Mystery of Gospel I

A friend of mine asked if I had insight to the Greek word for mystery: musterion. I looked the word up and found the following passages were the first in the New Testament to contain the word.

I’m not sure that I am onboard with Ryrie here. In another passage, the Pharisees asked Jesus about his teachings and he replied that He had taught nothing in secret. I believe that Jesus taught in parables in order to cause the hearer to "process" the information rather than just "file" it away. In fact, the Pharisees were very good at taking truth to the nth degree literally without regard for the spirit of the truth. I believe that what Jesus is saying here is you have become privy to the mystery. This revelation is in particular by Jesus to the apostles, and in general through the Holy Spirit to those who believe after the advent of the Holy Spirit. I can't believe that Jesus ever wanted the religion that followed His teachings to be "cult-ish" in that only insiders were allowed to know the mystery.

Agreed. I would add: Some things come only by the Holy Spirit, or by the teaching of the church, or by the echo of that which was once Christian in our culture. And that is nothing like being initiated into, say for a modern example, Free Masonry.

Funny that the first heresies that had to be put down were from the Gnostics (that all is hidden and spiritual) and that the last heresies (the ones of our day) is that God's special revelation is so public as to be meaningless (all (which is to say 'nothing') is revealed and humanly determined).

The reason I brought up musterion is that I'm finding that the early Second Century of Christians dealt the Lord's Supper with great care. Probably the earliest hint of this is I or II Corinthians. (that you must discern the Lord's body, etc.). A Second Century writer uses musterion when referring to the Lord's Supper. One of the wild cards in here, of course, is the question of what was hidden because of persecution and what was hidden so that the unbeliever would not profanely participate. I'm thinking it was a little of both in the early days. Even with that, we're still on arguable ground: a Baptist can still explain his "ordinance" with little problem and a catholic can still explain his "sacrament" with little problem.

I'm engaged in a very dangerous game of amateur etymologizing. It's a risky business even when professionals engage in it! By the time Aquinas is using the word sacrament in a very specific, technical way in the 1200's, he knows what he means. I'm wondering how people were talking about the Lord's Supper from the time of Luke to the time of Aquinas. Sadly, (I don't mean that) sadly, I imagine that a 2nd

Century Christian would have no time or patience for my word game. To him, it is all about devotion. And his theology is taught to him by a man or a community (who is literally staking his/their life on it). He would probably admonish me to get about the business of praying and loving my neighbor and that I should take my both my word game and my systematic theology and put it under a rock somewhere!

Don’t you think that even the first or second century Christian had their own issues with semantics? After all, Christianity is not a natural progression of the heavy-handed Judaic legalism of the day. The parables and mysteries were given specifically to the first century Church and it became the business of the apostles to disseminate the Gospel and expose the mysteries.

I think that Jesus used the word “mystery” because the things He was saying seemed to be mysterious. Contrast the idea of loving one’s neighbor to the Mosaic law of “an eye for an eye.” To these early followers, I would imagine that having a religion that required them to contemplate would seem mysterious. The Mosaic Law was almost mathematical by comparison.

So while one might admonish you to get about the business of praying and loving, etc., I think that it is through this study and contemplation that we broaden our understanding of God and deepen our walk with Him. The only admonition that I would give is that that study and contemplation be conducted only under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Secular analysis of the scriptures results in foolishness.

True, true. The 2^nd Century Christian's question of me would probably go to the motive of my little investigation!

I'm with you on your reading of the passage from Mark above. Jesus did demystify His parables for the disciples. And I think you're on target with the process idea: Christian verities are not a closed system of metaphysical and ethical principles. We do study, but we also contemplate.

G. K. Chesterton, a Catholic writer well loved by many a Protestant, says that some people (irreligious materialists) think a mystery is "an interesting uncertainty". But to a Christian, a mystery is "an unfathomable certainty". Look at the mystery that Paul refers to in oh, Ephesians 5 or so--about Christ and the church and husbands and wives. Paul spells out the analogy clearly enough: the husband's love for his wife is like the Savior's love for His church. But we cannot fathom the full import of that assertion. If we are sincere and God is gracious, we might get a taste of it. Try to write it, and your words will seem like sacrilege.

For Paul, nothing is hidden by human hands. The only mysteries are those tied to the transcendent nature of God himself. I've got to believe that it was different with the Gnostics, but there's no since beating a dead heresy--unless of course you think it's still with us. Do you?

I do think gnosticism is still with us. I have a book called Christian Mystics which is a compilation of persons who identify themselves as Christian, yet are either self-identified, or generally identified as mystics as well. The list begins, of course, with the first century Gnostics, but runs through the 20^th century with Thomas Merton (supposedly the leading modern Christian mystic).

· The Rosicrucian Fellowship (not associated with the Ancient and Mystical Order of the Rosae Crusis [AMORC]) founded by Max Heindel in the late 19^th century, represents itself as Mystic Christianity. It denies the divinity of Jesus and focuses on mystery, knowledge, and discipline – rather than faith.

· ECKANKAR uses a lot of Christian teaching and references, but is Gnostic in the sense that salvation is achieved through knowledge and discipline – not faith in Jesus.

I have no doubt that the Gnostics, or mystics capitalize on every use of “musterion” in the New Testament and use those references to justify their own purposes.

A second point that you hit on is that the use of musterion and mysteries being tied to the “transcendent nature of God Himself.” This is true and the only exception that I found is in Paul’s writing where he uses a similar word “mueo” – a variation of musterion. Here Paul uses the word to denote a secret, or something that was once elusive, but now plain.

But still, the use of mueo is consistent with the use of musterion in that it is something that one learns.

Do you think that we treat the Lord’s Supper too lightly today? Should it be more mysterious?

Too lightly—yep. More mysterious—nope. I think any attempt to jimmy with the Lord’s Supper will turn it into the bad kind of mystery—"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"[1] There should be no mystery administered by human hands. Jesus said: go, preach, and baptize[2].

He also said: Eat, this is My body[3]. His language is clear enough, but the import of what we do--wow!

You indicate that the Baptist and the Catholic liturgies have their ordinances and sacraments, and the practice of communion for both is derived from similar scripture. Are you implying that the Baptist and Catholic underlying theologies differ significantly? Does the "mystery" play into that difference?

You bet they're different! But how do you give an account for mystery? It would be goofy to say that all Catholics "get it" and Baptists "miss the point", or that Baptists have the unvarnished, foursquare, gospel truth and Catholics are engaged in some sort of dignified voodoo. I think we can agree that there are sincere lovers of Jesus in both camps. It might be more useful to look at how mystery plays in the devotion of the genuine and sincere follower of Jesus.

A well instructed, engaged, and sincere Catholic believes that he eats the flesh and drinks the blood of our Lord. The mystery for him is how. How does Christ come "to dwell in us and we in him"[4]? What is the significance of my consuming?

A well instructed, engaged, and sincere Baptist believes that he is symbolically showing forth Jesus' death until he comes again. The mystery for him is why. Why in this one area are Baptists legalistic? Why in this one instance, are we so solemn and so circumspect? In most Baptist churches this (along with believer's baptism) is the only time the unbeliever is excluded. This is the one time when we are careful to admonish one another to make certain that one's conscience is clean of unconfessed sins. But why? What is the significance of my obedience and our order and solemnity?

These two mysteries, the “how” of the Catholic and the “why” of the Baptist—are they the "unfathomable certainty"-type of mysteries (like the mystery in Ephesians 5)? Or is one or the other a mystery at the hands of man, simply a matter of power and domination?

I can answer the question of why Baptist take the act of the Lord’s Supper with such reverence and solemn-ness (that is in contrast to their otherwise un-scripted form of worship.) This is based on I Corinthians 11:26 – 29:

(1 Corinthians 11:26 - 29 NIV) ²⁶For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. ²⁷Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

²⁸A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. ²⁹For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Baptists stress that one should understand and subscribe to the symbolism of the act. Otherwise, they are just eating juice and crackers. Unlike the Catholics, Baptists do not view the cup and bread as the physical blood and body of Jesus, but rather as symbols of them. But, deeper than that, is the remembrance that should occur during this act. If one does not believe that Jesus is their redeemer and they participate, they are consciously defiling the act and themselves.

I once visited the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. It is a Muslim holy place that is said to contain the rock on which Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac (or Ishmael depending on whether you are Judeo/Christian or Muslim.) Imagine the indignation of the Muslims had I pretended to participate in their prayers and ritual. However, Baptists believe that pretending to participate in the Lord’s Supper with no devotion behind it are not just committing a disgrace of the ritual, but an abomination to God.

As to the degree in inherent mystery, I should hope that (in either case of Catholic or Baptist observance of the Lord’s Supper) we humans never interject mystery into this equation. It is mysterious enough. In a sense, though, it is difficult for me to view the act of communion (The Lord’s Supper) as a mystery. For I have participated in it since my profession of faith many years ago and it has become an integral and natural part of my worship.

But, I must imagine that for the first-century Jew, the mystery was quite real. After all, for time immemorial, a blood sacrifice was required. And a great deal of ceremony surrounded how, when, and why it was done. To suddenly step forth and say, “that isn’t necessary any more, now simply profess Jesus as Christ, be baptized and observe the Lord’s Supper” would certainly have been mysterious in that context. For one, Jesus, the one called Christ (Messiah) was dead. This did not conform to their mental picture of what the Messiah would be. But this introduces faith. Only a relative few individuals were witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection. Those who heard the story second-hand, had to exercise great faith to accept Jesus as the Messiah they had anticipated. The Messiah was supposed to be a military king, but Jesus was dead – or at least was not alive in human flesh. Talk about mystery!

The Gnostics, however, take that mystery to the extent that: knowing the inner secrets of the Gospel is, in itself, salvation. Interestingly, they fill in the context of the “inner secrets.” The Gospel as Paul presented it is this: Here is the mystery; God loves you so much that he simplified the process of your sanctification. In fact, He did so in such a way that it is permanent. Furthermore, He is sending a comforter (the Holy Spirit) to be your personal teacher.

(Ephesians 3:8-9 NIV) Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.

(Ephesians 3:11-12 NIV) According to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. In [Jesus] and through faith in Him we may approach God with freedom and confidence.

The Jews knew first-hand that God could not abide sin. Now, when Jesus tells them (and Paul echoes) that God’s spirit will be in them, it is – if nothing else – a frightening though.

There is, however, an interesting parallel between the mystery of the Gospel and the mystery of cult religions. In a cult religion, the doctrine/liturgy is unknown to the general populace and only initiates are given the insight. In the Gospel, even Jesus noted that the mystery of the kingdom of God was revealed only to the apostles.

(Matthew 13:10-11 NIV) The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" [Jesus] replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

I think the greatest barrier that I can imagine in this respect, is how to logically differentiate the Gospel from a mystical cult. We have discussed our interpretations of how “musterion” is used and how it applies to the Gospel versus a cult mystery. But is it possible to see the Gospel mystery as something other than a cult? How do we make that distinction? Or, do we accept that the Gospel mystery is a cult (using a general definition) but then draw the distinction in the nature of the mystery rather than the possession of mystery?

I know that most Christians are afraid of the label “cult.” And in a more colloquial sense, the word “cult” seems to be defined relative to Christianity. But in the first century, “cult” is really a good definition of the early church – again, using the general definition. In the first century the Christians were most definitely a variant sect of Judaism and would have been called a cult. Would the idea of mystery factor in more prominently in a classical sense for this first century church? If so, how do we differentiate the legitimacy of the Gospel mystery from the Mystic’s’ mystery, and should that sense of mystery still exist? If not, then how do we differentiate the context of Gospel mystery from that of the Mystics?

[1] A quote of the Wizard of Oz as he is discovered creating mysterious apparitions.

[2] Paraphrase of Matthew 28:19

[3] Paraphrase of Matthew 26:26

[4] From one the Eucharistic prayer used in the Episcopal Church of the USA.

The Mystery of the Gospel (part I)

Jeff Justus