Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ephesians 3:5
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
5. ages ] Better, generations. The reference (see next words) is to human time, and the periods before the Gospel.
unto the sons of men ] A designedly large phrase; mankind in general, both inside and outside the Jewish pale. Outside, the secret was wholly unknown; inside, it was only dimly and sparingly intimated, though certainly intimated (cp. Act 13:47; Rom 15:8-12). That it was in some measure revealed is suggested by the phrase here, “ As it is now &c.” On the present scale, in the present mode, it was not then revealed; but not therefore quite concealed. But the O.T. hints were after all little more than prepared materials for N.T. revelation.
his holy apostles and prophets ] On the “prophets,” see note on Eph 2:20. The recipients are called “holy” to mark their special nearness to, and knowledge of, the revealing God, and so the absolute truth of their report.
by the Spirit ] Lit., and better, in [the] Spirit. They were “in the Spirit” (Rev 1:10) while receiving the knowledge of the great mystery. The Holy Ghost possessed them, that He might inform them.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Which in other ages – The great purposes of God in regard to the salvation of mankind were not revealed; see the notes at Rom 16:25.
And prophets – Those who exercised the office of a prophet or inspired teacher in the Christian church; see the notes at 1Co 12:1.
By the Spirit – This proves that those who exercised the office of prophet in the Christian church were inspired. They were persons endowed in this manner for the purpose of imparting to the newly formed churches the doctrines of the Christian system. There is no evidence that this was designed to be a permanent order of people in the church. They were necessary for settling the church on a permanent basis, in the absence of a full written revelation, and when the apostles were away. When the volume of revelation was finished, and the doctrines of the gospel were fully understood, the functions of the office ceased.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 5. Which in other ages was not made known] That the calling of the Gentiles was made known by the prophets in different ages of the Jewish Church is exceedingly clear; but it certainly was not made known in that clear and precise manner in which it was now revealed by the Spirit unto the ministers of the New Testament: nor was it made known unto them at all, that the Gentiles should find salvation without coming under the yoke of the Mosaic law, and that the Jews themselves should be freed from that yoke of bondage; these were discoveries totally new, and now revealed for the first time by the Spirit of God.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Which in other ages; in the times before Christs coming in the flesh.
Was not made known unto the sons of men: that the Gentiles should be called was formerly known and foretold, but not as since, viz. as to the time and manner of it, and the means whereby it should be effected.
Prophets; New Testament prophets, Eph 4:11; Rom 12:6; 1Co 14:1,3.
By the Spirit; either by the Spirits being poured out on the Gentiles, it was known that they should be co-heirs with the believing Jews; or rather, by the Spirit instructing the apostles and prophets, and immediately acquainting them with this mystery.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
5. in other agesGreek,“generations.”
not made knownHe doesnot say, “has not been revealed.” Making known byrevelation is the source of making known by preaching[BENGEL]. The former wasvouchsafed only to the prophets, in order that they might make knownthe truth so revealed to men in general.
unto the sons of menmenin their state by birth, as contrasted with those illuminated “bythe Spirit” (Greek, “INthe Spirit,” compare Re 1:10),Mt 16:17.
asThe mystery of thecall of the Gentiles (of which Paul speaks here) was not unknown tothe Old Testament prophets (Isa 56:6;Isa 56:7; Isa 49:6).But they did not know it with the same explicit distinctness “As”it has been now known (Act 10:19;Act 10:20; Act 11:18-21).They probably did not know that the Gentiles were to be admittedwithout circumcision or that they were to be on a level with the Jewsin partaking of the grace of God. The gift of “the Spirit”in its fulness was reserved for the New Testament that Christ mightthereby be glorified. The epithet, “holy,” marks thespecial consecration of the New Testament “prophets” (whoare here meant) by the Spirit, compared with which even the OldTestament prophets were but “sons of men” (Eze2:3, and elsewhere).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Which in other ages was not made known unto, the sons of men,…. That is, which mystery of Christ, and of the Gospel, was not made known to men in general, nor so clearly as under the Gospel dispensation. Some hints were given of it to Adam, immediately after his fall; and the Gospel was before preached to Abraham, Moses, and David, and others knew something of it; and it was still more fully dispensed in the times of the prophet Isaiah, and other following prophets: but then the knowledge of it was not so extensive, nor so clear as now; it lay hid in types and shadows, in obscure prophecies and short hints. Moreover, this may have respect particularly to the calling of the Gentiles, as appears from the following words; this was, in some measure, made known, as that in Christ all the nations of the earth should be blessed; that when Shiloh came, to him should the gathering of the people be; that the Messiah should be an ensign of the people, and to him should the Gentiles seek; that he should be the covenant of the people, and a leader and a commander of them; and that there should be great flockings to him; but then this was not known to many, and the time, mode, and circumstances of it were but little understood, and comparatively speaking, it was not known: however, it was not so known,
as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the spirit. The apostles and prophets were the superior officers in the Gospel dispensation; the former design the twelve apostles of Christ, and the latter such who had the gift of interpreting the prophecies of the Old Testament, and of foretelling things to come, having received gifts from Christ to fit them for such offices, some apostles, some prophets; and to these a revelation was made of the mystery of the Gospel in general, and of the calling of the Gentiles in particular, by the Spirit, who searches the deep things of God, and reveals them, and leads into all truth; and who, by falling upon the Gentiles, as upon Cornelius and his family, and by the success which he gave to the Gospel in the Gentile world, made their calling clear and manifest. The Complutensian edition reads, “by the Holy Spirit”; and so the Arabic and Ethiopic versions.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
In other generations ( ). Locative case of time. He had already claimed this revelation for himself (verse 3). Now he claims it for all the other apostles and prophets of God.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Other generations [] . Other and different. See on Mt 6:24.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Which in other ages” (ho heterais geneais), “Which in other or past generations.” Which mystery of impartial redemption for Jew and Gentile and that provision for both to worship and serve in the same church-body.
2) “Was not made known to the sons of men” (ouk egnoristhe tois huiois ton anthropon) “Was not made known or recognized by the sons of men, or humanity, as a whole in pre-generations or times, as it came to be in three ways of the New Testament: 1) the coming of Christ, 2) the establishment of His church-body, for Gentiles and Jews, and 3) the Holy Spirit empowering the church, Act 1:8.
3) “As it is now revealed” (hos nun apekalupthe) “As now it is disclosed or revealed,” meaning now and hereafter it is having been disclosed. The church was alluded to in the Old Testament as well as redemption for the Gentiles, but not as clearly as they were to the New Testament saints, Dan 2:44; Zec 13:7; Mat 26:31.
4) “Unto his holy apostles” (tois hagiois apostolois autou) To His holy prophets.” This perhaps refers to the New Testament prophets. The New Testament prophets, apostles, and church were specifically made to understand that they were to carry the gospel to all nations, Mat 28:11-20; Joh 20:21; Luk 24:46-53; Act 1:11
5) “And prophets by the Spirit” (kai prophetais en pneumati) (kai prophetais en pneumati) “The same Spirit pneuma T that inspired Old Testament prophets also inspired the writers of the New Testament to clarify matters that had been hidden or shadowed vaguely in Old Testament times, 1Pe 1:21; Joh 14:16-17; Joh 16:13-14.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
5. Which in other ages was not made known. He had simply called it a mystery, but now calls it a mystery of Christ, because it was necessary that it should remain hidden, until it was revealed by his coming; just as the appellation of “prophecies of Christ” may be given to those which relate to his kingdom. We must first explain the word mystery, and then inquire why it is said to have remained unknown in all ages. The mystery was,
“
that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.” (Eph 3:6.)
When this name is given to the gospel, it has other meanings, which do not apply to the present passage. The calling of the Gentiles, then, was a “mystery of Christ;” that is, it was to be fulfilled under the reign of Christ.
But why does he affirm that it was not known, when it had been the subject of so many predictions? The prophets everywhere declare, that people shall come from every nation in the world, to worship God; that an altar shall be erected both in Assyria and in Egypt, and that all alike shall speak the language of Canaan. (Isa 19:18.) It is intimated by these words, that the worship of the true God, and the same profession of faith, will be everywhere diffused. Of the Messiah it is predicted, that he shall have dominion from east to west, and that all nations shall serve him. (Psa 72:8.) We see also, that many passages to this purpose are quoted by the apostles, not only from the later prophets, but from Moses. How could that be hidden which had been proclaimed by so many heralds? Why are all without exception pronounced to have been in ignorance? Shall we say, that the prophets spake what they did not understand, and uttered sounds without meaning?
I answer, the words of Paul must not be understood to mean that there had been no knowledge at all on these subjects. There had always been some of the Jewish nation who acknowledged that, at the advent of the Messiah, the grace of God would be proclaimed throughout the whole world, and who looked forward to the renovation of the human race. The prophets themselves, though they spoke with the certainty of revelation, left the time and manner undetermined. They knew that some communication of the grace of God would be made to the Gentiles, but at what time, in what manner, and by what means it should be accomplished, they had no information whatever. This ignorance was exemplified in a remarkable way by the apostles. They had not only been instructed by the predictions of the prophets, but had heard the distinct statement of their Master, (Joh 10:16,)
“
Other sheep I have which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and there shall be one fold and one shepherd;”
and yet the novelty of the subject prevented them from understanding it fully. Nay, after they had received the injunction,
“
Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,” (Mar 16:15,)
and,
“
Ye shall be witnesses to me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth,” (Act 1:8,)
they dreaded and recoiled from the calling of the Gentiles as a proposal absolutely monstrous, because the manner of its accomplishment was still unknown. Before the actual event arrived, they had dark and confused apprehensions of our Savior’s words; for ceremonies were
“
a vail over their face, that they could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.” (2Co 3:13.)
With unquestionable propriety, therefore, does Paul call this a mystery, and say, that it had been hidden; for the repeal of the ceremonial law, which admitted them within the vail, was not understood.
As it is now revealed. To lay claim to information which none of the patriarchs, prophets, or holy kings, had possessed, might wear the aspect of arrogance. To guard against this imputation, Paul reminds them, first, that in this respect he was not alone, but shared the revelation with the most eminent teachers of the church; and, secondly, that it was the gift of the Holy Spirit, who has a right to bestow it on whom he pleases; for there is no other limit of our knowledge but that which he assigns to us.
These few words, as it is now revealed, throw additional light on the admission of the Gentiles to be the people of God. It is on the condition that they shall be placed on a level with the Jews, and form one body. That the novelty might give no offense, he states that this must be accomplished by the gospel. (Eph 3:6.) Now, the gospel was itself a novelty; for it had never till now been heard of, and yet was acknowledged by all the godly to have come from heaven. Where, then, was the wonder, if, in renewing the world, God should follow an unwonted method?
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(5) Which in other ages (rather, to other generations) was not made known unto the sons of men.For the general sense comp. Col. 1:27. The phrase the sons of men (except that it is once used in Mar. 3:28) is peculiar to the Old Testament, where it is of frequent use in the poetical books, and it is notable that in Ezekiel it is the name by which the prophet himself is constantly addressed. Hence, although it is probably wrong to restrict to the children of Israel, or to the prophets, words which by their very nature apply to all mankind, yet the phrase seems to be used with a suggestion of the contrast between the old dispensation and the new. (Comp. our Lords words in Mat. 11:11, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.)
As it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.The application of the epithet holy to the Apostles has been thought strange as coming from one of their number; and it is worth notice that this exceptional application is certainly more appropriate to the comparatively impersonal style of an encyclical epistle. But the epithet (applied to the Old Testament prophets in Luk. 1:70; Act. 3:21; 2Pe. 3:2), like the frequent use of it as the substantive saints, in application to all Christians, refers not to personal character, but to official call and privilege. In this passage it is clear that it is used thus, in emphatic contrast with the sons of men above, and in connection with the following words, in the Spirit. The contrast here briefly conveyed is the same which is drawn out in 1 Corinthians 2 between the wisdom of men, and the wisdom of God, sanctifying, and so enlightening, the Christian soul.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
5. Other ages, or dispensations preceding this, as the patriarchal, the Mosaic, the prophetic.
Not made known Of the same mystery, Paul affirms (Rom 16:25-26) that it “was kept secret since the world began,” but “now is made manifest,” and “made known to all nations.” In his apostleship was enclosed the mystery of God.
The sons of men Who, with all their natural powers, could never discover it.
As it is now Beautiful predictions are recorded in the prophets of future good to the Gentiles. But the disclosure was not then made as it is now, when it forms the great theme and event of this newly opened age.
Prophets Clearly the New Testament prophets, as in Eph 2:20. And these are holy as truly as the prophets of old, who were set apart for revelation to men.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Eph 3:5. Which in other ages was not made known. The following verse so plainly determines this passage to the calling of the Gentiles, that there can be no controversy as to the general sense of it. It was, indeed, known long before that the Gentiles were to be added to the church; but it was not known that they should be heirs of the same inheritance, and partakers of the peculiar promise of the Spirit. The Jews rather thought of their being slaves to them; and least of all did they imagine, that the middle wall of their ceremonies should be broken down, and the Gentiles admitted to the full privileges of God’s people without circumcision and obedience to the Mosaic law; which the Christian converts among them heard of at first with great amazement. See Act 10:45; Act 11:18.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Eph 3:5 . Not an explanation, to what extent he was speaking of a mystery (Rckert, Meier): for that the readers knew , and the design of bringing in a mere explanation would not be in keeping with the elevated solemn style of the whole verse; but a triumphant outburst of the conscious exalted happiness of belonging to the number of those who had received the revelation of the mystery an outburst, which was very naturally called forth by the sublime contents of the .
] may be either a definition of time , like the dative at Eph 2:12 (so taken usually ); in that case is not periodis or temporibus in general, but: in other generations (comp. on Eph 3:21 ); or it may express the simple dative relation , so that is generationibus (Vulgate): which to other generations was not made known , according to which . would form a characteristic epexegesis (Lobeck, ad Aj. 308; Bernhardy, p. 55; Ngelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias , Exo 3 , pp. 272, 307). This was my previous view. Yet the former explanation, as being likewise linguistically correct, and withal more simple and more immediately in keeping with the contrast , is to be preferred. The . are the generations which have preceded the ; and . (not elsewhere occurring with Paul) has the significance, that it characterizes men according to their lower sphere conditioned by their “ortum naturalem” (Bengel), under which they were incapable in themselves of understanding the . Comp. Gen 11:5 ; Psa 8:5 ; Psa 11:5 ; Wis 9:6 . That specially the O. T. prophets are meant by ., as Bengel supposed, [169] is wrongly inferred from . . ., since the contrast does not lie in the persons , [170] but in the time ( ). It is true Ezekiel often bears the name (Eze 7:1 ; Eze 12:1 , al. ), not, however, as prophet , but as man ; and thereby likewise his human lowliness and dependence upon God are brought home to him.
] By this expression, which (in opposition to Bleek) is to be left as comparative , the disclosure made to Abraham and the ancient prophets of the future participation of the Gentiles in Messiah’s kingdom (Gal 3:8 ; Rom 9:24-26 ; Rom 15:9 ff.) remains undisputed; for “fuit illis hoc mysterium quasi procul et cum involucris ostensum,” Beza; hence the prophetic prediction served only as means for the making known of the later complete revelation of the mystery (Rom 16:26 ).
] in the Christian period. Comp. 1Pe 1:12 .
] not a repetition of , but the distinguishing mode in which this manifestation took place, is intended to be expressed: , Eph 3:3 .
. . . . ] is not to be divided by a comma after (Lachmann, Bisping), so that . . . . would be apposition or more precise definition, whereby the flow of the expression would be only needlessly interrupted. The predicate holy was already borne by the Old Testament prophets (2Ki 4:9 ; Luk 1:70 ; 2Pe 1:21 ), and this appellation at our passage by no means exposes the apostolic origin of the Epistle to suspicion (de Wette derives from the passage Col 1:26 recast in post-apostolic times; Baur: from the post-apostolic reverential looking back to the apostles); but it is very naturally called forth by the context, in order to distinguish the recipients of the revelation amidst the mass of the , in accordance with the connection, as God’s special messengers and instruments, as (2Pe 1:21 ); whereupon the apostolic consciousness in Paul was great and decided enough not to suppress the predicate suggested by the connection, [171] while he is speaking of the apostles and prophets in general , whereas, immediately afterwards, at Eph 3:8 , in speaking of himself in particular, he gives full play to his individual deep humility. How can we conceive that the author should thus in one breath have fallen out of his assumed part at Eph 3:5 with , by a “slip” (Baur), and then have resumed it at Eph 3:8 with !
] not of Christ (Bleek), but of God , whose action is implied in and .
] quite as at Eph 2:20 .
] The Holy Spirit is the divine principle, through which the took place. Comp. Eph 1:17 ; 1Co 2:10 ff. Rckert wrongly takes it as: in an inspired state , which never means, but, on the contrary, even without the article is the objective Holy Spirit. Comp. on Eph 2:22 . Koppe and Holzhausen connect ( sc . ) with . In this way it would be an exceedingly superfluous addition, since prophets, who should not be ., are inconceivable, whereas a revelation was conceivable even otherwise than through the Spirit (by means of theophany, angel, vision, ecstasy, etc.). Meier connects . even with , so that the sense would be: in sacred enthusiasm! and Ambrosiaster (comp. Erasmus) with the following . . . Baur, p. 440, knows how to explain from a Montanistic view, and thinks that it is only on account of the prophets that it is applied to the apostles also.
[169] In quite an opposite way Jerome would exclude the ancient patriarchs and prophets from the .; for these were rather sons of God!
[170]
[171] A side-glance at the Jews, who would have seen a blasphemy in the apostolic message of the joint-heirship of the Gentiles (Lange, Apostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 128), is utterly remote from the connection.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
Ver. 5. Was not made known ] sc. So clearly and particularly. Peter himself could hardly be persuaded to it,Act 10:14Act 10:14 ; Act 11:2-4 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
5 .] which in other generations (dative of time: so Luk 12:20 , , Mat 16:21 al.: for the temporal meaning of , see reff.) was not made known to the sons of men (‘latissima appellatio, causam exprimens ignoranti, ortum naturalem, cui opponitur Spiritus,’ Beng.; and to which, remarks Stier, and are further contrasted) as ( , , , Thdrt.) it has been now revealed (we are compelled in the presence of , to desert the aorist rendering ‘was revealed,’ which in our language cannot be used in reference to present time. The Greek admits of combining the two. We might do it by a paraphrastic extension of , ‘as in this present age it was revealed’) to His holy (see Stier’s remark above. Olshausen says, “It is certainly peculiar, that Paul here calls the Apostles, and consequently himself among them, ‘holy Apostles.’ It is going too far when De W. finds in this a sign of an unapostolic origin of the Epistle: but still the expression remains an unusual one. I account for it to myself thus, that Paul here conceives of the Apostles and Prophets, as a corporation (cf. ch. Eph 4:11 ), and as such, in their official character, he gives them the predicate , as he names believers, conceived as a whole, or , but never an individual”) Apostles and Prophets (as in ch. Eph 2:20 , the N. T. Prophets note there) in (as the conditional element; in and by) the Spirit (Chrys. remarks, , , . . must not be joined with . as Koppe, al. (not Chrys., as the above citation shews); for, as De W. remarks, the words would thus either be superfluous, or make an unnatural distinction between the Apostles and Prophets) that (‘namely, that’ giving the purport of the mystery) the Gentiles are (not, ‘ should be :’ a mystery is not a secret design, but a secret fact) fellow-heirs (with the Jews) and fellow-members (of the same body) and fellow-partakers of the promise (in the widest sense; the promise of salvation : the complex, including all other promises, even that chief promise of the Father, the promise of the Spirit itself) in (not to be referred to . , which would be more naturally, though not necessarily, , but to the three foregoing adjectives, in Christ Jesus , as the conditional element in which their participation consisted) Christ Jesus (see above on ch. Eph 2:13 ) through the Gospel (He Himself was the objective ground of their incorporation; the , the joyful tidings of Him, the subjective medium by which they apprehended it): of which (Gospel) I became (a reference to the event by which. “The passive form, however, implies no corresponding difference of meaning (Rck., Eadie): in the Doric dialect was a deponent passive: was thus used for , and from thence occasionally crept into the language of later writers. See Buttm., Irregular Verbs, s.v. , Lobeck, Phryn. pp. 108 9.” Ellic.) a minister (see the parallel, Col 1:23 : and the remarks in Mey., and Ellic. on and ) according to (in consequence of and in analogy with) the gift of the grace (genitive of apposition, as clearly appears from the definition of the grace given in the next verse: the grace was the gift) of God which was given to me ( . , not tautological, or merely pleonastic after , but to be joined with what follows) according to the working in me of his power (because, and in so far as, His Almighty power wrought in me, was this gift of the , the , the office of preaching among the Gentiles, &c., bestowed upon me).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Eph 3:5 . : which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men . The TR inserts before , as in Syr.-Phil. and Copt. But the insertion is due probably to the double dative, and the (which is not found in [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] , etc.) is rightly omitted by LTTrWHRV. The , therefore, is the dat. of time ; the term , like the OT (of which it is the usual rendering in the LXX), meaning the period covered by a generation of men (Luk 1:20 ; Act 14:16 ; Act 15:21 ; Col 1:26 ) as well as the generation or race itself. By are to be understood, not the OT prophets (Beng.) as contrasted with the “Apostles and prophets” of the next clause, but men generally and in the absolute sense, in conformity with the . , : as now it was revealed to His holy Apostles and prophets in the Spirit . The has its proper comparative force. The fact of the revelation made in pre-Christian times to the fathers and the prophets is not questioned. The matter in view is the measure or manner of the revelation. The = “now,” in these Christian times , and the aor. defines the fuller revelation as made definitely at a former period in these times. The verb also has its proper force, as distinguished from the and as describing the way, viz. , by revelation , that the truth was made known. The prophets of the OT dispensation were designated (2Ki 4:9 ; Luk 1:20 ; 2Pe 1:21 ). Those of these Christian times are in like manner designated , as men separated and consecrated to the office and distinguished from the mass of the . They are further described as His ( ), i.e., God’s Apostles and prophets, God being the subject implied in the and the . The terms and have the same sense here as in Eph 2:20 , viz. , the Christian Apostles and prophets. The clause defines the ; not the , as if = (Holzh., Koppe), for the need no such definition. As in Eph 2:22 the here is the Holy Spirit, and the would most naturally be taken in the same sense as these. Here, however, most understand it as the instrumental . It seems to combine the two ideas of agency and element or condition , and describes the revelation as having been made in and by the Spirit.
[219] Codex Vaticanus (sc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[220] Codex Sinaiticus (sc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[221] Codex Alexandrinus (sc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[222] Codex Ephraemi (sc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.
[223] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[224] Codex Augiensis (sc. ix.), a Grco-Latin MS., at Trinity College, Cambridge, edited by Scrivener in 1859. Its Greek text is almost identical with that of G, and it is therefore not cited save where it differs from that MS. Its Latin version, f, presents the Vulgate text with some modifications.
[225] Codex Mosquensis (sc. ix.), edited by Matthi in 1782.
[226] Codex Angelicus (sc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
in other ages = to (no preposition, Latin case) other generations.
unto, unto = to, to.
sons. App-108.
men. App-123.
is = was.
now. Emph. This present time.
revealed. Greek. apokalupto. App-106.
holy apostles and prophets. See Eph 2:20, and compare “prophetic writings” (Rom 16:26). App-189.
the Spirit. App-101.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
5.] which in other generations (dative of time: so Luk 12:20, ,-Mat 16:21 al.: for the temporal meaning of , see reff.) was not made known to the sons of men (latissima appellatio, causam exprimens ignoranti, ortum naturalem, cui opponitur Spiritus, Beng.; and to which, remarks Stier, and are further contrasted) as ( , , , Thdrt.) it has been now revealed (we are compelled in the presence of , to desert the aorist rendering was revealed, which in our language cannot be used in reference to present time. The Greek admits of combining the two. We might do it by a paraphrastic extension of ,-as in this present age it was revealed) to His holy (see Stiers remark above. Olshausen says, It is certainly peculiar, that Paul here calls the Apostles, and consequently himself among them, holy Apostles. It is going too far when De W. finds in this a sign of an unapostolic origin of the Epistle: but still the expression remains an unusual one. I account for it to myself thus,-that Paul here conceives of the Apostles and Prophets, as a corporation (cf. ch. Eph 4:11), and as such, in their official character, he gives them the predicate , as he names believers, conceived as a whole, or , but never an individual) Apostles and Prophets (as in ch. Eph 2:20, the N. T. Prophets-note there) in (as the conditional element; in and by) the Spirit (Chrys. remarks, , , . . must not be joined with . as Koppe, al. (not Chrys., as the above citation shews); for, as De W. remarks, the words would thus either be superfluous, or make an unnatural distinction between the Apostles and Prophets)-that (namely, that-giving the purport of the mystery) the Gentiles are (not, should be: a mystery is not a secret design, but a secret fact) fellow-heirs (with the Jews) and fellow-members (of the same body) and fellow-partakers of the promise (in the widest sense; the promise of salvation:-the complex, including all other promises, even that chief promise of the Father, the promise of the Spirit itself) in (not to be referred to ., which would be more naturally, though not necessarily, ,-but to the three foregoing adjectives,-in Christ Jesus, as the conditional element in which their participation consisted) Christ Jesus (see above on ch. Eph 2:13) through the Gospel (He Himself was the objective ground of their incorporation; the , the joyful tidings of Him, the subjective medium by which they apprehended it): of which (Gospel) I became (a reference to the event by which. The passive form, however, implies no corresponding difference of meaning (Rck., Eadie): in the Doric dialect was a deponent passive: was thus used for , and from thence occasionally crept into the language of later writers. See Buttm., Irregular Verbs, s.v. -, Lobeck, Phryn. pp. 108-9. Ellic.) a minister (see the parallel, Col 1:23 : and the remarks in Mey., and Ellic. on and ) according to (in consequence of and in analogy with) the gift of the grace (genitive of apposition, as clearly appears from the definition of the grace given in the next verse: the grace was the gift) of God which was given to me (., not tautological, or merely pleonastic after , but to be joined with what follows) according to the working in me of his power (because, and in so far as, His Almighty power wrought in me, was this gift of the , the , the office of preaching among the Gentiles, &c., bestowed upon me).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Eph 3:5. , which) This refers to Eph 3:3, as the repetition of the verb , I make known, indicates.- , in other ages) Time in the ablative, as Act 13:36.- , was not made known) He does not say , was not revealed. Making known by revelation (Eph 3:3) is the source of making known by preaching. Revelation is somewhat more special; making known is done in the hearing of others also: revelation is only made to the prophets.- , to the sons of men) A very wide appellation, expressing the cause of ignorance, natural descent, to which the Spirit is opposed; comp. Mat 16:17. He speaks of their former state in the idiom of the Hebrew language. Moreover, the antithesis of the apostles and prophets of the New Testament to the sons of men leads to the conclusion, that by this appellation the ancient prophets are principally intended; for example, Ezekiel, who is often called , son of man, and has copiously described the city and house of God, as Paul does in this place.- , in the Spirit) the gift of whom was reserved for the New Testament, with a view to the glorifying of Christ.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Eph 3:5
Eph 3:5
which in other generations was not made known unto the sons of men,-This truth of the reception of the Gentiles had not been known unto the sons of men, through the ages from Abraham to the coming of Jesus Christ. It had been foretold to Abraham and to various prophets that the blessings in the seed of Abraham should be to all nations, but always in a way that they did not understand.
as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets-It has now been revealed to them, as plainly and fully as it was to the apostles and prophets by the Holy Spirit who guided them. They were directed to go forward and preach to the Gentiles and receive them in such manner that they could not fail to see and understand what was meant. This direction and revelation was given to Peter at the house of Cornelius (Act 10:34-35; Act 11:18), and to Paul and Barnabas (Act 15:12), and has been made known to the whole church at the apostolic council at Jerusalem (Act 15:12-29).
in the Spirit;-[The source of the revelation is here indicated. Jesus promised to send the Spirit to guide the apostles into all the truth. (Joh 16:13). The things of Christ, pre-eminently such things are here in question, he should declare unto them. It is precisely of this that Paul is now speaking.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
in other: Eph 3:9, Mat 13:17, Luk 10:24, Act 10:28, Rom 16:25, 2Ti 1:10, 2Ti 1:11, Tit 1:1-3, Heb 11:39, Heb 11:40, 1Pe 1:10-12
as it: Eph 2:20, Eph 4:11, Eph 4:12, Mat 23:34, Luk 11:49, 1Co 12:28, 1Co 12:29, 2Pe 3:2, Jud 1:17
by: Luk 2:26, Luk 2:27, Joh 14:26, Joh 16:13, Act 10:19, Act 10:20, Act 10:28, 1Co 12:8-10
Reciprocal: Job 11:6 – show thee Isa 25:7 – he will Isa 52:15 – for Isa 55:5 – thou shalt Isa 64:4 – have not Dan 2:22 – revealeth Mat 12:18 – and he Mat 13:35 – I will utter Mat 16:17 – but Mat 20:7 – Because Mar 13:11 – but Joh 15:15 – all Act 2:39 – and to all Act 10:45 – the Gentiles Act 11:18 – hath Act 15:32 – being Rom 1:1 – called Rom 12:6 – whether 1Co 2:10 – God Gal 1:16 – reveal Gal 3:28 – neither Eph 1:17 – revelation Eph 2:7 – in the Eph 2:13 – were 1Ti 2:6 – in 1Ti 3:16 – preached Tit 1:3 – manifested 2Pe 1:1 – an apostle Rev 18:20 – and ye Rev 21:14 – and in
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
(Eph 3:5.) -Which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men. The antecedent to is , the relative forming a frequent link of connection. The which is found in the Received Text is condemned by the evidence of MSS., such as A, C, D, E, F, G, I, K. The dative as a designation of the time in which an action took place may stand by itself without a preposition, as in Eph 2:12, though in poetry the preposition is frequently prefixed. Khner, 569; Stuart, 106; Winer, 31, 9. According to some, is a species of ablative, with an ellipse of the preposition, and, as usually happens in such a case, MSS. vary in their readings. Bos, Ellipses Graecae, ed. Schaefer, p. 437. , corresponding to the Hebrew , H1887, signifies here the time occupied by a generation-an age measured by the average length of human life. Act 14:16; Act 15:21; Col 1:26. There is no reason to adopt the opinion of Meyer and Hodge, and take the term to signify men, having, in epexegetical apposition with it, the phrase . Such a construction is clumsy, and it is far better to give the two datives a differential signification. The formula , so used with the past tense, refers to past ages, and stands in contrast with .
That the phrase sons of men should, as Bengel supposes, mean the prophets of the Old Testament, is wholly out of the question. Ezekiel was often named -son of man, but the prophets never as a body received the cognomen sons of men. We can scarcely say, with Harless, Matthies, and Stier, that there is studied emphasis in the words, as if to bring out the need which such generations had of this knowledge, since they were men sprung of men, and were in want of that Spirit so plentifully conferred in these recent times. Mar 3:28, compared with Mat 12:31. The words so familiar to a Hebrew ear, seem to have been suggested by the to the apostolic mind. As age after age passed away, successive generations of mortal men appeared. Sons succeeded fathers, and their sons succeeded them; so that by sons of men is signified the successive band of contemporaries whose lives measured these fleeting . The meaning of the apostle, however, is not that the mystery was unknown to all men, for it was known to a few; but he intends to say, that in the minds of men generally it did not possess that prominence and clearness which it did in apostolic times. And he fills up the contrast, thus-
-as it has been now revealed to His holy apostles. The aorist is connected with -a connection possible in Greek, but impossible in English. Revelation is the mode by which the apostles gained an insight into the mystery which in previous ages had not been divulged. Bengel says-notificatio per revelationem est fons notificationis per praeconium. The points of comparison introduced by are various:-1. In point of time-. Only since the advent of Jesus has the shadow been dispelled. 2. In breadth of communication. The apostle speaks of the general intimation which the ancient world had of the mystery, and compares it with those full and exact conceptions of it which these recent revelations by the Spirit had imparted. 3. In medium and object. The sons of men are opposed to holy apostles and prophets. The apostle’s meaning fully brought out is-As it has been now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, and by them made known to the present age. If the mystery needed to be revealed by the Spirit, and to minds of such preparation and susceptibility as those of apostles and prophets; if its disclosure required such supernatural influence and such a selected class of recipients-then it is plain that very inadequate and glimmering notions of it must have been entertained by past generations. The prophets have been described under Eph 2:20, and apostles and prophets will be more fully illustrated under Eph 4:11. The epithet is unusual in this application, though it is given to the old prophets. 2Ki 4:9; Luk 1:70; 2Pe 1:21. The term has been explained under Eph 1:1, and in this place its sense is brought out by the following . They were His in a special sense, selected, endowed, commissioned, inspired, sus tained, and acknowledged by Him, and so they were holy. Not only were they so officially, but their character was in harmony with their awful functions. They were not indeed holier than others; no such comparison is intended. The Ephesian church was holy as well as the apostles; but they are called holy in this special sense and in their collective capacity, from the nearness and peculiarity of their relation to God. The Jewish people were a holy nation, but on the forefront of the mitre of the high priest, of him who stood within the vail and before the mercy-seat, there was a golden plate with the significant inscription-HOLINESS TO JEHOVAH.
-and prophets in the Spirit. Lachmann, followed by Bisping, places a comma after , and regards the next words as in apposition. has not the article. See under Eph 1:17; see also under Eph 2:22. Ambrosiaster and Erasmus connect with the following verse, a supposition which the structure of the succeeding sentence forbids; and Meier joins the same phrase to , as if explained the term-a hypothesis which is also set aside by the order of the words. The majority of expositors, from Jerome and Anselm to Stier and Conybeare, join the words to the previous verb-revealed in or by the Spirit. The clause will certainly bear this interpretation, and the sense is apparent. Winer, 20, 4. But the phraseology is peculiar. Peile translates-apostles and inspired interpreters, but he erroneously thinks that prophets and apostles are the same. See under Eph 2:20. It might be said that the pronoun seems to qualify – -to His holy apostles, while the prophets have no distinctive character given them, unless it be by the words , for they were prophets, and had become so, or had a right to the title, . 2Pe 1:21. This interpretation was before the mind of Chrysostom, though he did not adopt it, and Koppe and Holzhausen have formally maintained it. The construction would then resemble that of the same formula in the last verse of the preceding chapter. Similar construction is found Rom 8:9; Rom 14:17; 1Co 12:3; Col 1:8; Rev 1:10. The epithet is not superfluous, as these men became prophets only in the Spirit. The apostles themselves stand in the room of the Old Testament prophets, and their possession of the Spirit was a promi nent and functional distinction. But the prophets so called under the New Testament were not to be undervalued; they, too, were in the Spirit. De Wette objects that such an epithet for the prophets would be too distinctive. But why so? The apostles were God’s–in a special sense, and they were in consequence. But Paul does not give the prophets either one or other of these lofty designations. The apostles had high office and prerogatives, but the possession of the Spirit was the solitary distinction of the prophets, and by it the sacred writer seems to characterize them. At the same time, the ordinary construction of with the verb gives so good a meaning, that we could not justify ourselves in departing from it.
The general sense of the verse is evident. The apostle does not seem to deny all knowledge of the mystery to the ancient world, but he only compares their knowledge of it, which at best was a species of perplexed clairvoyance, with the fuller revelation of its terms and contents given to modern apostles and prophets; or as Theodoret contrasts it- , . In Vetere Testamento Novum latet, et in Novo Vetus patet. The scholium in Matthiae-that the men of old knew that the Gentiles should be called, but not that they should be fellow-heirs, contains a distinction too acute and refined. The intimations in the Old Testament of the calling of the Gentiles are frequent, but not full; disclosing the fact, but keeping the method in shade. The apostle James refers to this in Act 15:14. But after the death of Christ, which, by its repeal of the ceremonial code, was the grand means of Judaeo-Gentile union, a church, without reference to race, was fully organized. The salvation of guilty men of all races became a distinctive feature of the gospel, and therefore the incorporation of non-Israel into the church, revealed to Peter and Paul by the Spirit, was more clearly understood from the results of daily experience and the fruits of missionary enterprise. Act 11:17-18; Act 15:7; Act 15:13.
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Eph 3:5. The promise made to Abraham in Gen 12:3 Gen 22:18 really meant that both Jews and Gentiles were to 6e blessed by the Gospel of Christ. That same truth was repeated in various forms by many writers in the Old Testament. But the system as a whole was never revealed by them, hence Paul here declares that it was not made known to men in those years as it is now revealed by the Spirit. That revelation was made through the services of the apostles and prophets. (See the comments on chapter 2:20.)
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Eph 3:5. Which. This refers to the mystery of Christ (Eph 3:4), the parenthesis being unnecessary.
In other generations; not ages, or, periods, though the phrase has a temporal sense, as in the Old Testament use of the word generations.
Was not made known. Less definite than revealed.
To the sons of men. To any of the sons of men. It includes the Old Testament prophets, but not these alone. The contrast with holy and in the Spirit, suggests that those merely sons of men, not born of the Spirit, could not know this mystery.
As it has been now revealed. The contrast between now and in other generations is one of degree. It was not then made to the extent that it has now been revealed.
To his holy apostles and prophets; the terms are to be understood as in chap. Eph 2:20; the Apostles, and the New Testament prophets, two classes of inspired men (in the Spirit), to whom this mystery had been revealed. The adjective holy is applicable to both classes, and need occasion no difficulty. Paul speaks of them as a body, not as individuals, so that there is no self-glorying in the term.
In the Spirit. This is the sphere in which the revelation was made. To the Apostles there was a permanent inspiration to fit them for their peculiar work as laying the foundation of the Christian Church; but in the peculiar condition of the apostolic Church, without a complete New Testament, and the experience of centuries, there was an inspiration for teaching, prophesying). Those thus gifted were the New Testament prophets. Both classes were for the specific work in that age (comp. chap. Eph 2:20); when the revelation was complete, and the emergency was met, both offices, in their distinctive features, ceased to exist. See chap. Eph 4:11.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
We have here clear indication of another doctrine called progressive revelation. Not only did God reveal information to man, but He did it along time. He gave some to Adam, He gave some to Abraham, He gave some to Moses, He gave some to the Old Testament prophets, and now He is giving more to Paul and the rest of the apostles, as well as to the New Testament people.
This progressive type revelation is important as we try to understand the Scriptures as a whole. That revelation that was given to Moses may or may not relate to us today. On the other side, what we know today, was not incumbent upon those of Moses time.
Each age is responsible for its own revelation specifically, while also responsible for that of the preceding ages which relates to all time. When the Old Testament writer mentions something of the character of God, then that is also revelation for us, however when an Old Testament prophet warns of coming judgment upon Israel it is not incumbent upon us.
You must be careful in how you apply Scripture. When study is done in the Old Testament you need to determine what is for us, and what was for that day. Many today use the Gospels for today, when some of that material was given specifically to the person that will one day live in the Kingdom/millennium. If you want some basic principles of interpretation of the Gospels there is a section at the end of this study from my theology that will give you a start. There is much more information around if you want to study further.
Some items of interest.
a. The New Testament prophets received revelation from God. This is important in that the Charismatics say that they have prophets, but they don’t believe that they are adding revelation today, only that they state things that are in keeping with Scripture. Then they aren’t prophets – the New Testament prophets received and communicated revelation and they also were for-tellers at times.
Some charismatics believe that we still have apostles, as do some non-charismatics, however the non-charismatics view the apostles as preachers today rather than apostles on the order of the New Testament ones.
b. The prophets received revelation that Paul did not, and the other apostles received revelation that Paul did not. So, how come Paul didn’t throw a hissy fit because someone else knew something that he didn’t know? Apply that one to the church today folks. We are all on the same team, but we don’t all know all that there is to know about all that is going on, nor do we need to know all that is going on.
Different people are prepared differently than you so be sure to understand it is God that does the preparing, and that it is not of your business to be similarly prepared if God doesn’t do it for you. We are prepared as God has prepared us. He gave us the education that He desired us to have. Be satisfied with how God has prepared you.
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
3:5 Which in {b} other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
(b) He does not mean that no one knew of the calling of the Gentiles before, but because very few knew of it. And those that did know it, such as the prophets, had it revealed to them very obscurely, and by means of symbols.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The mystery was unknown before God revealed it to the New Testament apostles and prophets. Prophets may be a more specific description of apostles here (cf. Eph 2:20). That means God did not reveal the church in the Old Testament. Specifically what is the mystery in view here?
Traditional dispensationalists, as distinguished from "progressive dispensationalists" and covenant theologians, have understood the mystery to be the church, the body of Christ. [Note: E.g., Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, pp. 133-34; Gary W. Derickson, "The New Testament Church as a Mystery," Bibliotheca Sacra 166:664 (October-December 2009):436-45.] By "traditional dispensationalists" I am referring to normative dispensationalists, which some "progressive dispensationalists" have subdivided into "classical" and "revised" dispensationalists.
"Paul then, is explaining, not limiting the mystery there set forth [by his reference to the equality of Jews and Gentiles]. The concept must stand that this whole age with its program was not revealed in the Old Testament, but constitutes a new program and a new line of revelation in this present age." [Note: J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, p. 137. See also Charles C. Ryrie, "The Mystery in Ephesians 3," Bibliotheca Sacra 123:489 (January-March 1966):25.]
"At least four defining characteristics of the church are described as a mystery. (1) The body concept of Jewish and Gentile believers united into one body is designated as a mystery in Eph 3:1-12. (2) The doctrine of Christ indwelling every believer, the Christ-in-you concept, is called a mystery in Col 1:24-27 (cf. Col 2:10-19; Col 3:4; Col 3:11). (3) The church as the Bride of Christ is called a mystery in Eph 5:22-32. (4) The Rapture is called a mystery in 1Co 15:50-58. These four mysteries describe qualities that distinguish the church from Israel." [Note: Fruchtenbaum, pp. 117-18.]
Amillennialists, covenant premillennialists, and progressive dispensationalists say that the mystery is not the church itself but the equality of Jews and Gentiles in the church. [Note: E.g., Morris, pp. 87-89, 93.]
"The mystery referred to in the ’dispensation of the mystery’ (Eph 3:9) is the relationship of Jews and Gentiles to Christ and to one another. This relationship is the distinguishing characteristic of the church." [Note: Craig A. Blaising, "Dispensations in Biblical Theology," in Progressive Dispensationalism, p. 121.]
"The mystery of Eph 3:6 may thus be summed up as the coequal participation of the Gentiles with Israel in the full messianic salvation that is realized in the crucified and risen Christ and made effective to both through the apostolic proclamation of the gospel. This truth of the unity of Gentiles and Israel in the church, which has already been introduced in connection with the ’mystery of his will’ (Eph 1:9-14, esp. Eph 3:12-13) and elaborated in Eph 2:11-22, stands behind all of the teachings of the epistle as the central theme." [Note: Robert L. Saucy, "The Church as the Mystery of God," in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, pp. 136-37.]
These two groups of interpreters view the church differently. Traditional dispensationalists understand the church to be an intercalation or parenthesis in God’s kingdom program. Some of them refer to the church as the mystery form of the kingdom. They see the church as a hiatus in God’s dealings with Israel on the earth. Consequently the church is a new entity, not simply the continuation of the Old Testament theocracy. [Note: See Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, pp. 133-34; idem, Dispensationalism, pp. 124-25; John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, pp. 232-37; and James M. Stifler, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 254.]
Amillennialists, covenant premillennialists, and progressive dispensationalists view the nature of the church differently. They believe the church is a progressive stage in the historical unfolding of God’s kingdom program on earth. It is from this progressive unfolding of the dispensations or economies in God’s earthly kingdom program that the term "progressive dispensationalism" comes. [Note: See Craig A. Blaising, "The Extent and Varieties of Dispensationalism," in Progressive Dispensationalism, p. 49.] They stress the continuity between the past, present, and future rules of God over the earth. Non-dispensationalists typically refer to the church as the "new Israel." This view stresses the discontinuity between Israel and the church in the past and in the future.
Was the mystery revealed in any sense in the Old Testament, or was this revelation something entirely new in Paul’s day? Traditional dispensationalists respond that neither the church as a distinct entity nor the equality of Jews and Gentiles in the church was previously revealed. They appeal to the meaning of "mystery" for support. "Mystery" (Gr. mysterion) in the New Testament refers to "’a truth which was once hidden but now is revealed,’ ’a truth which without special revelation would have been unknown.’" [Note: J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 166.] "As" (Eph 3:5) does not mean that God had revealed it previously but now revealed it more fully in Paul’s day, as the context (Eph 3:9; cf. Eph 2:16) and Col 1:26 make clear. God had not revealed anything about the church in the Old Testament.
Amillennialists, covenant premillennialists, and progressive dispensationalists say yes and no. The church was revealed in the Old Testament, not by that name but as a future stage in the earthly kingdom of God. Nevertheless the equality of Gentiles and Jews in one body (Eph 2:15-16) was new revelation.
". . . it [the mystery] was new and unknown in a relative sense only, being in its essentials an important theme of prophecy from the time of Abraham . . ." [Note: Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, p. 97. See W. Harold Mare, "Paul’s Mystery in Ephesians 3," Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 8:2 (Spring 1965):83.]
". . . a ’mystery’ need not even have been unknown or unappreciated previously, except perhaps relatively so . . ." [Note: J. Barton Payne, The Imminent Appearing of Christ, p. 126. See J. Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, 2:448-49.]
"A mystery may be hidden in the sense that its truth has not yet been realized." [Note: Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, p. 150. See his ch. 6, "The Church and the Revelation of the Mysteries," for a fuller explanation of the progressive dispensational interpretation of the mysteries.]
The correct interpretation depends on a proper identification of the mystery and an accurate understanding of the nature of the church.
The question of whether or not the Davidic (messianic) kingdom has already begun relates to the answer. Traditional dispensationalists say that it has not since the Davidic kingdom is an earthly kingdom and therefore Christ will only begin to reign over it when He returns to earth. Amillennialists, covenant premillennialists, and progressive dispensationalists say that the messianic kingdom has begun since Christ is now enthroned in heaven.
These groups, however, interpret the nature of the messianic kingdom differently. Some amillennialists say the messianic kingdom is Christ’s heavenly rule. Others say that it will be His earthly rule in the new heavens and earth. Covenant premillennialists and progressive dispensationalists say that the messianic kingdom is a two-stage rule. Christ now rules from heaven through the church, and in the future He will return and reign on earth. Thus there is an "already" aspect, and there is also a "not yet" aspect to the messianic kingdom.
If the Davidic kingdom is an exclusively earthly reign of Messiah, then it seems that the church is not just a segment of this kingdom. Messiah would need to be present to reign over this kingdom. Unquestionably He exercises universal sovereignty presently, but this seems to be different from His reign as David’s heir over David’s earthly kingdom. The church enters into many blessings because of Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension, not because He rules as the Davidic king from heaven now. Some of these blessings are identical to what believers will enjoy when Christ returns to reign on the earth. This should not lead us to conclude, however, that the church is the first stage of Christ’s messianic kingdom.
I believe that the mystery in view here is the equality of Jews and Gentiles in the church (Eph 3:6). [Note: Cf. Hoehner, Ephesians, pp. 432, 501.] But this is only one mystery concerning the church that the New Testament reveals. Taken together all these mysteries present the church as a distinct entity in God’s plan and not just one aspect of the messianic kingdom. Neither the church nor the present equal relationship of Jews and Gentiles was revealed in the Old Testament, though Gentile blessing was. God had revealed His purpose to bless Gentiles along with Jews from Gen 12:3 onward (cf. Isa 2:1-4; Isa 61:5-6).
Note that Paul said God revealed the mystery to His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. He did not just reveal the church to Paul. Ultradispensationalists claim that the church could not have begun before Paul appeared on the scene since he was the apostle through whom revelation concerning this mystery came. [Note: Cornelius R. Stam, Acts Dispensationally Considered, 2:17-19. For a brief discussion of ultradispensationalism, see Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, pp. 192-205; or idem, Dispensationalism, pp. 197-207.]