Ephesians 3:1–13

Original Meaning

Paul the Prisoner (3:1)

“FOR THIS REASON” points back at least to 2:11–22, if not the whole of chapter 2. The gospel that gives life and includes the Gentiles is the guiding purpose in all Paul does. “I, Paul” is used in several of his letters as a way of emphasizing what follows (see 2 Cor. 10:1; Gal. 5:2; Col. 1:23; 1 Thess. 2:18; Philem. 19).

Where Paul was in prison is debated,4 but whatever decision is made does not affect the reading of this letter. That Paul is the “prisoner of Christ Jesus” is important. He could have blamed the Romans or even the Jews for his imprisonment, but for him their involvement is incidental. How should “of Christ Jesus” be understood? Does he view his being in prison as the direct purpose of Christ for him so that, in effect, Christ put him in chains?5 Or does Paul see his present situation as on behalf of Christ, as part of his service for Christ? Either is possible, but 6:20 and Colossians 4:3 seem to favor the latter.6 In either case, Christ is the one who has laid hold on Paul.

The only reason why Paul was in prison was because he thought Gentiles had the same access to God that Jews did. If he had been content to be a Jewish Christian with a mission to Jews or if he had been willing to keep Gentiles on a lower plane, he would not have been in jail.7 But the purpose of Paul’s call was to bring about the obedience of faith among the Gentiles (Rom. 1:5; Gal. 1–2), and if faith was the key to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles were on the same plane.

Bridging Contexts

THIS TEXT IS highly personal and focused on Paul’s first-century responsibility. At first glance we may conclude this text is not too relevant for us and consequently we should hurry on to the next passage. This is, in fact, what often happens in commentaries on Ephesians. This is unfortunate, for while Paul’s call and the revelation to the apostles and prophets cannot be duplicated, the theologies embedded in these verses are important for our lives. The gulf between Paul’s description of the church and our present experience is embarrassingly large. Bridging contexts may well call for wholesale reconstruction from our end.

A theology of grace for ministry. Paul speaks of grace in ways unfamiliar to us. He says he was given responsibility for the “administration” of grace, became a servant by grace through the working of God’s power, and was given grace to preach to the Gentiles. Whereas we usually limit grace to God’s gift of salvation, this text forces us to realize that grace is also the gift of ministry. The gift always comes as a task. Grace always brings responsibility; it never is merely privilege. This was already present in 1:4, but now we are told how it worked in Paul’s life.

Paul viewed himself as a manager of grace. His ministry to the Gentiles was unique, but all Christians are to be managers of grace. All who have received grace should extend it to others (see also 4:7; esp. 1 Peter 4:10, which instructs all Christians to administer God’s grace faithfully). To receive grace is to be taken into its service. Grace connects, enlists, and empowers. It will not allow us to be passive, for it is God’s power at work in us (cf. also 1 Cor. 15:10). This is the theology of grace the church must recover.

A theology of hardship. Much about human suffering lies outside the concern of this text, but hardship in ministry is addressed.40 Paul’s imprisonment was both a hardship and a potential embarrassment. But surprisingly, he gives little focus to his difficulty. That is, Paul’s theology of hardship does not focus on the hardship, but on his Lord, his gospel, and his people (cf. Phil. 1:12–30). His theology is aware of something larger than his own circumstances. True, his imprisonment was not life-threatening, but he was chained41 and limited in what he could accomplish. Once again, the issue is that which defines. Paul’s circumstances were attendant factors, but they did not define who he was. Only the gospel defined him.

Paul describes himself here as both the prisoner of Christ and a servant of the gospel; elsewhere he describes himself as a slave of Christ (e.g., Rom. 1:1). None of these titles would normally be desirable, but Paul uses them as badges of honor, expressing his allegiance to Christ. Both what he does and what happens to him are part of his service to Christ. Christ defines him, not his circumstances. If he is a prisoner, he is Christ’s prisoner.

Hardship viewed positively. Clearly in 3:13 Paul views his hardship positively. Rather than be discouraged about it, he wants his readers to feel good about it. From other texts (e.g., Col. 1:24) we know he rejoiced over his sufferings for the sake of Christ. Two different theologies are at work behind the positive view of hardship here. (1) Paul rejoices in suffering because it is a means of identifying with the death and resurrection of Christ on behalf of other people. To be heirs together with Christ assumes suffering on his behalf.42 (2) Paul’s particular hardship is evidence of God’s wisdom and love in including the Gentiles in his purposes. It brings attention to his ministry. Paul can be positive about what he is experiencing and asks his readers to be positive because he views his troubles as a direct result of grace working in him. The privileges of working for God and having access to God far outweigh the difficulty.

Our hardship will probably not be like Paul’s, but identification with the cross is not optional and is always costly. We cannot show self-giving love and serve ourselves. For us too, definition must come from Christ, not our circumstances.

A theology of revelation. God’s revelation to Paul and others described in this passage is unique, limited to select persons in the first century, but it is still theologically relevant for us for three reasons. (1) Most obvious is the value of the gospel. The gospel is good news, revealed in order to change lives. It is not merely a good idea, but a revelation of God and by God, focused on his grace. This gospel shows God’s eternal purposes and the new circumstances brought about by Christ.

(2) God is shown to be a revealing God. Despite what had been hidden for ages and despite the fact that God hides himself (Isa. 45:15) and cannot be seen (Col. 1:15), he makes himself known. Even if the ultimate revelation has been given by the Spirit and in Christ, neither Christ nor the Spirit have quit their work. Without being presumptuous, we should expect that God still makes himself known.

(3) This passage is important for a doctrine of Scripture. Markus Barth suggests that in this and similar texts Paul appears to canonize his own doctrine and writings and to prepare the way for a Christian canon.43 Paul’s letters were read in gatherings of local Christians. The early church had nothing definitive other than such letters, the Old Testament, the sayings of Jesus, and the words of early Christian prophets. Such a passage as this underscores the foundational character of the apostolic witness. The gospel as marked out by these early writings is the perimeter within which Christians lived their lives and understood their faith.

Revelation for ministry. Paul’s ministry was founded on his conviction about revelation and focused on the proclamation of that revelation. The same is still true of Christian ministry today. It emerges from the conviction that God has revealed himself uniquely in Christ, and its main task is to make the revelation known. Paul’s ministry had the twin purpose of proclaiming the good news of the unsearchable riches of Christ and of enlightening everyone about their responsibility for that revelation. This is still what Christian ministry is about. It is a ministry of the Word, is focused on the Word, and is driven and defined by the Word.

Revelation to the powers. The most difficult part of bringing this text into our day concerns 3:10. How do we make God’s wisdom known to the powers? As discussed above, W. Wink understood proclamation to the powers to mean bringing about their conversion, even though he was not sure what this meant. In applying this text, however, he defines the powers in terms of institutions, structures, and systems,44 and modern Christians are told to proclaim to corporations that profit should not be the bottom line and that they have a divine vocation too.45 Wink’s message to corporations is legitimate and a direct corollary of the gospel, but it is not an application of 3:10. I suggest this is one place where application of the text does not focus on what is explicit—making known to the powers. Neither this text nor any other text addresses where and how we can address the powers. Instead, the application of this text is in the church fulfilling the role she is called to exercise. When the message of grace has its way and unity is established and practiced, then the powers will know the many-sided wisdom of God.

A wrong turn. Just as we saw in connection with 2:20, this passage does not have any relevance concerning the continuing role for apostles and prophets today. That issue must wait until our discussion of 4:11.

A theology of unity. Paul’s concern for the inclusion of the Gentiles seems remote from any concern the modern church has. No one questions what the apostle fought for so strenuously. In fact, Gentiles have taken over the church, and the paucity of Jewish believers is an embarrassment. But once again Paul stresses the unity of the church, a theme that dominates chapters 2–5. Here his focus is on the revelation that Gentiles belong, that they are on the same footing as Jewish Christians and receive the same benefits.46 This unity is grounded on being in Christ Jesus. Geography is identity.47 But if being in Christ made Jews and Gentiles one by definition, does it not do the same for us with all others who are in Christ? Are we not required to see that proclaiming the gospel includes insistence on unity as part of the message? Our divisions are not between Jew and Greek, but both our divisions and our individualism are attacked by the theology of unity in this text. To be in Christ is to be made one with all who are in him.

The “eschatological now” in verses 5 and 9–10 requires a focus on new life in the present. Unity is not some goal for the eschaton; it is to be lived now. Things are not as they always were. When we are taken into Christ Jesus, we become one body with other Christians, regardless of our differences. We are one with all in him.

Boldness in living with God. Why Paul was not frequently discouraged is amazing, given the frequent failure of his churches. He had his moments, as 2 Corinthians shows (see 2 Cor. 1:6–11; 2:13; 4:7–18; 6:4–10; 11:21–33), but he was convinced matters would work out well both for his churches and himself. Note Philippians, for example: Paul should have been depressed, but he wrote about joy. In all situations Paul had only one solution to the problem he faced: applying the gospel and its implications.

Paul was eager for his readers to share his confidence rather than be discouraged, and once again the gospel forms his approach. Their particular reason for discouragement is far removed from us, but discouragement is still a threat. The antidote remains the same—the gospel—and the church is in need of confidence as much as ever.

We live in “the age of relativity.” Absolutes do not exist for many in our society, and truth is understood as truth for someone, while another statement may be truth for someone else. Such a view of truth is unacceptable and certainly offers no basis for confidence. Confidence comes from conviction. The biggest problem in bringing the boldness offered in this passage into our lives is that we are often not convinced of the truth of our own gospel. Possibly we have been too inattentive or the message has been too frequently distorted by the messengers.

God really does have a purpose for his creation and has revealed himself as a saving God. He gives grace so that people are joined to him as family, confident they belong, confident of his faithfulness, and confident of the final outcome. God has given us what we need to face the difficulties and joy of life: He has given us himself and his good news.

Contemporary Significance

WHILE THE TEXT asks nothing of its readers except not to be discouraged over Paul’s imprisonment, the description of the gospel and its privileges carries forceful significance for Christian living. Application of this text will almost certainly bring a badly needed transformation.

Value the treasure. Surely the most important application of this text is in reproducing Paul’s attitude toward the revelation that has come in Christ. If we do not value the gospel as revelation from God for us, it will not impact our lives. All of us live out of a system of values, often so unconsciously that we cannot even analyze whether the values deserve to be valued. Christians have distorted value systems as much as anyone else. Value is assigned to religious entities, such as tradition, denominational politics, a particular cause, or the evangelical sub-culture. Too often Christians merely adopt the value system of the surrounding culture, but forget ultimate value. For us the one truly great value, the “pearl of great price,” ought to be God’s revelation in Christ. We need a conviction that God truly has revealed himself in Christ.

To value this treasure, we must refocus on the gospel. The gospel is not one item among many. It is all Paul had and all we have. The gospel of grace, of death and resurrection, of inclusion with God’s people should be given central place. We need to be gospel people; that is what the word evangelical denotes.48 We must give attention to the gospel, be defined by the gospel, and solve our problems by applying the gospel. Once again this calls for a distinction between gospel and culture, including the so-called Christian subculture. Our very independence is at stake. Focus on the gospel is the one exercise that allows us to evaluate culture and stand over against its distorting pressures.

More attention needs to be given to the study of this new revelation and its relation to the old. If this sounds like a simplistic approach, then we understand neither the gospel nor the significance of such words as “unsearchable” (3:8) and “manifold” (3:10). Nor is this to suggest a simplistic focus on “evangelistic” messages. Too often the church thought it was focusing on the gospel by preaching evangelistic messages, but in the process never proclaimed or knew the depth and extent of the gospel. The gospel is not merely about getting to heaven; it is about life now as well as in eternity. It is as much about discipleship as about initial conversion, as much about unity as about individual faith, and as much about new life as about forgiveness. Focusing on the gospel will require the recovery of a full-orbed gospel.

In urging that we value the treasure of revelation, I am not urging focus on a particular theory of revelation. Theories are fine, as long as we do not forget that the revelation is unsearchable and inexhaustible and that our theories are always inadequate. People do not have to use the same words—such as “inerrancy”—to value the treasure. To set up a particular expression as a necessary description canonizes the wrong material and only detracts from the revelation. What people need to know is that the gospel is truth from God (1:13). While some theories are inadequate, several others are legitimate and useful. But our theories must not become substitutes for the revelation itself. We study the revelation, not our theories.

The value we place on something determines the hardship we are willing to endure for it. We will expend enormous energy and resources to care for a person or a prized possession we value a great deal. Paul valued the gospel enough to go to prison for it. He asked Timothy not to be ashamed of him, but to suffer for the gospel along with him (2 Tim. 1:8). Do we value the gospel enough to endure hardship for it? Would we go to prison? Most of us will probably not face prison, but are we willing to suffer the hardship of being belittled, of study, of financial investment, and of personal risk? Are we willing to die and rise with Christ in service, to lose life in order to find it?

To value the revelation is also to be responsible for it. The world always seeks to redefine the gospel into something more acceptable, to shift the focus from Christ to a side issue. We have a responsibility to care for it, study it, share it, hand it on to the next generation, protect it from slander and redefinition, and live it. To value the revelation is to know we have something new worth listening to and talking about. No reason exists to be reticent about the good news; a healthy evangelism is a necessary result.

Grace that forces. If grace enlists and empowers, why is passivity so common in the church? Christianity is not a religion of works, but it is still very much a religion of action. A significant application of this text surely has to do with our understanding of the gospel and evangelism. For too long people have heard a message that said, “No action is necessary,” and they have been content to be passive. But you cannot be Christian and passive. Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “Only so much do I know, as I have lived.”49 If that is true, much of the church knows nothing. We need a more substantial proclamation of the gospel than is heard in many churches, for grace has been so embarrassingly diluted that “cheap grace” is an overevaluation.

We must present the gospel as a gospel of action, for grace always brings responsibility. The gift cannot be separated from the Giver, and the Giver is a worker. We need a new understanding of grace, though understanding alone is not enough. Somewhere in the mystery of the relation between God and his people the human will remains important. We are responsible for our actions, and we must choose to act. In the gospel we find a new Lord to whom we give ourselves and from whom we take our direction. That involves our will. Grace comes as gift, but it enlists us and empowers us. We become stewards of grace, responsible for showing others how it works. Like all gifts from God, it is directed out to other people. Grace engages us, calls us, pushes us, develops us, and gives us a ministry. Ministry is the gift of God’s power at work in us for managing grace. The application of this text is obvious: Get to work.

Ministry redefined. Such an understanding of grace leads to a striking redefinition of ministry. Two points should be made. (1) The task of ministry cannot be limited to the professional clergy, the “called.” Grace calls all of us. No clergy-laity distinction can be tolerated, and responsibility for ministry cannot be left to the clergy. All Christians are to be managers of grace and servants of the gospel, even if some have unique responsibilities.

(2) Implicitly we think of ministry as our gift to God, but Paul thought of ministry as God’s gift to him. When we take that seriously, it changes our perspective. Ministry is not drudgery to be endured or something for which God owes us, and it is certainly not a job to be acquired or kept. Rather, ministry originates in and is the expression of God’s grace. Ministry is the free flow of grace from God through us to other people.

While this passage concerns all Christians, it is especially applicable to people in professional ministry. Ministers frequently feel so burdened and beaten that they have little awareness that ministry is a gift to them from God. Granted, people in the church often bludgeon them and needlessly make ministry burdensome, but just as certain is the fact that pastors have accepted a redefinition of their role that prevents them from managing grace. What if pastors went back to being stewards of God’s grace given them? Churches and search committees often have enormous difficulty deciding what they want pastors to do. Should not the primary question be, “Can this person explain, demonstrate, and dispense grace?”

Once again grace assaults the human ego. All of us know good reasons why we are “less than the least of all God’s people” (3:8), but usually such thoughts are misguided or false humility. A sense of grace will not allow us to escape because of past failure or to view ourselves as too small—or too large—for the tasks God assigns. Nor will it allow us to overvalue ourselves or diminish others, for it recognizes God is responsible for all success. In other words, grace gives confidence for life, a confidence based on God himself.

Live the unity. We cannot read this passage without being struck both by the emphasis on the unity of the church and the failure of the modern church in precisely this area. We know division, not unity—a theme that will return with force in chapters 4 and 5. Already we know what is required: We are to live unity. We are not asked to like other Christians, to be like them, or agree with them, but to recognize that we are one with them and share the same Lord and the same benefits. We may not write people off any more than one part of the body can dismiss another part. What this text underscores is that unity is not some nonessential, some afterthought, or some by-product of the faith, but it is at the heart of Christianity. The revelation that came in Christ was a revelation about unity. If we do not proclaim unity, we have not proclaimed the gospel. If we do not live unity, we have missed the gospel’s impact.

The attitude we have toward others is foundational. Do our churches exhibit grace and receptivity so that people know they are valued as equals, or do we implicitly communicate arrogance and an attitude of superiority? The application of this text to racial problems is obvious and needed,50 but other kinds of divisions exist as well. Many people entering a strange church (or even a familiar one) do not feel unity. What do churches communicate that silences unity? Do we convey by language or attitude a spiritual elitism or a cultural tone that creates obstacles for unity? What the church does should express unity, whether in worship, in observance of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, or in mission. Differences in culture, race, music style, or traditions will be obvious, but what should be more obvious is the unity that exists in Christ. Groups may form around various interests or styles, but undergirding the groups must be a genuine unity drawn from a common commitment to Christ.

Unity is not the goal; it is a necessary by-product. Nor does unity come without definition. This is a unity based on Christ, but not so narrowly defined that other Christians of a different stripe are rejected. Reasons for separation do exist, and the definition of the gospel is at the heart of such reasons. Lamentably, however, for generations the church has been more concerned about division than unity. In most cases, divisions today occur over personalities, egos, and culture rather than doctrine. We need to redefine the church in terms of unity.

We live in a day when people go to church to see what they can get. Even worship is a self-serving activity. Christians should be trained to express their unity as part of their worship. Despite the problems, we are willingly and publicly to align ourselves with those who confess Christ. By our presence together we protest the divisions that exist. Christian unity demonstrates the wisdom of God’s purposes, and the exercise of unity is part of our worship.

Attention to unity is first and foremost the responsibility of leaders of Christian groups. They are the ones who set the tone, make the explanations, and model what the group is to be. Unfortunately, leaders are too often either inept or misguided by their own understanding of power to be effective. All of our institutions have histories of leaders who have created division and discord. Each time it happens people are hurt and become cynical, and the institution is less effective. Christian unity should be a guiding force in the shaping of institutions, hiring, training, and determining management styles. The world is waiting for Christians to begin to model what we say.

A corollary of the focus on unity is greater realization that conversion is sociological. It is always conversion into a group of people. This should change our outlook in two ways. (1) The implications for the way we do evangelism are enormous, for individuals and churches must be more aware that they either mirror Christ or distort the image and that they make it easy or difficult for people to come to Christ. Why would anyone want to come to a church marked by division? (2) We must take seriously that we are made one body with others in Christ. Christianity is a communal religion. It emphasizes koinonia, a joint sharing. An individual faith focused on “me and Jesus” cannot do that. Such individualistic approaches are nothing but another form of narcissism.

The church versus the church. Life often consists of the effort to make the ideal real. The picture of the church in Ephesians presents an ideal, but Paul was not an idealistic dreamer. He knew well the failures of his churches. But he never wearied of presenting the ideal to his readers. For Paul the ideal he described was the real. It was what God had established. We have been raised with Christ and made one. The divisions that exist are a distortion.

The church described in 3:1–13 is strikingly unlike the church we know. In our society the church is increasingly viewed as irrelevant, trivial, and ineffective. It is populated by a divided people who do not deal with the real problems of life. Many Christians either do not know the ideal or have given up attaining it. Others have been driven from the church by boredom or the lack of grace and unity. Is this the only church there is or does another one exist?

The churches Paul wrote were in most cases small house churches, insignificant groups by anyone’s estimation. Yet he spoke of their multinational character and cosmic effect. Like other Jews, he thought creation was to reflect the unity of the Creator, and the community of the Messiah was to inaugurate an eschatological unity.51 He saw them as “functional outposts of God’s kingdom,”52 as prototypes of God’s end-time community, and as a witness to the powers. For most of us, the church is a place that puts on services. Somehow we must move beyond this and recover a sense of the importance of the church as the place where the purposes of God are embodied and the unity God seeks is practiced.

Live with confidence. Life is difficult. Suffering, evil, and death surround us. Discouragement and a sense of being beaten down frequently characterize the way we feel. If we do not fall into denial, cynicism and withdrawal are the usual results. Yet this text suggests we should live confidently. Is it possible to be realistic and live confidently?

Too often Christians learn about confidence in Christ and attempt a spirituality of confidence as if to convince themselves. The effort usually fails, and the complaint comes:

Now here you are with your faith

And your Peter Pan advice

You have no scars on your face

And you cannot handle

Pressure.53

Denial of the difficulties is not the solution. Paul knew the difficulties and was still confident. He looked clear-eyed into difficulty and knew it was not ultimate. No matter what the circumstances, Christ was still the one who determined who he was. Such conviction brings a “settledness” for dealing with any difficulty.

Hardship comes to all of us. Some hardship we choose in identification with the cross; some we do not choose, but cannot avoid. We go through hardship, but not alone. Discouragement can come, but it does not find a home. Christians enjoy access to God and are at home enough before God to be confident. Awareness of God and his gospel gives us optimism. We know that God is at work, even when undetected, that God’s future triumph is already determined, and that no matter how bad circumstances are, we can only fall so far, for God is there to support us (cf. Rom. 8:35–39). Christians even own death and difficulty as part of belonging to God (1 Cor. 3:22–23). External circumstances are not then a cause for depression. Whatever happens and wherever we are, we are there with and for Christ, enjoying God’s grace. That is our identity.

Are these just high-sounding words? What do we do when discouragement does come? Lament, and even protest, are legitimate responses, as the prophets and psalmists show. But they also show the reverence and humility by which lament is made and that the lament always ends in trust and worship. The key to discouragement is always in turning to God and his purposes.

Ephesians is optimistic and encouraging. The biggest threat of discouragement comes to readers of Ephesians in seeing how far modern churches are from what the author describes. Is it possible to be what Ephesians describes? Paul would say that it is already true; live it.

Three wrong turns. Three errors need to be avoided in seeking to apply the comments about boldness. (1) Boldness to approach God should not be mistaken for presumption before God. Boldness and reverence, even a proper fear of God, go hand in hand. This is a boldness of belonging and access, of freedom before God; it is not an overconfidence about knowing God and his will or of praying presumptuously as if God is at our command.

(2) Confidence is not arrogance and should not communicate to others any thought of superiority. Boldness and humility also go hand in hand.

(3) Confidence should not be considered a path to passivity, as if nothing is left to do. An extreme example of misunderstood confidence occurred when a man got his truck stuck in the snow and after nine weeks starved to death because he thought God would take care of him. He could have walked a few miles to dry pavement and safety. This was not confidence, but lack of wisdom. Confidence enables work; it does not render us passive.

Live the paradox. In connection with this passage Barth describes Christian living as a paradoxical existence.54 Paul was a prisoner, but was seated with Christ in the heavenly realms. He was less than the least, but a recipient of revelation. He found glory in suffering and knew both the now and the not yet. He emphasized both new creation and the eternal purpose of God who created all things. He knew what it meant to lose life in order to find it. The Christian life is a life of tension—creative, peaceful tension55—and of balance and depth.

Ephesians 3:1–13 is a rich text that will not allow simplistic answers to the faith. To live in Christ is to enter the complexity to which this text points, or as Paul might put it, the fullness found in Christ. Texts like this push us beyond the simplistic answers often disseminated in the name of Christianity. They also call us to risk life in the depth of grace. Go for it!

Original Meaning

Paul the Steward of Grace and Servant of the Gospel (3:2–7)

“SURELY” (3:2) DOES not suggest that the Gentiles have not heard about Paul’s responsibility with the gospel. It means “if as I take for granted.” Paul was responsible to administer God’s grace to the Gentiles. “Administration” (oikonomia), related to oikonomos (“steward”), refers both to the office of being a steward and to the carrying out of the responsibility (the word is also used in 1:10 [NIV, “put into effect”]; 3:9).8 Paul is a steward in charge of God’s grace. If he fails in his task, the Gentiles will be deprived of God’s grace.

In verses 7–8 “grace” itself is the gift given to Paul, while in verse 9 what is administered is the “mystery” (mysterion). “Grace” and “mystery” are closely related. Not only are both administered, but in 3:3 the administration of grace is directly connected with the revelation of the mystery. Mysterion occurs twenty-one times in the Pauline letters, six times in Ephesians (1:9; 3:3, 4, 9; 5:32; 6:19). As indicated above,9 this term does not refer to something unknown. Rather, in a Semitic context it refers to what is known only because God revealed it. More specifically here, it refers to the revelation that the Gentiles are included in Christ as equals (see esp. 3:6). In Colossians 1:26 the mystery is the word of God,10 though the next verse shows the focus there too is on the gospel for the Gentiles. Then in Colossians 2:2–3 the mystery is reduced to Christ himself, “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (cf. mysterion in Eph. 1:9, which focused on all things being brought together in Christ). We may conclude that mystery refers to the revelation that all things will be brought together in Christ, and specifically that Jews and Gentiles are brought together.11 “In Christ” is key in understanding the mystery, for that phrase points to a double union—union with Christ and union of Jews and Gentiles in him.12

A previous letter? (3:3). Uncertainty exists about the intention of “as I have already written briefly.” Reference could be to something written earlier in the same document or to an earlier document.13 If we assume the readers had access to Colossians or Romans, we could argue that the reference is to an earlier document. However, in light of the difficulty with the address in 1:1–2, one can assume nothing about the recipients. Most commentators accept that Paul is referring to 1:9–10 or to 2:11–22,14 and this is the safest understanding, even though it makes 3:4 seem unusual. If so, then verse 4 means, in effect, “If you have read 2:11–22, you see the insight I have into the significance of God’s revelation in Christ.”

The new revelation (3:4–6). “Mystery of Christ” (v. 4) can be understood as “the mystery about Christ” or “the mystery that is Christ.”15 Because of Colossians 4:3 the former seems more likely. The revelation is focused on Christ, but as Ephesians 3:6 shows, the more narrow focus is on the significance of Christ for joining Jews and Gentiles.

The idea of a revelation not made to previous generations but “now” (v. 5) revealed eschatologically (cf. v. 9) is paralleled in a number of texts describing the gospel,16 so much so that some scholars speak of a “revelation schema.”17 It is striking that wisdom, gospel, mystery, ages, revelation, and Gentiles are brought together in several of these texts.18 In the New Testament the gospel is a gospel of revelation: God reveals himself as a saving God. Note also the Trinitarian focus of this passage.

The NIV wording “men in other generations” (v. 5) is a questionable translation of an unusual phrase, actually a double plural: “children [sons] of humans [men]” (cf. Mark 3:28, the only other occurrence of this phrase in the New Testament). While “son of man” can refer to humanity in general or to select individuals (esp. Jesus),19 the plural refers to all humanity. This verse does not deny that in the Old Testament Gentiles were included in God’s purposes,20 but no previous revelation focused on the Gentiles being accepted by God on equal footing with Jews. The contrast heightens the significance of the eschatological revelation that has come “by the Spirit.”

But while the revelation extends to all Christians (1:9), the foundational revelation has come only to certain select individuals. “Apostles” refers to the founding apostles who saw the risen Christ and were given insight about the significance of the gospel and the responsibility for handing it on.21 “Prophets,” clearly New Testament prophets, does not refer generally to prophets in the early church, but to those who had received revelation that helped frame how the gospel was to be understood and lived.22 These people laid out the perimeters within which faith moves. Paul had a unique call, even though others worked among the Gentiles, but he was not unique in receiving revelation (see Acts 15:6–29; Gal. 2:1–10). Ephesians 3:5 suggests a significant number of people received revelation from God’s Spirit, some of which may be reflected in hymns and confessional statements Paul adopted from the early church.

The primary emphasis of the revelation is the “withness” of the Gentiles, which is emphasized in the Greek text by alliteration (3:6: synkleronoma kai syssoma kai symmetocha—“heirs together, members together of one body, and sharers together”).23 The promises were formerly made to Israel, but now Gentiles are “heirs together with” (cf. also Rom. 8:17; 1 Peter 3:7) the Jewish Christians and receive a full share of all benefits. “Inheritance” language was a Christian way of talking about salvation—either in terms of God’s inheriting a people or the people’s receiving an inheritance from God.

Revelation that enlists (3:7). The revelation that comes in the gospel is not only so that people will understand, but that they may be enlisted in the service of the Revealer. Paul had been made a servant because of “the gift of God’s grace.” The gift obligates. “Grace” in this verse does not relate to Paul’s salvation, but to his ministry. Through grace he became a servant of the gospel. Grace not only connects us to God and Christ and to each other, but it also enlists and empowers us. Paul himself experienced what he prayed for his readers (cf. 1:19; 3:16).