Sigurd Grindheim, «What the OT Prophets Did Not Know: The Mystery of the Church in Eph 3,2-13», Vol. 84 (2003) 531-553

The purpose of this essay is two-fold. First, it argues that the inclusion of the Gentiles is referred to as a previously unrevealed mystery because it is based upon the abrogation of the Mosaic law and entails a degree of nearness to the Lord that exceeds the expectations of the old covenant. Second, it addresses the question of authorship. Assuming Pauline authorship as a working hypothesis, it shows that the use of the concept of mystery in Eph 3 is intimately linked with Paul’s terminology and thought world attested in the undisputed letters. It is unwarranted, therefore, to find proof of a post-Pauline development in the use of the term "mystery" in Ephesians.

worshipers at this temple (Isa 2,3; 56,6-7; 60,5-7; 66,19-21). But now the church is identified with the temple itself. Under the old covenant God dwelt among his people. Now, the community of believers is his dwelling²⁶. While the re-creation of Israel is understood to have taken place in the church, the church stands out as an entity that transcends the old categories of "Gentile" and "Jew"²⁷.

        The idea of the church as the temple is also found in 1 Cor 3,16-17. In that passage, there seems to be a different perspective, however. Christ alone is the foundation of the building (3,11), not the apostles and the prophets (cf. Eph 2,20). The description in Ephesians is sometimes understood to reflect a later stage in church history, a time when the apostles were a phenomenon of the past²⁸. The essential idea is the same, however: the unity of the ministers in the church. The differences are best explained as stemming from the different perspective of the two passages. In 1 Cor 3 the apostles are in view as preachers; in Eph 2–3 as recipients of revelation, an idea more readily lending itself to be described as a foundation²⁹.

4. The Concept of Revelation

        This observation has led Helmut Merklein to conclude that "revelation" has become a more dogmatic concept in Ephesians as compared with Galatians. The emphasis is no longer on the historical act of revelation but on revelation as a norm of tradition³⁰. Merklein is reading too much into the differences, however. Already in Galatians the revelation of the gospel is a norm by which even the angels and the apostle himself are to be judged (Gal 1,8-9).

        In Eph 3,5 the revelation of the mystery is said to be given to "his holy apostles and prophets in the spirit". The insertion of the personal