The When Question (Part 7): Ephesians 2:20
February 6th, 2007
(By Nathan Busenitz)
Ephesians 2:19–22: “[19] So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, [20] having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, [21] in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, [22] in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.”
This passage (specifically verse 20) is a critical text for the cessationist, since it establishes (in his paradigm) the notion that New Testament prophets were given for the foundation stage of the church, and not for the entire church age. In the same way that the apostles are no longer in the church today, neither are prophets. Thus, it is reasoned, the gift of prophecy has ceased.
Virtually everyone agrees that there are no apostles in the church today (in terms of the specific office, as used in Ephesians 2:20; 3:5; and 4:11 and numerous other places in Paul’s writings). After all, an apostle had to be (1) be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:22; 10:39–41; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:7–8); (2) be directly appointed by Jesus Christ (Mark 3:14; Luke 6:13; Acts 1:2, 24; 10:41; Gal. 1:1); and (3) have the ability to confirm his mission by miraculous signs (Matt. 10:1–2; Acts 1:5–8; 2:43; 4:33; 5:12; 8:14; 2 Cor. 12:12). Based on these three criteria (all three of which one must meet to be an apostle), there were no longer any apostles (in the specialized sense) after the first century.
Since the apostolic office has ceased, having accomplished its purpose in laying the foundation for the church, can we then conclude that the prophetic office has also ceased?
This, according to most commentators, depends on who the “prophets” are in this verse. If the “prophets” are New Testament prophets, then the cessationist paradigm is greatly strengthened. As continuationist Wayne Grudem has written:
If [Ephesians 2:20 is] referring to all the prophets in all the local congregations in first century churches . . . then it would seem that they are portrayed in a unique ‘foundational’ role in the New Testament church, and we have to agree with Dr Gaffin—we would expect this gift to cease once the New Testament was complete (Grudem, Prophecy, 48; cited from here).
At first glance, it appears that the verse is highlighting two distinct offices within the early church—that of apostle and that of prophet. But Grudem sees it differently. In his view, the verse would be better translated as “the apostle-prophets” or “the apostles who are also prophets.” It is the prophetic aspect of the apostle’s ministry that is being discussed in this verse. Thus, the apostolic office is the only one that we should expect to have ceased.
Dr. Grudem’s primary argument for his position appeals to Granville Sharp’s first rule of Greek grammar. According to this rule,
When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle . . . .” (Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, 2).
In other words, in a Greek construction of article-noun-kai-noun, the two nouns refer to the same person.
While it is generally recognized that Granville Sharp’s rule consistently applies to singular nouns, it does not universally apply to plural nouns. Daniel Wallace explains:
“Sharp’s rule Number 1″ doesn’t always work with plural forms of personal titles. Instead, a phrase that follows the form article-noun-”and”-noun, when the nouns involved are plurals, can involve two entirely distinct groups, two overlapping groups, two groups of which is one a subset of the other, or two identical groups (Wallace, 72-78; Online Source).
Because the nouns in this case are plural in form, Granville Sharp’s rule does not necessarily apply. Grudem’s appeal to Ephesians 4:11 (where some interpret a parallel construction as “pastors who are also teachers” rather than “pastors and teachers”) has been strongly criticized. According to R. Fowler White:
The obstacle is that Grudem interprets the syntax of the article-noun-kai-noun plural construction in Eph 2:20 in a way which, as D. B. Wallace has demonstrated, has neither clear nor ambiguous parallels in the NT. In addition, Wallace has shown that even the one true grammatical parallel that Grudem cites (Eph 4:11, tous de poimenas kai didaskalous) has been widely misunderstood because few exegetes have ever seriously investigated the semantic range of the article-noun-kai-noun plural construction. In fact, Wallace boldly challenges the exegesis of Eph 4:11 by Grudem and others, emphatically insisting “that such a view has no grammatical basis” in NT usage. According to Wallace’s findings, the least likely interpretation of Eph 4:11 is that it means “the pastor-teachers, that is, the pastors who are also teachers”; more likely, it means “the pastors and other teachers.” (Online Source)
With his grammatical argument seriously in question, Grudem’s other supporting arguments quickly dissipate. Space does not allow a full discussion in a blog article. However, R. Fowler White’s journal article, which has been referenced several times already in this post, provides a compelling response to each of Grudem’s assertions. In the words of Thomas Edgar, a cessationist:
Ephesians 2:20 could not be more clear. The verse contains no difficult words, nor any difficult or unusual grammatical constructions. The grammatical construction of one article preceding two nouns joined by “and” is a familiar and well-known construction. Any alleged complexities in interpreting this verse arise not from the verse itself but from the presuppositions of the interpreter (Edgar, Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit, 78–79).
In establishing that there are two distinct offices in this verse, Richard Gaffin (in Perspectives on Pentecost) notes that it is important to keep several key exegetical points in mind. These can be summarized as follows:
(1) Ephesians 4:11 clearly distinguishes between the apostles and the prophets. The context of the letter, then, points to a distinction in Ephesians 2:20.
(2) First Corinthians 12:28 is the only other text where apostles and prophets are mentioned together. Here also, they are clearly presented as separate groups.
(3) Paul does not designate the apostles as “prophets” anywhere else in his writings.
(4) Since Paul does not do so elsewhere, it is unlikely that he would do so here at least without a little bit of explanation.
We conclude, then, that the grammar, the context (cf. Eph. 4:11), and Paul’s usage elsewhere provides strong evidence for the fact that the “prophets” of 2:20 are distinct from the “apostles.” This would be true, also, of Ephesians 3:5 (in which it is clear that New Testament, not Old Testament, prophets are in view).
To again cite Grudem’s earlier quote (from above):
If [Ephesians 2:20 is] referring to all the prophets in all the local congregations in first century churches [i.e. New Testament prophets in a general sense] . . . then it would seem that they are portrayed in a unique ‘foundational’ role in the New Testament church, and we have to agree with Dr Gaffin—we would expect this gift to cease once the New Testament was complete.
Based on the exegetical evidence, this is exactly what cessationists expect.
For those who would like to study this further, please see the following articles by Dave Farnell, one of our NT professors here at The Master’s Seminary:
Is the Gift of Prophecy for Today? (Part 4)
Fallible New Testament Prophecy/Prophets?: A Critique of Wayne Grudem’s Hypothesis
In fairness, we should also add that some continuationists, such as Jon Ruthven, do not hold to Grudem’s view and yet do not see Ephesians 2:20 as a support to the cessationist position. Ruthven argues that Ephesians 2:20 refers to a foundation that will recur as a pattern until Christ returns (this is in accord with his understanding of Ephesians 4:11–13). In our own opinion, the fact that there are no longer apostles in the church is a strong argument against Ruthven’s recurring pattern view. As Samuel E. Waldron writes: “The admission that the apostolate has ceased is a fatal crack in the foundation of Continuationism” (To Be Continued?, 23).
Also, Grudem has added a response to Wallace in his most recent edition of The Gift of Prophecy: In the New Testament and Today (2000; originally published in 1988). He continues to hold to his view despite the absence of any exact parallels outside of Ephesians 4:11.
Nate,
Good work, as usual. I haven’t had time to read the whole Jon Ruthven article, but my understanding of “foundation” has always been that it is a recurring pattern.
In regards to apostles in the church today, I do believe that there are men in China who could be regarded as apostles. They fulfill the three requirements you list (in the same sense that Paul the apostle did) and, interestingly, their role in the church in China could certainly be characterized as “foundational”.
My source for believing so is primarily “The Heavenly Man” by Brother Yun and Paul Hattaway. And secondarily missionary work in China (now past) where the fruit and the stories are still visible.
Good study.
I always thought the prophets who are the foundation included the OT prophets as well.
I thought they were those who laboured for the Lord, until He came, and sent His Apostles to reap where they didn’t labour. John 4:38
We are “growing into a holy temple in the Lord, built together for a habitation of God through the Spirit”.
This is such a slpendid thought. I am a living stone added to this temple, whose Cornerstone is placed perfectly, and whose foundation is set perfectly against this holy Cornerstone. And God is building this temple with His mighty hands, and His Word is the substance which holds these living stones together.
“But you are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels”. Hebrews 12:22
I don’t know. For all the decent argument and reasoning for a cessationism, it seems too complicated. Too complicated, when we know that the best interpretations lean toward the simplicity. I can’t get beyond 1 Cor 13 verse 12 which seems to define the WHEN as the time when we will see God face to face:
verse 10: but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away…
verse 12…now we see in a mirror dimly, BUT THEN FACE TO FACE; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.” (emphasis mine)
Clearly these verses seem to indicate that the partial will be done away when we see face to face, whether in heaven or at our Lord’s return. We haven’t seen face to face yet, that I know of and any other inference would seem to go way beyond the normal interpretation.
Robert,
Thanks for your comment.
If I am reading you correctly, your view of the “recurring foundation” seems to be more in line with an “open but cautious” position, rather than the traditional charismatic point-of-view. By using the illustration of the Chinese church (a developing church), you seem to be limiting apostolic operation to places where the church is relatively young (i.e. its foundation still being laid). If this is the case, would you also limit the gift of prophecy to places where the church is relatively young? And if not, why are there no “apostles” in places where the church is well-established?
Ruthven’s view, as I understand it, is quite different, since it attempts to explain the existence of gifts in any cultural/geographical context.
I should add that it is difficult to see how leaders in the Chinese church could be apostles in the same sense as Paul, since Paul himself indicated his apostleship was “unique” and that he was the last (1 Cor. 15:8).
Thanks again for your comment.
- NB
Don,
Thanks for your comment. Most commentators do not believe that the OT prophets are included in verse 20, because they are excluded (in the context) by 3:5.
Also, it would be strange (though not impossible) for Paul to list the OT prophets in a way that was chronologically out of order (since the apostles came after the OT prophets, not before).
Anyway, for what it’s worth…
NB
Sharon,
Thanks for your comment. I appreciate your desire for simplicity. But I would disagree that the simplest interpretation is always the best. Many of the people of Jesus’ time, for instance, thought there would only be one coming of the Messiah (in victory and power). While this is a simpler interpretation, it is obviously not correct. The goal of Bible study then must be precision and accuracy first, simplicity second.
In reality, the cessationist argument is really not complex at all. It asserts (1) that the miraculous gifts in 1 Corinthians 12-14 (and other passages) are the same in kind as the miraculous signs in Acts; and (2) that those miraculous signs ceased shortly after the apostolic age. Sometimes the amount of exegetical data used in the discussion can feel a bit overwhelming. But this would be true no matter which position one holds.
That said, you should know that I agree in principle with your understanding of 1 Corinthians 13. Parts 4, 5, and 6 of this series discussed that passage. Viewing the “perfect” as heaven does not, in fact, necessarily mitigate against a cessationist position.
Thanks again for your comment.
NB
Wow,
This was great, I totally missed Eph. 2:20 as a great argument for cessationists.
Interesting, to know how many people here agree with White and Wallace on “pastors and other teachers” interpretation vs “pastor-teacher.”
I would have to agree that apostles and prophets ceased when the foundation of the church was established via the writing and teaching of the NT. This was a completely new doctrine never heard before by any person except for excerts from OT prophets concerning Jesus and what He would bring with Him. This info, however, was mostly hidden until Jesus’ revealtion. We no longer need apostles and these types of prophets because we have the completed work of His Word and the Holy Spirit to guide us unto truth. (Acts 2:18 coming soon!)However, there are different definitions for prophecy. Propheteria (the word found in 1Co 12:5 and 13:2 and many other NT Scriptures) means public exposition or explanation or interpretation or laying open the sense or meaning of an author or of any passage in a writing. Proverbs 31 is a Scriptural example of this. By definition it means: Preaching; public interpretation of Scripture; exhortation or instruction. So, according to this definition of prophecy, this continues and will continue until the coming of Christ. Those who were prophets (nebi) who fortold God’s word went around prophesying (naba) of things to come. These were OT prophets and also the apostles. Many of these OT prophets, apostles, and other men (Ananias, Joseph) saw visions (chazah) of which they prophesied. So propheteria, which is listed among the gifts given to us, is clearly different than the naba or chazah given to specific people of the Bible and not to us.
revelation, excerpts, foretold…still cold here frozen brain frozen fingers :O
Nate,
Good points – my position on apostleship is certainly not well developed (it’s not exactly something you run into everyday!). I have read the Jon Ruthven article and his premise seems the same as mine, although I still have to iron out the implications.
Basically, I just don’t see how a good reformed protestant can hold that the apostles are foundational in the sense that you do – it harkens back to Rome’s doctrine! First, there is the issue of the placement of the cornerstone.
Honestly, the most natural interpretation is that Christ is the top cornerstone, which explains how we are being built into him, and which continues the image Paul is using in the context. If this were the case then obviously your interpretation of “foundation” as a stage in church development would not work at all. Christ is not even in the foundation!
But if Christ is the bottom cornerstone a similar problem remains. Because we are all being built into him. But that would make us all a part of the foundation. Which obviously can’t be, if, as you say, the foundation is a stage in church development and the apostles and prophets have ceased.
But even more than this, I just worry at how this demonstrates a cessationist’s view of apostles as some “repositories of unwritten Scripture” as Ruthven put it (that is, if you indeed hold, as a cessationist would, that Scripture is the real foundation). I can understand very well how if this were one’s view, he or she should like to do away with such an office.
But again, this is not consistent with Scripture. Apostles were fallible just as others were. What is more, not all apostles wrote Scripture and some that were not apostles did. Once again, would you then exclude that Scripture from being foundational?
Ruthven has an excellent point when he says that the foundation that all the church is built on is the Spirit-revealed confession that Jesus is Lord. Which (to borrow your words), based on the exegetical evidence, is exactly what a continuationist would expect.
Robert,
Thanks for your comment. I’ll have to respond to more of it tomorrow, but I wanted to make one critical point (primarily in response to Ruthven).
Ruthven assumes that the cessationist viewpoint, which associates the apostolic age with the “foundation” period of the church, comes from a flawed approach to Ephesians 2:20 by the Reformers. Thus, he says, “It seems that the Evangelical cessationist tradition underlying this understanding of Eph 2:20 has been uncritically shaped by the polemics of the Reformers against the Papacy.”
But this is not an accurate portrayal of the origins of the cessationist position. The cessationist interpretation of “foundation” in Ephesians 2:20 does not originate, in history, with the Reformers. Or with the Roman Catholic Church.
This can be seen by a survey of the ante-Nicene church fathers, who consistently viewed the apostolic period as the “foundation” period of the church. This foundation stage was something the fathers referred to in the past tense, indicating that they understood it as past.
Thus, Ignatius (c. 35–115) in his Epistle to the Magnesians, wrote (speaking in the past tense):
Irenaeus (c. 130–202) in Against Heresies, echoes the past tense understanding that Peter and Paul laid the foundations of the Church (in 3.1.1) and later refers to the twelve apostles as “the twelve-pillared foundation of the church” (in 4.21.3).
Tertullian (c. 155–230), in The Five Books Against Marcion (chapter 21), notes the importance of holding to apostolic doctrine:
Lactantius (c. 240–320), also, in The Divine Institutes (4.21) refers to a past time in which the foundations of the church were laid:
Other examples could also be added from the later Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Chrysostom, for instance, would be another such source (from his Homilies on Ephesians).
The earliest church fathers, from just after the apostolic era, understood the work of the apostles to constitute a unique, “foundational” stage of the church. The fact that they reference this in the past tense, as something distinct from their own ministries, indicates that they understood that the apostolic age had passed, and thus the foundation stage was over.
The patristic evidence alone, in my opinion, dismantles Ruthven’s case. This is also why, I believe, a continuationist like Dr. Grudem finds no option but to agree with the cessationist understanding of “foundation.” Overall, I believe Grudem’s approach is more honest with the exegetical and historical data than Ruthven’s.
Thanks again for your interaction.
NB
Thanks for your interaction too Nate! I now have much food for thought…
Nate,
Sorry for my flip-flopping on this argument. Frankly, I don’t totally understand Ruthven’s argument, so I’m not sure why I went there, other than the fact that he seems to share my perspective on apostleship.
So instead of creating more confusion let me just say briefly what I hear when I read Eph 2:19-22. I hear that those Ephesians who Paul is writing to have indeed been built on the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets. And based on everything else I see in the New Testament, this construction method seems ideal.
What hits me next is, “therefore, all bodies of Christians should be built on an apostolic foundation.” I mention the church in China because that seems to have happened there. I don’t believe that it has happened here in the US. We certainly have great teachers (Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield) as a foundation, but no apostles (or prophets for that matter).
I say that your interpretation of the text sounds Roman Catholic only because your vision of the “structure” here is so, “we-received-this-from- apostles-and-it-is-still-uncorrupted” ish.
Obviously, in my mind, the reason the early church fathers called the apostles their “foundation” is because that is exactly what they were. I think the Reformers (and Catholics for that matter) were mistaken to consider themselves to be on an apostolic foundation.
Certainly we have the mind of the apostles represented in Scripture, and we are as wise as could be to examine everything according to it (especially potential apostles). But, as you pointed out, apostleship is a Spirit-empowered office, not simply a Scripture-writer. In light of that, the foundation of the apostles is necessarily something relational and something having to do with personal influence, not simply a foundation of Scripture.
I should also note (since you brought it up), the office of “the twelve” has certainly ceased due to the additional requirement of Acts 1:21-22. However, the apostolic office that Paul filled is still available. The “last of all” of 1 Cor 15:8, I believe, means “last of all” in the list he is forming, not “last of all” in history.
I am aware that my view is rare, but once again, I believe that reading Scripture as plainly and straightforwardly as possible leads to the conclusion I have formed.
I believe the error in your article is your initial assumption that since there aren’t apostles running around, apostleship has ceased. Even if there had been no apostles since the early church, I would still be led by Scripture to believe that it is an office that God desires to restore for the founding of his church. Oh how desperately we need it!
Robert
(sorry this comment is so long)
Sorry, I’m a little confused. Regarding the 3 points which you say are essential for an apostle to meet. In what way did Paul meet all three? Is Paul then NOT an apostle?