile are one; no differentiation is needed or even desirous. Paul has gone to great lengths in previous verses to show the unity, oneness, and lack of distinction of Jew and Gentile. Both are going to share future blessing in the Millennium. In fact, the Church will rule with Christ and will dwell in the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2, 9‑10). Even Old Testament prophecy declares that through Israel all nations would be blessed, and it is through the Church, the Body of Christ, that this blessing will come.

 

Second, the mystery of the Church was never known before this age: Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men (v. 5a). There are many well‑meaning brethren today who wish to view the Church as an Old Testament reality; some view Israel as part of the Church; some even trace it back to John the Baptist and say that he was “the first Baptist.” But Paul clearly declares that before this age—that is, the Dispensation of the Grace of God—no one knew the truth of the mystery. Yes, there were “foreshadowings” of the Church in the Old Testament. For, example, God promised Abraham (Gen. 12:3) that through him all nations would be blessed, but neither Abraham nor anyone else at that time new the full meaning of that promise; no one knew how God would accomplish that feat. Isaiah also predicted, “I [Jehovah]will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth” (Is. 49:6). But again, no one, not even Isaiah, knew the full meaning of this prophecy; no one knew, or could have even dreamed, that there would be something in the future called “the Body of Christ.” In fact, if it had been possible for someone to tell the Old Testament Jews of the oneness of Jew and Gen­tile, they would have been shocked beyond belief. We can say this because they were shocked when the Apostles and Prophets told them.

 

So, this truth of the Church was hidden before this present age. This is the point of the words “as it is now revealed.” These words show that the Church was hinted at in foreshadowings but was never revealed in reality.

 

Third, Paul was given the most knowledge of the mystery: by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) (vs. 3‑4). Some hold that the phrase as I wrote before in few words refers to a previous letter of Paul that is no longer in existence.[43] But there is no evidence to indicate this, nor is there really any reason for such a view. Rather, these words refer to what Paul has previously written in this letter (2:11­-16). In modern language, for example, we might say, “As I mentioned earlier.” So, Paul is saying, “When you read these words, along with those I’ve already written, you will understand the know­ledge I have been given.” Without argument, Paul was given more knowledge of the Church than anyone else, more knowledge of the offices, government, ministry, ordinances, discipline, and everything else. This thought leads to one other point.

 

Fourth, others were also given the knowledge of the mystery, not just Paul: as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit (v. 5b). We are not going to elaborate on this point because a thorough examination of it appears in an appen­dix at the end of this book. But, briefly, there is a view that says only Paul had the knowledge of the mystery of the Church. Moreover, they say that this revelation is only here in Ephesians and the other Prison Epistles. Therefore, since the revelation is only in these Epistles, and since Paul didn’t write these un­til his imprisonment in Rome (Acts 28), then this means that the Church didn’t exist until Acts 28. This dangerous theory is called “Ultra‑dispensationalism.”

 

But this cannot be. Right here in our text we see that “Apostles and Prophets” are in the plural showing that others received the knowledge of the mystery as well as Paul. In fact, as we studied back in 2:11 (Chapter 16), Peter received this knowledge before Paul in his vision of the sheet with clean and unclean animals (Acts 10); that was a clear picture of what the mystery is—the unity of Jew and Gentile in Christ’s Body. We also recall the words of the Lord Jesus at Saul’s conversion, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” (Acts 9:4), as well as Paul twice admitting that he persecuted “the Church” (I Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13). Ultra‑dispensationalism answers this by saying there were two churches in Acts—one Jewish and one Gentile—but Jesus’ words, “My body,” make the fact clear that there has always been only one. This has been Paul’s empha­sis in Ephesians 2 and 3—unity of Jew and Gentile in ONE BODY.

 

Romans 16:25‑27, where Paul writes of “the revelation of the mystery,” is devastating to this theory as it was written 2 to 3 years before Ephesians.[44] Likewise, I Corinthians 12:12‑14, which speaks of the unity of Jew and Gentile in one body, was written 3 to 4 years before Ephesians. The same is true of Galatians 3:26‑29.

 

Well, enough of that. May we conclude: Paul knew more about the mystery, but others still knew of the mystery.

 

There we have the meaning of the mystery. How marvelous is this age in which we live. We now know and experience a reality never known, experienced, or even imagined before this age. In closing, may we ponder the “heading” of Ephesians 3—“The Believer’s Rank in God’s Program.” What is our rank? We all are of EQUAL RANK; we are all equal members of the Body of Christ. And, once again, it all has been accomplished by the blood of our dear Savior.