Mystery – A Caution

The Place of Mystery, Paradox, and Antinomy in Sound Biblical Theology

By Ronald W. Leigh, Ph.D.

Bible and Cross

March 14, 2016
Copyright © 2013 Ronald W. Leigh
Bible quotations are from the New International Version unless otherwise noted.

A. Introduction
B. Terms
C. The prevailing opinion
D. Four levels of ignorance
E. The logical problem in claiming we cannot understand
F. The better response
G. Caveats
H. The intent of revelation
I. The word "mystery" in the New Testament
J. Lessons from history
   Appendix

A.  Introduction

Does truth contain any contradictions?

Biblical Christianity claims to be the truth, so we must also ask if biblical Christianity contains any contradictions.

This paper deals with two closely related topics.  First, the nature of truth – particularly the law of non-contradiction.  Second, whether certain contradictions (under names such as mystery, paradox, and antinomy) have any legitimate place in biblical Christianity.

We often hear someone describe a difficult doctrine as a mystery or a paradox.  Or, if that person has read certain theologians he might call the doctrine an antinomy.  Then he may go on to say that, at least in this life, we will never comprehend this doctrine.  And he is not just saying that he personally doesn't understand the doctrine.  Rather, he is claiming that no one can understand it because, by nature, it is a mystery, paradox, or antinomy.

Certain doctrines seem to be described as beyond understanding more often than others:

This writer believes that theologians have done a significant disservice to the church for many centuries by applying labels such as mystery, paradox, and antinomy to these doctrines.  I have great respect for those who have gone before, many of them being good, honest, Christian scholars.  And it is no easy task to differ with what has been taught for generations.  Nevertheless, I must disagree, on biblical grounds, with the common tendency to label the above doctrines as mystery, paradox, or antinomy, and to consider them beyond human understanding.

B.  Terms

We will need to be precise in our use of the terms contradiction, mystery, paradox, and antinomy.

1.  "Contradiction"

The term contradiction usually has a fairly strict meaning.  It refers to a pair of statements, each statement canceling (affirming the opposite of) the other.  There is a well known law of non-contradiction which states that both such statements cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense.  In other words, given a certain statement and an opposite statement, only one of these two statements can be true.  Representing one statement by the letter A, we would say:  A and not-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense.

This law of non-contradiction also goes by other names including the law of contradiction and the law of antithesis.  Without this law it would be meaningless to label any statement as true, for that statement's opposite could also be labeled as true.  Thus, every truth is dependent upon the law of non-contradiction.  Indeed, the very notion of truth goes hollow if we ignore the law of non-contradiction.

Not all conservative Bible scholars have held that the law of non-contradiction is a worthy starting point for the discussion of truth.  For example, consider Cornelius Van Til, a well known theologian and apologist who taught at Princeton Seminary and Westminster Theological Seminary during the 1900s.  He refers to the law of non-contradiction as "an eternally static turnpike in the sky" in the sense that "there is no way to get on it" ("At the Beginning, God" Christianity Today, Dec. 30, 1977, p. 20, 22).  Additionally, he states that Christians should

never appeal to the law of contradiction as something that, as such, determines what can or cannot be true  (Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction To Systematic Theology, Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1974, p. 11)

Of course, Van Til can be commended for placing scriptural revelation above human imagination.  However, even Van Til cannot escape the law of non-contradiction, for every assertion that he makes depends on it, just as every assertion that the Bible makes depends on it.

The use of the law of non-contradiction as a test for truth must not be misunderstood.  It is not an imposition of human reason upon the Bible.  Rather, the Bible requires its use.

Hodge had it correct when he said that,

… it is impossible that one truth should contradict another.  It is impossible, therefore, that God should reveal anything as true which contradicts any well authenticated truth, whether of intuition, experience, or previous revelation.  (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1871; reprint, Eerdmans, 1970, vol. 1, p. 51-52)

Carl F. H. Henry also had it right when he said,

… whatever violates the law of contradiction cannot be considered revelation. … A denial of the law of contradiction would make truth and error equivalent; hence in effect, it destroys truth (Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, originally Word Books, 1983, Crossway Books, 1999, vol. 1, p. 233)

Note also the words of Carnell and Buswell:

By consistency we mean obedience to the law of contradiction.  In any judgment a term must mean one thing at a time if it is to convey truth.  The formal statement of the law of contradiction is as follows:  A is not non-A. ... Consistency is our surest test for the absence of truth.  (E. J. Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics, 4th. ed., Eerdmans, 1952, p. 56)

The great mass of teaching on truth and falsehood would be completely meaningless if the basic laws of logic, particularly the law of contradictories, were not constantly assumed by the Biblical writers.  (James O. Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, Zondervan, 1962, vol. 1, p. 22)

2.  "Mystery"

What is a mystery?  The word "mystery" usually refers to something that is obscure or unexplained, something difficult to comprehend, beyond understanding – an enigma or unsolvable riddle.  For example, we often speak of the following as mysteries.

In common language there is a wide range of meaning connected with the word "mystery," all the way from mild to severe.

Mild mystery:  merely
odd, temporarily puzzling		  ↔ 

In this paper we are concerned only with the severe mystery – something incomprehensible by its very nature.  This notion is very close to the first definition of the word mystery in Webster's dictionary:  "a religious truth that one can know only by revelation and cannot fully understand."

The word "mystery" is used in a good number of New Testament passages, and some people have applied the above severe definition to their interpretation of these passages.  However, in the New Testament the meaning of the word "mystery" has nothing to do with whether or not the subject is beyond human comprehension.  Thus, we will need to examine its usage in the New Testament, which we do below in the section entitled "The word 'mystery' in the New Testament."

3.  "Paradox"

The word "paradox" refers to a statement that, on the verbal level, seems to be self-contradictory.  However, this paradox can be explained – sometimes easily, sometimes with more difficulty.  (We are thinking here of general paradox, not technical paradox from fields such as logic or relativity.)

In some cases a paradox appears to contradict itself simply because the words are mistakenly taken in their absolute sense.  Consider, for example, the statement, "No one goes to that restaurant because it's too crowded."  On the verbal level there appears to be a conflict between the "no one" and the "crowded," but obviously "no one" cannot be taken in an absolute sense.  The same idea expressed in non-paradoxical fashion might be, "Many people avoid that restaurant because it's too crowded."  Thus, there is no real contradiction, only a verbal one.  A similar analysis could be made of the paradox attributed to Hegel, "We learn from history that we don't learn from history."

In other cases the paradox is easily solved by noting that words often have different senses, or different connotations.  For example, the paradox "many who are last will be first" (Matthew 19:30) refers to those who are last in one sense being first in a different sense (perhaps being last in what they lacked in this life according to man's standards in contrast with being first in what they gained in the next life according to God's standards).

In both cases, each particular paradox is explainable.  The conflict is only at the level of the words, not at the level of the meaning.

Besides the verbal level, as illustrated above, the word "paradox" is sometimes used in a more severe sense – for a genuine contradiction in meaning.  When this is done, the intent is usually to use the word paradox rather than contradiction in order to imply that the contradiction is not so serious as to violate the law of non-contradiction.  In other words, some claim that, yes, there is a genuine conflict, but it will eventually be explained – in the next life, when we will be able to understand better than we can now.  However, if there is a real contradiction, it should be called a contradiction, not a paradox.

We are concerned with real contradictions, which certain writers seem to think they have avoided simply by calling a contradiction a paradox.  But if a real contradiction is present, using a different label does not solve the problem.

4.  "Antinomy"

The term "antinomy" simply refers to two conclusions that oppose each other.  An antinomy consists of two ideas which seem to contradict each other, but which are both clearly (according to certain theologians) taught in scripture.  In this paper we are equating an antinomy with a severe mystery and with a severe paradox.  In other words, an antinomy is the type of mystery that is truly unexplainable rather than something that is merely odd or temporarily puzzling.  Similarly, an antinomy is the type of paradox that is at the level of meaning rather than merely at the level of words.

As related to the three areas of theology mentioned earlier, below are the pairs of teachings that are called antinomies by certain evangelical and conservative theologians.  However, this author maintains that it is pure subterfuge to call these pairs of teachings antinomies.  They should be called what they really are: contradictions.  Later we provide some very brief explanations (and links to further explanations) showing how these pairs of teachings, when rightly interpreted, are completely compatible and not contradictory at all.

Trinity        Sovereignty and human freedom        Christ
God is one God is three   God causes everything that happens Man has genuine free will and is responsible for his actions   Christ is fully God Christ is fully man

J. I. Packer devotes an entire chapter to the concept of antinomy in his otherwise excellent book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God.  He starts with a dictionary definition of the word but then modifies it for his own purposes.

What is an antinomy? The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines it as 'a contradiction between conclusions which seem equally logical, reasonable, or necessary'. For our purposes, however, this definition is not quite accurate: the opening words should read 'an appearance of contradiction'. For the whole point of an antinomy – in theology, at any rate – is that it is not a real contradiction, though it looks like one. … An antinomy exists when a pair of principles stand side by side, seemingly irreconcilable, yet both undeniable. … each rests on clear and solid evidence; but it is a mystery to you how they can be squared with each other. You see that each must be true on its own, but you do not see how they can both be true together.  (J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, Inter-Varsity Press, 1961, p. 18-19)

Then Packer contrasts antinomy with paradox (that is, with less-than-severe paradox as we have described it above).

… an antinomy is not the same thing as a paradox. A paradox is a figure of speech, a play on words … The point of a paradox, however, is that what creates the appearance of contradiction is not the facts, but the words. … a paradox is always dispensable. … a paradox is always comprehensible. … By contrast, however, an antinomy is neither dispensable nor comprehensible. It is not a figure of speech, but an observed relation between two statements of fact. It is not deliberately manufactured; it is forced upon us by the facts themselves.  It is unavoidable, and it is insoluble.  We do not invent it, and we cannot explain it.  Nor is there any way to get rid of it, save by falsifying the very facts that led us to it. … What should one do, then, with an antinomy? Accept it for what it is, and learn to live with it.  Refuse to regard the apparent inconsistency as real; put down the semblance of contradiction to the deficiency of your own understanding; think of the two principles as, not rival alternatives, but, in some way that at present you do not grasp, complementary to each other.  (Packer, op.cit., p. 19-21)

It is obvious that Packer wants to avoid the label "contradiction."  He says that what appears to be a contradiction is really an antinomy.  So he rejects contradiction, but accepts antinomy.  Does a change in label change the fact?  Certainly not.  The idea that you can dismiss a contradiction simply by calling it an antinomy is pure theological double-talk.

C.  The prevailing opinion

The prevailing opinion among conservative, evangelical theologians is that antinomy (or severe mystery, or severe paradox) is part of biblical theology, as will be shown by the following quotations.  Most such theologians shy away from calling a conflict a contradiction.  They prefer either the technical term antinomy or the softer terms mystery and paradox.  However, in spite of the labels being used, they are still talking about a contradiction and saying that it cannot be understood.  After hearing this loud chorus, we will try to explain its seriousness and why we are convinced that contradiction (by whatever name) has no place in sound biblical theology.

1.  On the trinity

Strong

The mode of this triune existence is inscrutable. It is inscrutable because there are no analogies to it in our finite experience.  (Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology, Revell, 1907, p. 344)

Berkhof

The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man. The Trinity is a mystery, not merely in the Biblical sense that it is a truth, which was formerly hidden but is now revealed; but in the sense that man cannot comprehend it and make it intelligible.  (L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Eerdmans, 1938, p. 89)

Montgomery

Reflect upon … the Most Holy Trinity.  Christian doctrine isn't "internally consistent" at all points – at least not from a human perspective.  (John Warwick Montgomery, Faith Founded on Fact, p. 233)

Grudem

Scripture teaches both (a) that there are three separate persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), each of whom is fully God, and (b) that there is one God.  We cannot understand exactly how these two statements can both be true, so together they constitute a paradox … . We can tolerate a paradox … because we have confidence that ultimately God knows fully the truth about himself and about the nature of reality, and that in his understanding the different elements of a paradox are fully reconciled, even though at this point God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts (Isa. 55:8-9).  (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan, 1994, p. 34.  Although Grudem goes on to make a distinction between paradox and contradiction, he still believes that the trinity "paradox" is beyond our understanding.)

2.  On sovereignty and human freedom

Arnold

…salvation involves the paradox of human freedom and divine election  (William T. Arnold, Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Baker Books, 1996, article on "Salvation")

Dunelm

… a spiritual fact like election, which belongs to the innermost purpose and work of the Eternal, necessarily leads us to a region where comprehension is impossible, and where we can only reverently apprehend. The doctrine passes upward to the sphere where antinomies live and move, where we must be content to hear what sound to us contradictions, but which are really various aspects of infinite truth. Let us be content to know that the Divine choice is sovereign; and also that "his tender mercies are over all his works," that `He willeth not the death of a sinner,' that "God is love."  (Handley Dunelm, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, article on "Election")

3.  On Christ

Gregory, Archbishop of Constantinople

[Jesus was] in the body circumscribed, uncircumscribed in Spirit; at once earthly and heavenly, tangible and intangible, comprehensible and incomprehensible  (Henry Bettenson, ed., Documents of the Christian Church, 2d ed., Oxford University Press, 1963, p. 64)

Berkhof

… the Person can be said to be omniscient, but also to have but limited knowledge; can be regarded as omnipresent, but also as being limited at any particular time to a single place.… the doctrine of the two natures in one person … was and remained ever since … far beyond human comprehension." (L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Eerdmans, 1938, p. 309, 315)

Boettner

In view of the fact that Christ has two natures, and depending on which nature we have in mind, it is proper to say that He is infinite or that He is finite, that He existed from eternity or that He was born in Bethlehem, that He was omniscient or that He was limited in knowledge.  (Loraine Boettner, Studies in Theology, Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1947, p. 197)

Chafer

How could He know and sense the might and wisdom of infinity and yet preserve that which is normal human weakness and limitation?  How could He know and not know?  How could He be the source of all and yet be prone and exposed to human frailty? ... How could He be tempted when God cannot be tempted? … the mystery is that of the incarnation itself, and is a problem of faith and not of understanding.  (Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology Dallas Seminary Press, 1947, vol. 1, p. 391-392)

Grudem

Evangelical theologians in previous generations have not hesitated to distinguish between things done by Christ's human nature but not by his divine nature, or by his divine nature but not by his human nature. It seems that we have to do this if we are willing to affirm the Chalcedonian statement about "the property of each nature being preserved." But few recent theologians have been willing to make such distinctions, perhaps because of a hesitancy to affirm something we cannot understand.  (Wayne Grudem, op. cit. p. 558)

D.  Four levels of ignorance

Suppose that some particular matter is being discussed.  There are at least four levels of ignorance in regard to such a matter.

4.  Philosophic level of ignorance ("Nobody can understand it.")
—————————————————————————
3.  Universal level of ignorance ("Nobody understands it.")
2.  Comparative level of ignorance ("You don't understand it.")
1.  Personal level of ignorance ("I don't understand it.")

(1)  The lowest level of ignorance is expressed by the statement, "I don't understand it."  This is merely a personal statement and can very easily be an accurate statement.

(2)  The second level is expressed by the statement, "You don't understand it."  The obvious implication is that the speaker thinks he does understand it and on the basis of his understanding is able to say that someone else does not.  Again, this can be an accurate statement in certain circumstances, but it is a little more risky than the first statement.  It presupposes not only a correct understanding of the matter on the part of the speaker, but also an ability to accurately grasp and evaluate the other person's lack of understanding of the matter.

(3)  The third level is expressed by the statement, "Nobody understands it."  Obviously this level is even more presumptuous because it pretends to have made a universal observation, which is a practical impossibility.

(4)  However, the fourth level is the most presumptuous level of all.  It is expressed by the statement, "Nobody can understand it."  In the three lower levels it is assumed that the matter under consideration is an intelligible matter; the various ideas that make up the matter can fit together without canceling each other and it is inherently capable of being understood by at least some humans.  However, this highest level is a statement about the matter itself rather than a statement about the people who are trying to understand it.  This statement is a philosophic claim that there are some ideas in this matter which logically cancel some other ideas, automatically making the matter incomprehensible.  While the difference between the first three levels is primarily a difference in degree, this fourth level is a qualitative leap above the other three levels.  There is a profound difference between saying, "Nobody understands it" and "You can't understand it."

As you consider these four levels of ignorance, you can see that the quotations cited in the previous section are not merely claims by the authors that they don't understand the particular doctrine, or that you don't, or that nobody does.  Rather, they are claims that the doctrine itself cannot make sense to humans – that it is inherently impossible to comprehend the doctrine.

These theologians would not want to use the word "contradiction."  Nevertheless, in saying that the doctrine contains conflicting ideas that are beyond human grasp, they are saying that one aspect of the doctrine logically cancels another aspect.  Face it!  If their claim is true, we have a contradiction.  And for the sake of honesty they should label it as such rather than resort to lesser words such as mystery, paradox, or antinomy.  Of course, these are contradictions they are willing to accept.  But when believers are asked to accept these doctrines, they should not be asked to accept a contradiction just because it is soft-pedaled as an antinomy, paradox, or mystery.

E.  The logical problem in claiming we cannot understand

The problem with the claim that a certain doctrine is beyond human understanding has to do with the inconsistent assertions made by Christian apologists on the one hand and Christian theologians on the other.

Christian apologists assert that Christianity is without contradictions and that other religions and cults have many contradictions.  In fact, they state that the presence of contradictions in anyone's system of thought (religious or not), or between two systems of thought, is taken as proof of error.  While agreement does not guarantee truth, disagreement does guarantee error.  For example, in a court of law, when two witnesses agree, they may both be telling the truth or they may both be stating a lie that they agreed upon ahead of time.  Thus, agreement does not guarantee truth.  However, if two witnesses contradict each other, that is certain proof that at least one of them is incorrect.  A contradiction guarantees error.

It is simply not fair for Christian apologists to assert that other religions which contain contradictions (or which contradict Christianity) must be false, while at the same time Christian theologians claim that certain doctrines are beyond human understanding.  Should Christian apologists claim that mutually exclusive ideas outside Christianity lower the matter to obvious error, while Christian theologians claim that mutually exclusive ideas within Christianity raise the matter to a higher, divine level?  Of course not.

Keep in mind that any system of thought that allows mutually exclusive ideas to exist side by side loses its ability to distinguish truth from error.  The concept of antinomy deserves critical examination because it impinges upon one of the requirements of truth, namely, compliance with the law of non-contradiction.

The concept of antinomy is not wanted because it is at variance with the epistemology of evangelical theologians and apologists.  The word "antinomy" is used euphemistically to refer to a contradiction, and a contradiction, by whatever name it is called, is still unacceptable.

It is interesting, to say the least, that while some evangelical theologians are busy explaining that the doctrines of the trinity, sovereignty, and Christ contain acceptable antinomies, other evangelical theologians and apologists are busy explaining that such antithetical (contradictory) speech is a sure sign of falsehood.  After all, this law of non-contradiction is the very epistemological law which evangelical theologians and apologists use to fault other philosophies and religions and thereby defend the truthfulness and the uniqueness of the Christian system of belief.

Little provides this example of the use of the law of non-contradiction.

Take, for instance, the fact of the deity, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Christianity affirms these facts as the heart of its message. Islam, on the other hand, denies the deity, death, and resurrection of Christ.  On this very crucial point, one of these mutually contradictory views is wrong. They can't simultaneously be true, no matter how sincerely both are believed by how many people.  (Paul Little, Know Why You Believe, 2d ed., Victor Books, 1967, p. 132)

In short, the concept of antinomy is neither wanted nor needed in biblical theology.  It cannot be used as a justification for a mistaken interpretation of the trinity, or of God's sovereignty, or of Christ.

F.  The better response

Rather than responding to a perceived contradiction by re-labeling it, the better response would be to recognize that improper interpretation has led to the contradiction.  So when we think we have an antinomy, we need to recognize that it really is a contradiction and say to ourselves,

It is far better to admit that I might need to adjust my understanding of the Bible than to label the contradiction an antinomy and thus disregard the law of non-contradiction.

… if two seeming truths are really incompatible, then reinterpretation or suspension of judgment is necessary  (David Basinger, "Biblical Paradox: Does Revelation Challenge Logic" in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, vol 30, no. 2, June 1987, p. 205-213)

Moule adds,

There is no merit in a paradox: we must always be struggling to resolve it.  (C. F. D. Moule, The Holy Spirit, Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1978, p. 59)

Thus, the doctrines of the trinity, God's sovereignty, and Christ must be more accurately interpreted.  Below are some beginning suggestions:

Regarding the trinity:  God is not three in the same sense in which he is one.  As clearly stated in the Athanasian creed (and other well known creeds), God is one in essence, three in person.  In other words, there are three individuals of one kind.  Unfortunately, many theologians have over-emphasized God's oneness and under-emphasized God's threeness, and thus have taught all sorts of detrimental theories and analogies.  See the paper The Trinity.

Regarding God's sovereignty:  Unfortunately, an absolutist concept of sovereignty has been brought to the Bible from Greek philosophy.  But when we let the Bible speak for itself, we find that God in his sovereignty requires man to make responsible choices.  And God "rewards those who earnestly seek him" (Hebrews 11:6).  God's election is based on his foreknowledge, which is non-determinative.  See the papers God's Sovereignty and Human Free Will,  Calvin and Arminius,  and The Order of Salvation and Divine Foreknowledge.

Regarding Christ:  Jesus Christ is properly called both God and man.  Being one person he can have only one nature – He is the God-man.  He can be both God and man because of the doctrine of the imago Dei, the fact that man was created similar to God.  See the paper Jesus the One-natured God-man.

G.  Caveats

1.  Human limitation

We are not saying that the human mind can understand everything.  Rather, we are saying that, what God has revealed is non-contradictory and can be understood.  We readily admit that there are secret things about God, beyond our comprehension.  And those secret things belong to God.

The secret things belong to the LORD our God. (Deuteronomy 29:29)

We are not concerned here with those secret things.  Rather, we are concerned only with those things which God has revealed.  In the next section we show that when God reveals something it is meant to be understood.

2.  Depth

We have been saying that the Bible's teachings are understandable and do not include contradictions.  But that is not meant to imply that those teachings contains nothing deep and profound.  It does not mean that every doctrine is easy to understand.  Nor does it mean that every question about that doctrine can be answered.

3.  Increased knowledge in the next life

We recognize that in the next life our knowledge and understanding will increase greatly – perhaps more than we can now imagine.

Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. (1 Corinthians 13:12)

Our understanding will be enlarged in the next life.  But what is learned then will not replace or contradict what is true now, nor will it be self-contradictory.  It will enlarge what we have already learned from God's revelation in this life – it will be clearer and more complete.

4.  Need for divine help

Keep in mind that, because of our fallen nature, our hearts do not welcome certain spiritual truths.  And even after salvation, we are often self-focused and insensitive to God's leading.  Thus, accurate understanding of spiritual matters comes only as our hearts are opened by God and we are taught by the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:45;  John 14:26;  16:13;  1 Corinthians 2:14-16).

H.  The intent of revelation

The very purpose of revelation is for our understanding and obedient response.  According to Moses, Daniel, Jesus, Paul, and Peter in the following statements, God communicates with man in human language that is understandable; he is not in the business of giving us riddles to keep us guessing.

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.  (Deuteronomy 29:29)

Near the end of Judah's Babylonian captivity, Gabriel brought a message to Daniel.  Notice how Gabriel introduced the message:

Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. As soon as you began to pray, an answer was given, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. Therefore, consider the message and understand the vision: …  (Daniel 9:22-23)

After describing the Holy Spirit's arrival and ministry, Jesus had more to reveal to his disciples, but they were not yet ready to receive it.  The fact that they would later be able to understand the revelation is clear from the fact that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth, but that was in their future.  For "now" the information was being withheld.

I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth …  (John 16:12-13)

Paul tells the Corinthians, as bluntly as it can be stated, that what he writes can be understood.

For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand.  (2 Corinthians 1:13)

Peter comments on the difficulty, not the impossibility, of understanding some things in Paul's letters.

He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.  (2 Peter 3:16).

Clearly, the intent of revelation is for human understanding and thoughtful response.

I.  The word "mystery" in the New Testament

The Greek word μυστηριον (mystērion) occurs 27 times in the New Testament.  (Some would include 1 Corinthians 2:1 making the count 28, but due to textual difficulties that verse in not included here.)  In the NIV, the word mystērion is usually translated "mystery," sometimes "secret" or "secret things," and once "deep truths."

According to the way the word is used in the New Testament, it does not refer to something that cannot be understood, but simply to something that was previously unknown but now has been revealed.  And now that it is revealed, it can be understood.

The word does not imply that the doctrine is incomprehensible.  (John D. Davis, A Dictionary of the Bible, 4th ed., 1924, reprinted by Baker, 1966, article on "Mystery")

Even in the mystery cults of the Greco-Roman world, where the term referred to secret knowledge that was known only by those initiated into the cult, the concept was not that the knowledge was incapable of being understood.  Rather, the secret knowledge involved certain "facts" that were humanly understandable, but those "facts" were know by only one group and kept secret from other groups.

Based on the way the word mystery (mystērion) is used in the New Testament (see appendix), we can make the following four observations.

Observation One — The three common subjects mentioned earlier (trinity, sovereignty, Christ as the God-man) are never the focus of the word mystery in the New Testament.

Observation Two — Several of the passages make it clear that the basic nature of a mystery has nothing to do with whether or not it can be understood.  Rather, it has to do with whether or not a certain truth has been revealed yet.  If that truth has only recently been revealed, it is called a mystery, indicating that not long ago it was unknown.  Notice the frequent emphasis on the fact that the mystery was formerly hidden, but is now revealed.

according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed …   (Romans 16:25-26)

God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began … but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.  (1 Corinthians 2:7-10)

… the mystery made known to me by revelation … mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. … to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God …   (Ephesians 3:3-9)

… the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints.  (Colossians 1:26)

Observation Three — The mysteries in themselves are always understandable.  Of course, when a certain individual does not understand a mystery, the reason can be found in that individual.  It may be

  1. Due to the spiritual condition of the person's heart (Matthew 13:11)
  2. Due to the person being without the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:7)
  3. Due to the language of the hearer (1 Corinthians 14:2)

Thus, the lack of understanding is not due to the content of the mystery itself, but is due to the condition of the hearer.  In each case where the mystery is not understood by some people, it is understood by others.

By the way, the essential nature of New Testament mysteries, especially as described in the second and third observations above, is identical to the nature of the "mysteries" or "secrets" revealed by God through Daniel.  Consider, for example, Daniel chapters 2 and 4 containing Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the large statue made of various metals and his dream of a large tree that was cut down.  (See the references to "mysteries" / "secrets" in Daniel 2:18-19, 27-30 and Daniel 4:9.)  These mysteries, once they were revealed by Daniel, were clearly understood even by Nebuchadnezzar.

Observation Four — Mysteries are part of progressive revelation, which takes place over an extended period of time.  Some things are revealed early in the process, other things are revealed later in the process.  The later revelations do not contradict the earlier ones.  Rather, they supplement them.  Progressive revelation is not so much a process of replacement, but a process of addition.

Jesus explained the notion of mystery and progressive revelation when he told his disciples,

I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.  (John 16:12-13)

It is a gracious thing for God to present his revelation little by little, giving only truths that can be understood at a certain time, and waiting to reveal other truths until they can be understood.

J.  Lessons from history

We need to pay attention to the history of theology.  Taking truth lightly, which happens when we ignore or mislabel contradictions, leads to a wide variety of pitfalls as observed in Neo-orthodoxy, postmodernism, and the emergent church.

1.  Neo-orthodoxy

Neo-orthodoxy emerged in the early 1900s beginning with Karl Barth.  Neo-orthodox theology, rooted in the existentialism of Kierkegaard, is dependent on the dialectical method and has been known as the "Theology of Paradox" because it is comfortable with contradiction (whether called antinomy, paradox, or mystery).  Neo-orthodoxy accepts the opinion of the naturalist and rationalist, and thus concedes the truth.  But it insists that we are to believe anyhow!  This separates faith from facts and leads to other serious problems – a redefinition of "God's Word," denial of the historic fall, uncertainty about the resurrection of Christ, confusion over the nature of the atonement, universalism, and other basic errors.  And this dangerous approach to "truth" is still raising its ugly head in many places today including the emergent church movement.  (See the section entitled "Low view of the Bible" in the Worldviews paper.)

2.  Postmodernism

The phenomenon known as postmodernism devalues truth; it completely ignores the law of non-contradiction.  Postmoderns are quick to say that every viewpoint and every religion is equally valid – a dead end road that is not even followed by its proponents.  (See the section entitled "Postmodernism" in the Worldviews paper.)

3.  Emergent church

The emergent church follows the lead of both neo-orthodoxy and postmodernism.  It replaces certainty and objectivity with subjectivity and agnosticism.  It downplays biblical doctrine.  It replaces theology with life stories.  It fails to take sides on important controversial issues.  It even disregards Jesus' claim to be the only way of salvation. (See the section entitled "Emergent Church" in the Worldviews paper.)

Appendix — New Testament passages using mystērion

# Reference using mystērion Subject of the mystery Understandable?
 1 Matthew 13:11 – "secrets"
Context:  v. 3-23		 The "secrets of the kingdom" as found in the parable of the four soils (four different responses to the message about the kingdom) YES, for "He who has ears" (v. 9).  He "hears" (v. 16) and "understands" (v. 23).  Also, the parable of the four soils is clearly explained in verses 18-23.
NO, for those with a "calloused" heart (v. 15).
 2 Mark 4:11 – "secret"
Context:  v. 2-20		 Same analysis as Matthew 13:11.  Additionally, the follow-up parable about the lamp in 21-25, with its obvious parallels to the earlier context, emphasizes disclosing what is hidden.
 3 Luke 8:10 – "secrets"
Context:  v. 4-15		 Same analysis as Matthew 13:11.  Additionally, the follow-up parable about the lamp in 16-18, with its obvious parallels to the earlier context, emphasizes disclosing what is hidden.
 4 Romans 11:25 – "mystery"
Context:  v. 11-32		 The inclusion of believing Gentiles with believing Jews YES, it is something of which Paul's readers do not have to be ignorant (v. 25).  The inclusion of Gentiles is explained in the context to be through faith/belief.
 5 Romans 16:25 – "mystery"
Context:  v. 25-27		 Paul's "gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ" YES, it was long hidden, but is now "revealed and made known through the prophetic writings … so that all nations might believe and obey him"
 6 1 Corinthians 2:7 – "secret"
Context:  v. 1-16		 Testimony about God: Christ and his crucifixion YES, for we have received "the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us" (v. 12)
NO, for the rulers of this age (v. 8) and for those without the Spirit (v. 14)
 7 1 Corinthians 4:1 – "secret things"
Context:  2:1 - 4:2		 Same analysis as 1 Corinthians 2:7
 8 1 Corinthians 13:2 – "mysteries"
Context:  v. 1-3		 (undefined, not necessarily limited to revealed doctrine) (hypothetical:  If I … can fathom all mysteries")
 9 1 Corinthians 14:2 – "mysteries"
Context:  v. 1-19		 That which edifies the speaker and may edify the listener YES, for the speaker (v. 4,17)
YES, for the listener if "intelligible" words are spoken in the listener's language, or interpreted (v. 3,5,13, entire context).  And, it is always intelligible to the speaker (v. 4,17).
NO, for the listener if spoken in a language foreign to the listener (v. 2, entire context)
10 1 Corinthians 15:51 – "mystery"
Context:  v. 49-57		 We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed (given immortality) YES, (the mystery is explained in the context)
11 Ephesians 1:9 – "mystery"
Context:  v. 3-14		 God's gracious plan to bring us salvation (including being chosen, redeemed, forgiven, adopted, sealed, etc.) YES, "He made known to us the mystery … " (v. 9)
12
13
14		 Ephesians 3:3,4,9 – "mystery … mystery … mystery"
Context:  v. 2-6		 … through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel … (v. 6) YES, both Paul and his readers (v. 4).  This is something which Paul could "make plain" to everyone (v. 9).
15 Ephesians 5:32 – "mystery"
Context:  v. 21-33		 Christ's love for and spiritual union with the church (similar to man and wife becoming one flesh) YES, at least to some degree, because of the parallel with human union in marriage
16 Ephesians 6:19 – "mystery"
Context:  v. 19-20		 The gospel YES, the gospel is elsewhere described in plain words
17
18
19		 Colossians 1:26-27; 2:2 – "mystery … mystery … mystery"
Context:  v. 1:23b-2:5		 Christ in you, the hope of glory (1:27)
Christ in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (2:3)		 YES, … the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know … (2:2)
20 Colossians 4:3 – "mystery"
Context:  v. 2-5)		 The message of Christ YES, it can be proclaimed clearly (v. 4)
21 2 Thessalonians 2:7 – "secret"
Context:  v. 1-12		 The power of lawlessness (something that can be "at work"), same as the man of lawlessness in v. 3 and the God-pretender in v. 4 YES, this formerly hidden power/person will be revealed (v. 3,6,8)
22 1 Timothy 3:9 – "deep truths"
Context:  v. 9		 "… deep truths of the faith …" (indeterminate)
23 1 Timothy 3:16 – "mystery"
Context:  v. 16		 The great truths of Christ's earthly ministry YES, the six clauses provide the explanation
24 Revelation 1:20 – "mystery"
Context:  v. 12-20		 The meaning of the seven stars and lampstands YES, as explained, the stars are angels/messengers and the lampstands are churches
25 Revelation 10:7 – "mystery"
Context:  10:1-8 and 11:15-19		 The prophesied "mystery of God" (earthly reign) YES, the pronouncements made at the sounding of the seventh angel's trumpet explain that the prophesied mystery is the beginning of God's/Christ's reign on earth (11:15-18)
26
27		 Revelation 17:5,7 – "mystery … mystery"
Context:  v. 1-18		 Two mysteries:
(1) The title on the woman's forehead (probably indicating that the name "Babylon" is not to be taken literally)
(2) The woman and the beast she is sitting on		 YES, for the angel said "I will explain to you the mystery … (v. 7), but a "mind with wisdom" is needed (v. 9).  "The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth" (v. 18, probably the city of Rome, compare v. 9).