The term also arises in 1 Cor 13:2 and 14:2, but within those contexts, Paul speaks of mysteries broadly as a description of divine knowledge, and the topic of Paul’s calling is not under investigation. The term also surfaces frequently in the disputed Pauline letters (Eph 1:9; 3:3, 4, 9; 6:19; Col 1:26, 27; 2:2; 4:3; 2 Thess 2:7; 1 Tim 3:9, 16), though these verses will not be considered in this section. The topic of Paul’s understanding of the revealed mystery has attracted extended treatment in works from recent decades, with the consensus position being that Paul’s concept of mystery derives from the Jewish conception of divine truth to which humans gain access only through divine revelation.127 The content of the mystery is related particularly to Christ’s death and resurrection, along with the saving benefits of Christ’s work in the lives of believing Jews and Gentiles.
Sometimes Paul incorporates the idea of mystery in his letters to underscore the entire breadth of Christ’s work and its implications. This is the case in 1 Cor 2:7; 4:1, and Rom 16:25–26.
In 1 Cor 2:1–16, Paul relates the mystery to God’s wisdom, a wisdom that can only be discerned by the Spirit among the mature. This “wisdom in mystery” consists of a proclaimed message about Christ and his cross, by which believers are assured of an eschatological victory. In 1 Cor 2:7 Paul enlists the concept of mystery to further describe divine wisdom.128 Bockmuehl observes parallels between this wording and that which is found in Jewish literature, concluding that 1 Cor 2:7 conforms to the Jewish notion of mystery as that of God’s disclosed salvific plans.129 Following ἐν μυστηρίῳ is τὴν ἀποκεκρυμμένην, which modifies either the entire phrase (θεοῦ σοφίαν ἐν μυστηρίῳ) or simply σοφίαν. Either way, in the concept of hiddenness, Paul begins to unpack what it means that God’s wisdom is ἐν μυστηρίῳ.130 God’s “wisdom in mystery” involves a hidden dimension, because God has withheld the knowledge of its contents.
But does Paul in this passage understand truth to be concealed with regard to time or to audience, or perhaps to both? Some scholars make the case that the revealed/hidden division in this passage separates the spiritually discerning from the spiritually dull, not present disclosure of truth from past hiddenness.131 Paul makes this chief concern clear in the contrast presented in 1 Cor 2:6–16. Paul begins by specifying that God’s wisdom has been designed for reception by the spiritually mature (οἱ τέλειοι).132 Paul then expounds upon the differentiation between those who reject and accept God’s message. God’s revealed wisdom through Christ has not been ascertained by the powerful of this age (1 Cor 2:8), as demonstrated by their crucifixion of the Lord. In contrast to the worldly representatives’ oblivion to God’s truth, believers apprehend God’s revelation in Christ by God’s Spirit (1 Cor 2:10).133 Paul further specifies the Spirit’s role in disclosing truth in 2:11–13.134 The primary contrast between the spiritually perceptive and the spiritually blind is once more articulated in 2:14–16. In view of the impressive contextual support for this perspective, it is likely that this demarcation is the main topic in the context.
This conclusion, however, does not rule out all concern for an underlying pattern that distinguishes past hiddenness from present disclosure. Paul’s discussion of the gospel here assumes an unveiling of this mystery in the present age, even if the main emphasis remains on the Spirit’s work in the process.135 It is clear that Paul sees himself as a mouthpiece for announcing God’s wisdom in mystery in this passage (see the first person language of 2:4–7, as well as Paul’s mention of preaching as the vehicle of salvation in 1:21). Finally, a marked transition from past hiddenness to present revelation is reinforced in the contrast between truth concealed in 2:9 and truth revealed in 2:10. Therefore, God’s wisdom in mystery is revealed in Paul’s generation through the preaching about Christ and the cross.
Paul’s mystery is based on the cross but also points to eschatological horizons. Paul’s thesis starting in 1 Cor 1:18 has been that God’s wisdom in the cross represents his power to bring eternal salvation to believers.136 Paul continues a discussion of the eschatological benefits of God’s wisdom in 1 Cor 2:7b. Since before the beginning of time God designed his work in Christ with a view towards the believer’s ultimate benefit. In contrast to believers who will possess eschatological blessings in Christ, the rulers of the age have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor 2:8). In other words, they tragically appraised Christ as worthless even though he was actually the power of God and the wisdom of God (1:24) and was himself destined for glory.137 Paul captures the beauty and eschatological orientation of this divine and hidden wisdom with a free rendition of one or more OT passages in 1 Cor 2:9.138
In this passage as a whole Paul’s description of wisdom ἐν μυστηρίῳ encompasses the spiritually perceived significance of Christ’s saving work on the cross (1 Cor 2:2; 1:18). Though Paul proclaims God’s eternal wisdom as definitively located in Christ and his crucifixion, it is the reception and understanding of this message among others that Paul discusses at greater length. The idea of mystery in this passage is tied closely to wisdom, the work of the Spirit, the significance of the cross, and the promise of glory for the believer. The subtle implication of the passage is that Paul is a spokesperson responsible for proclaiming God’s mystery.
In 1 Cor 4:1, the plural form “mysteries” surfaces in a passage describing Paul’s stewardship from God. The significance of the plural form of the word is difficult to ascertain, since later occurrences in the plural may not be relevant to the meaning in 4:1.139 The suggestion that the plural accords well with a steward’s responsibility to oversee multiple areas is as good as any.140 The immediate context depicting Paul’s ministry in 1 Cor 4:1 suggests that the mysteries relate to the content of Paul’s gospel.141 But the passage highlights the enactment of Paul’s ministry rather than the content of his message, so Paul may speak of mysteries generally here, without any specific component of the mysteries squarely in view. Instead, Paul refers to any truth relevant to God’s will, as revealed to Paul and other ministers of the gospel.
The mysteries reflect the intersection of the divine and human spheres. On the one hand, the mysteries of 4:1 are regarded as God’s mysteries, so they are divine in origin. On the other hand, the mysteries are truths that are now granted to human messengers. The title of steward (οἰκονόμος) indicates that God’s mysteries are things that have been entrusted to Paul.142 This concept supports Paul’s contention that he must answer to God for the faithfulness of his service (1 Cor 4:2–5). Paul elaborates on this idea of stewardship later in 1 Cor 9:16–17, where he brings attention to his obligation to please God in his service. In short, 1 Cor 4:1 portrays Paul’s relationship to the mysteries of God without divulging the exact contents of the mysteries. Paul identifies himself as one of the appointed custodians of God’s divine revelation.
The third passage yielding a broad meaning for mystery is found in Rom 16:25–26. Many scholars dispute the authenticity of the doxology (16:25–27).143 External and internal factors must be taken into account when making judgments about authenticity. With regard to manuscript evidence, skeptics of the Pauline origin of the doxology point primarily to its inconsistent placement in various ancient manuscripts. But while the witnesses preserve different locations for 16:25–27, the material is still present in the vast majority of extant manuscripts and versions.144 The list of witnesses is particularly impressive for the doxology’s location at the end of Rom 16.145 Definitive conclusions for what led to the relocation, subtraction, or addition of the doxology are elusive.146 Any plausible reconstruction of the textual history of the ending of Romans that assumes the originality of the doxology is not without problems.147 The lack of a plausible explanation for what gave rise to the diverse manuscript testimony if the original form of Romans was Rom 1:1—16:27 casts some degree of doubt on the Pauline origins of Rom 16:25–26.148
From an analysis of the style and wording of the doxology, arguments may be put forward for both positions. On the one hand, certain verbal and thematic correspondences between 1:1–5 and 16:25–26 create a sense of coherence in the letter as a whole, suggesting that 16:25–27 was an essential part of the original letter. The connections
