Bodybuilding

Ephesians 4: 7-13

Vera Wilhelmsen

December 8th, 2005

This paper is a continuation of the work that was done in the Exegesis Paper by the same author.[1] The present hermeneutical process seeks to determine whether the meaning of the text which the exegesis uncovered is applicable in the same way today, or if it was culture specific. It will be argued that the message is transcultural, and that it is applicable to the church today in the same way as it was for the early Christian church. The implications of this will be discussed, as there is some controversy regarding aspects of the text.

In the Exegesis paper it was concluded that there is no evidence of formal church offices in the early Christian church, as represented in The Epistle to Ephesians. The leaders have certain responsibilities, and certain people are acknowledged to have been given ‘gifts of ministry’, and therefore take on a prominent role in the church. There is no basis for a dichotomy when it comes to spiritual gifts and ministry gifts, and that the functions mentioned in Ephesians 4 are but a few of many gifts that need to be functioning in the church. A hierarchy is suggested, however, with apostles and prophets as the most important ones. Their purpose is to serve the church and build her up, so she becomes mature in Christ. They are not, however, separated from the rest of the body, and put them in a position over and above the rest, but they are equipped to serve the church a unique way through their gifts of leadership.

When embarking on the task of hermeneutics certain presuppositions and preunderstandings will invariably influence the process. This author believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that it is authoritative and true in all things concerning faith and practice. It was written in a certain cultural context, however, and needs to be interpreted accordingly, guided by the Holy Spirit. Language and history need to be taken into consideration, as well as the human author and his or her conditions. Sound exegesis makes it possible to determine what the author wanted to communicate in the original setting, and correct hermeneutics enables the modern reader to discern how the text should be applied today.

One of the reasons this passage was chosen is that the author belongs to a church which focuses a lot on present-day apostles and prophets. The leaders of the churches in the network are given these designations, and the church claim to build on these apostles’ and prophets’ for  foundation, referring to Eph. 2:20, 3:5 and 4:11. The theology is that these offices are of utmost importance in order for the church to be what God wants it to be: a fully mature man in Christ, unified in faith. The leaders of the church are thought to have a lot of authority, and their word is to be received as the word of God. This teaching undoubtedly influences this author, but more importantly there has been a lengthy personal struggle with this concept, leading to a growing unease with this theology. Any presuppositions in this area would therefore more likely be against a theology that emphasise the ‘five-fold ministries’ than for it.

The basis for the hermeneutics presented in this paper is the steps suggested by Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard in their book ‘Introduction to Biblical Interpretation.’[2] The authors suggest a four step methodology, based on an historical-grammatical hermeneutics. The first step is to determine the original application intended by the passage. This is what was done in the exegesis paper, and the goal is to determine the original meaning of the text, in the original context. The second step is to discern the specificity of the text, and whether it is just an example of a more general principle, or if the text itself contains the broad principal. Webb’s Redemptive Movement approach[3] is recommended towards this end, and in this paper some of his criteria for determining this are utilized. If the original application is culture bound, one then needs to identify the more general cross-cultural principle which is reflected in the text, and then find appropriate ways of applying that principle for today.

The text presents a broad principle which is found in other books of the Bible: the principle of the Christian leader as a servant, and not a ruler over the people he is leading. In the Old Testament (OT) leaders are often depicted as Shepherds, who take care of the flock and protect it from harm. Both judges, prophets, priests, elders and kings were representing God among the people, and God put high expectations on them. The fact that there were many leaders who violated God’s intentions is another issue. In Deut. 17:18-20 there is a list of instructions to a future king of Israel:

‘When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites.  It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees  and not consider himself better than his brothers and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.’[4]

This passages shows that God had intended the king to be a Godly leader who did not put himself above the rest of the people. Occasionally they did have a king like that (David was a good king, most of the time), but they also had many kings who were not after God’s heart.

Admittedly, there was a shift in Biblical leadership when the Christian church was instituted, and God’s people was no longer the nation of Israel, but the regenerated church. Jesus’ model of servant leadership was abhorrent to the religious leaders of the day, who conceived of themselves as  above the people, with certain privileges and distinctions. The people of Israel and its leaders often strayed from the way God had intended for them, and the leaders misused their power and exercised undue authority. Ezekiel describes what God wants to do in the future:

‘I will give you a new  heart  and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your  heart  of  stone  and give you a  heart  of flesh.  And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. You will live in the land I gave your forefathers; you will be my people, and I will be your God’[5]

Jeremiah also depicts the future, and the time of the new covenant:

‘This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel  after that time,’ declares the LORD.  ‘I will put my law in their minds  and  write  it on their hearts.  I will be their God,  and they will be my people.  No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, `Know the LORD,'  because they will all know me,  from the least of them to the greatest,’  declares the LORD.’[6]

It seems that because of the “hard hearts”[7] of the people, they experienced authoritarian leaders who ruled over them with force. This was never God’s plan, however, and in the church, with a people born again and filled with the Spirit, the true model of servant leadership is a possible.

In the New Testament (NT), the principle becomes very clear in Jesus’ teaching and example. In Matt. 20:25-28 he says:

‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave, just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.’

His washing of the disciples’ feet illustrated this principle poignantly, as he made himself the lowest servant of them all. Peter is reiterating this principle also:

‘ Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers --not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.’ (1. Pet. 5:2-3:)

In Ephesians 4 the purpose of the leadership functions mentioned is stated:’... for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ...’. God’s purpose for the church has not changed, neither is the need for equipping the church building it up into maturity and unity in any way any less now than at the time the epistle was written. The model of servant leadership is constant throughout the Bible, and this indicates that the principle is transcultural. The list of ministries and their purposes given in Ephesians 4 is accordingly transcultural, even if the list is not comprehensive, as there are many other gifts and ministries which still need to function in the church, as demonstrated in the Exegesis paper.[8] 

A controversial question when it comes to the application of this passage is whether apostles and prophets still are around today, and what their functions are. This discussion will focus on the question of apostles, although the two terms are usually closely connected. It is important to note that there are different uses of the term ‘apostle’; traditionally is has been assigned mainly to the 12 disciples of Jesus, where Matthias substituted Judas (Acts 1). Paul is said be an apostle of a special kind, which he himself often states or alludes to (e.g. 1. Cor. 15:9). But other people are also assigned the title, most notably Barnabas (Acts. 14:4, 14), Silvanus and Timothy (1. Thess. 2:6),  Junias and Andronicus (Rom. 16:7) and James, the brother of Jesus (1. Cor. 15:7, Gal 1:19).[9] Commentators disagree on the range which is implied in the use of the term in Ephesians 4:11. If it is the limited sense, which might have been referred to in Ephesians 2:20 and 3:5, clearly no such apostles are still around today.[10] He still opens for people with an apostolic ministry today, though.[11]

Markus Barth[12] asserts:

‘In 4:11 it is assumed that the church at all times needs the witness of ‘apostles’ and ‘prophets’.... Eph. 4 does not contain the faintest hint that the charismatic character of all church ministries was restricted to a certain period of church history and was later to die out.’

Even though apostles in the strict sense of the term clearly died out in the first generation after Jesus, the function may still be fundamental to the church. There is no obvious reason why this ministry gift should cease to exist, whereas the others should continue till this day. As Stott points out, people till this day function as apostles, whether it is in ‘Episcopal jurisdiction,  pioneer missionary work, church planting or itinerant leadership.’[13]

The discussion on apostles for today is ultimately one of definition and semantics. How one choose to define ‘apostle’  is crucial for the position one would take on the issue. Whether the presuppositions also determine the definition of the terms, is hard to demonstrate, but probably the two factors are inseparable.

If the definition of an apostle is one who plants and oversees churches, does pioneer missionary work, and has authority over pastors and other Christian leaders, it is clear that such people are still around. Their authority is of course restricted in comparison with the original apostles, and they are bound by the Bible and the closed canon, but nevertheless, they exercise authority and function as apostles.

            The function of an apostle seems to be foundational for the church.[14] Jon Ruthven

 suggests that ’the foundation’ of Eph. 2.20 represents the recurring apostolic and prophetically inspired ‘foundational confession’, as Peter’s ‘great confession’ (Mt. 16.16-19), which is revealed to and confessed by all Ch ristians at all times. Peter’s confession is universally considered to be both paradigmatic and parenetic.’[15] Peter Lyne, in his book ”First Apostles, Last Apostles”, also points out that the foundation of the church is Jesus Christ, and the teaching of the apostles and prophets about Jesus Christ, the Messiah.[16] The foundation is therefore continually laid, and was not laid once and for all by the NT apostles and prophets.[17]

            Peter Lyne, who is of the same school of thought as Peter Wagner[18],  holds that the church has been lacking the functions of apostles and prophets for most of the time after the original apostles, and therefore has no foundation.[19] Many people in this line of teaching will claim that unless the apostles and prophets of a city or nation is recognized and honored, the church cannot grow up into the mature person that God had intended, referring to Ephesians 4: 11-16.[20] The term ’post-denominaitonal’ has also been used of this movement, because they purport that the church needs to be freed from the ’shackles’ or tradition and solely be led by apostles and prohets, and local pastors.

           There has undoubtedly been people throughout history, however, who have functioned as apostles. As Stott suggests, people who do mission work, church planting and oversees several churches are in apostolic ministry. Whether they are called missionaries, bishops, pastors or elders should not really matter, as long as they are filling the function of an apostle, and have the giftings to do it well.

It is probably also true that many people who have had these functions not truly have been called by God to fill the role, or recieved the gift necessary to fulfill it. Just as not all pastors are gifted in areas or preaching or even pastoral care, not all of the people who have functioned in an apostolic ministry are gifted in the area. Due to the practice of hiring people based on a resymee rather than personal qualification, and also due to a shortage of personally qualified people, many have tried to fill shoes that are too big for them. This does not mean, however, that their labour has been in vain; God uses whom he chooses, and blesses even the feeble attempts of man.

This discussion has shown that the meaning of Ephesians 4  is transcultural, and that it is applicable to the church today in the same way as it was for the early Christian church. Leadership functions are important in the church, and especially the apostolic and prophetic ones. They have been around for most of church history, in one way or another, and continue to do so, even when they are not called by these names. The mark of a Christian leader is service, and with Jesus as a model to put oneself below, and not above, the people one serve.

Abbott, Thomas Kingsmill. A critical and exegetical commentary on the epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians. International critical commentary, edited by Driver, S.R, A. Plummer and C.A. Briggs, 1897. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark, 1968

Barth, Markus. Ephesians: Translation and Commentary on Chapters 4-6. Garden

City: Doubleday, 1974.

Cannistraci, David. Apostles And The Emerging Apostolic Movement.Ventura, California: Renew, 1996.

Klein, William, Craig L. Blomberg and Robert L. Hubbard. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (revised and updated). Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993.

Lyne, Peter. First apostles, last apostles.  Kent: Sovereign World, 1999, p. 26-27

Ruthven, Jon. The 'Foundational Gifts' Of Ephesians 2.20. In Journal of Pentecostal Theology, 2002, vol. 10 issue 2, 28-43. New York: The Continuum Publishing Group, 2002.

Stott, John R. W. God's new society : the message of Ephesians. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 1979.

William Webb. Slaves, Women and Homosexuals. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

Wilhelmsen, Vera. Exegesis paper: Ephesians 4: 7-13. Unpublished mts. Langley, BC: Associated Canadian Theological Seminaries

[1] Vera Wilhelmsen. Exegesis paper: Ephesians 4: 7-13. Unpublished mts. Langley, BC: Associated Canadian Theological Seminaries, 2005.

[2] William Klein, Craig L. Blomberg and Robert L. Hubbard. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (revised and updated). Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993, pp. 482-503

[3] William Webb. Slaves, Women and Homosexuals. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001

[4] All Biblical quotes in this paper is from the NIV, unless otherwise stated.

[5] Ezek.36:26-28

[6] Jer. 31: 33-34

[7] cf. Matt. 19:8

[8] Vera Wilhelmsen. Exegesis paper.

[9] Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. A critical and exegetical commentary on the epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians. International critical commentary, edited by Driver, S.R, A. Plummer and C.A. Briggs, 1897. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark, 1968, p. 117

[10] Stott, John R. W. God's new society : the message of Ephesians. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 1979, p. 160.

[11] John R. W. Stott. God's new society : the message of Ephesians, p. 161

[12] Markus Barth. Ephesians: Translation and Commentary on Chapters 4-6. Garden

City: Doubleday, 1974, p. 437

[13] John R. W. Stott. God's new society : the message of Ephesians, p. 161

[14] Eph. 2:20

[15] Jon Ruthven. The 'Foundational Gifts' Of Ephesians 2.20. In Journal of Pentecostal Theology, 2002, vol. 10 issue 2, 28-43. New York: The Continuum Publishing Group, 2002, p. 34

[16] Peter Lyne. First apostles, last apostles.  Kent: Sovereign World, 1999, p. 26-27

[17] Jon Ruthven makes a good argument for this in The 'Foundational Gifts' Of Ephesians 2.20. In Journal of Pentecostal Theology, 2002, vol. 10 issue 2, 28-43. New York: The Continuum Publishing Group, 2002, p. 34

[18] He coined the term ‘New Apostolic Christianity’, see Apostolic reformation, Arise Magazine, summer 2000, p. 12

[19] Peter Lyne. First apostles, last apostles, p. 25

[20] See also David Cannistraci. Apostles And The Emerging Apostolic Movement.Ventura, California: Renew, 1996.