If "apostles" and "prophets" as two separate offices shared the one-time responsibility of providing the foundational revelation for the new covenant church, then the implication is that both of these offices ceased to function in the new covenant church once the foundation had been laid. This new view [i.e. Wayne Grudem's] willingly affirms that the office of apostle ended once the revelational foundation of the new covenant church had been completed. The discussion of Eph 2:20 and 3:5 even assumes that the office of prophet as mentioned in these passages came to an end with the completion of the foundation of the church. O. P. Robertson, The Final Word, 115.
A full case for the cessation of these revelatory gifts cannot be made here. It turns, to note just one key passage, on the salvation-historical understanding of the church and its apostolicity expressed in Eph 2:11-21. There the church is pictured as the construction project of God, the master architect-builder, underway in the period between the ascension and return of Christ (cf. 1:20-22; 4:8-10,13). In this church-house the apostles and prophets are the foundation, along with Christ as the "cornerstone" (v20).
In any construction project (ancient or modern), the foundation comes at the beginning and does not have to be relaid repeatedly (at least if the builder knows what he's doing!). In terms of this dynamic model for the church, the apostles and prophets belong to the period of the foundation. In other words, by the divine architect's design, the presence of apostles and prophets in the history of the church is temporary. R. Gaffin, "A Cessationist View," W. Grudem, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? (42-43).
i) I agree with Gaffin and Robertson that Eph 2:20 treats apostles and prophets as two distinct or different "offices" (pace Grudem). There are, however, two basic problems with the argument they deploy:
ii) What is the significance of the "foundational" metaphor in Eph 2:20?
a) As many scholars and commentators (e.g. Beale, Bruce, Hoehner, Lincoln, O'Brien, Thielman) point out, Paul is comparing the church to the temple. The church is the new temple, or antitype of the Solomonic temple. So the use of this architectural imagery is not to make the point that the foundation is only laid once, but to make a point about the identity of the church in relation to the temple. It may be true that laying a foundation is a one-time event, but that's not what Eph 2:20 is teaching.
b) Paul may be making the additional point about the role of apostles and prophets as fundamental, if we treat "fundamental" as a synonym for "foundational." However, we have to be carefully about swapping in our own synonyms, for Paul may not intend that connotation. After all, we often use "essential" as a synonym for "fundamental" or "foundational." Yet cessationists usually think pastors and elders are essential to church polity, even though they don't regard them as "foundational."
iii) The other problem with their appeal is the way they do violence to the imagery. They implicitly separate the foundation from the superstructure, as if the foundation is unrepeatable, but the walls and roof are repeatable. For if the foundation is analogous to apostles and prophets, then the walls and roof or ceiling would be analogous to pastors and elders.
But that argument either proves too much or too little. It wasn't just the foundation that's complete. Before a temple can be dedicated and put to use, the entire temple must be a finished product. The walls, ceiling, and roof must be in place. It's not an open-air temple.
Now Gaffin and Robertson think apostles and prophets represent an unrepeatable phase of church history whereas pastors and elders are repeatable throughout the duration of the church age. But in that case, the church or temple would always be a work in progress. Carpenters constantly replacing the walls, roof, or ceiling. A never-ending construction zone.
But that clearly does violence to the unify of the metaphor. If we take their argument to its logical conclusion, that would be an argument, not merely for the unrepeatability of apostles and prophets, but pastors and elders. That would be a static rather than dynamic model of the church (pace Gaffin). For a temple is an architectural unit. Gaffin and Robertson are artificially isolating one aspect of the picturesque metaphor, to the detriment of the overall depiction.
"The church is the new temple, or antitype of the Solomonic temple. So the use of this architectural imagery is not to make the point that the foundation is only laid once, but to make a point about the identity of the church in relation to the temple. It may be true that laying a foundation is a one-time event, but that's not what Eph 2:20 is teaching."
ReplyDeleteIf the function of the apostles and prophets are revelatory, that is, they were inspired witnesses of Christ and the mystery revealed in the gospel, then v.20 does teach a one time laying of a foundation, as the thought doesn't end there. It continues through v.21 and 22 into 3:1-6.
If the foundation isn't laid once for all in the coming of Christ and the establishment of His church in the apostles, then you have a continual revelatory function in the Church outside of Scripture.
" Paul may be making the additional point about the role of apostles and prophets as fundamental, if we treat "fundamental" as a synonym for "foundational." However, we have to be carefully about swapping in our own synonyms, for Paul may not intend that connotation."
No one use the word "fundamental" until you did. Nor is there any reason that I"m aware of to translate it with those implications.
"After all, we often use "essential" as a synonym for "fundamental" or "foundational." Yet cessationists usually think pastors and elders are essential to church polity, even though they don't regard them as "foundational." "
Pastors and elders aren't mentioned in v.20 . Prophets, apostles are the foundational offices here with Christ as the cornerstone. Evangelists, Shepherds, and Teachers aren't mention until Eph 4.
"But that argument either proves too much or too little. It wasn't just the foundation that's complete. Before a temple can be dedicated and put to use, the entire temple must be a finished product. The walls, ceiling, and roof must be in place. It's not an open-air temple. "
From what I can tell the cessationist argument is simply focusing on the way Paul is employing the metaphor, along the lines that he does so. So the structure is laid, yet Paul makes room for more growth (v.21) and more building by the Spirit in Christ (v.22)
Your comment on a "finished product" is alien to Paul's metaphor.
Resequitur
ReplyDelete"If the function of the apostles and prophets are revelatory, that is, they were inspired witnesses of Christ and the mystery revealed in the gospel, then v.20 does teach a one time laying of a foundation, as the thought doesn't end there. It continues through v.21 and 22 into 3:1-6."
i) In terms of the "revelation" of the "mystery" in Ephesians, that has reference to event-revelation, where the age of fulfillment unpacks the place of the Gentiles in the new covenant. Although there are intimations of that in the OT, how that was to play out awaited the first advent of Christ, and Pentecost. In context, that's less about God inspiring individuals than revealing himself through the historical process.
ii) By the same token, the apostles–especially the Twelve (minus Judas), function as historical witnesses to the life and ministry of Christ. (And Paul is the exception that proves the rule.) In Ephesians, it's less about what God revealed to them and more about what they saw, heard, and bore witness to. That's the context.
iii) Unlike apostles, NT prophets aren't needn't be "witnesses." They don't have to have that direct connection to the historical Christ.
"If the foundation isn't laid once for all in the coming of Christ and the establishment of His church in the apostles, then you have a continual revelatory function in the Church outside of Scripture."
You're failing to draw an elementary distinction between "This verse doesn't teach X" and "This verse teaches against X."
Did I say the foundation is laid more than once? No. Rather, what I said is that Eph 2:20 doesn't say whether or not laying the foundation is repeatable. That idea isn't broached one way or the other.
Sure, you can say on other grounds that the foundation is laid once for all time, but that doesn't mean this verse speaks to that particular issue. It doesn't affirm or deny it.
Complaining about the consequences is exegetically irrelevant. For instance, it's true that God made the world. And denying that truth has dire consequences.
It doesn't follow that Eph 2:20 says God made the world. You can't make a verse say more than it does just because you want it to. And just because something is true doesn't mean a given verse of Scripture teaches that particular truth.
"In context, that's less about God inspiring individuals than revealing himself through the historical process. "
DeleteIn context it's both. Apostles, Prophets, and Christ had one thing in common, and that is their revelatory office. The NT has a progressing revelatory feature as well, and the NT implies that this feature has a goal in founding the Church. Paul specifically mentions Christ and His Apostles and Prophets here and their purpose for the office. You separate the revelation from the historical process, and you have an ongoing revelatory feature of the church, instead of a building on of what's already there.
By the way, just because the office has ceased doesn't rule out miraculous healings. It just rules out that no one person has that kind of power at their disposal. Like pulling the Holy Spirit out of their hat. It seems like an unnecessary exercise to attack cessationists here. Because Continualists or Cessationists want to say that there is a continuing feature in God speaking to man, but if you do it here then it opens the door for a continuation of Apostles and prophets. We are all cessationists and continualists to some degree.
"Unlike apostles, NT prophets aren't needn't be "witnesses." They don't have to have that direct connection to the historical Christ."
According to the NT, the NT prophets were connected to Christ via the Apostles. Whether they were witnesses to Him historically isn't an issue, the issue is whether they have a continuing function. Given that they were side by side with the apostles, with Christ being the cornerstone, with their offices being revelatory. One would need to come up with something better than "it doesn't have to be like that" because Paul is connecting those offices with that function.
"You're failing to draw an elementary distinction between "This verse doesn't teach X" and "This verse teaches against X."
Cont. "No one use the word 'fundamental' until you did. Nor is there any reason that I"m aware of to translate it with those implications."
ReplyDeleteI'm discussing synonyms. Look it up.
"Pastors and elders aren't mentioned in v.20 ."
I didn't say or imply that they were.
"Prophets, apostles are the foundational offices here with Christ as the cornerstone. Evangelists, Shepherds, and Teachers aren't mention until Eph 4."
And there's nothing in 4:11 to indicate apostles and prophets are temporary while the other three positions are permanent.
Yes, one can make an argument for the cessation of the apostolate, but that's a separate argument.
"From what I can tell the cessationist argument is simply focusing on the way Paul is employing the metaphor, along the lines that he does so. So the structure is laid, yet Paul makes room for more growth (v.21) and more building by the Spirit in Christ (v.22). Your comment on a 'finished product' is alien to Paul's metaphor."
You're a careless reader. Paul uses mixed metaphors. He alternates between different metaphors to suit the immediate needs of his argument. In 2:19, he begins with a household metaphor. In v20 he shifts to an architectural (i.e. building) metaphor. In v21, he sharpens the building metaphor to make it specifically a temple metaphor, but he also includes a biological metaphor about "growth." In 4:13-16, he makes more extensive use of the biological metaphor.
"Room for growth" isn't part of the architectural metaphor (e.g. "foundation"). Rather, that's part of the biological metaphor (i.e. physical maturation of a human body).
Cessationists arbitrarily separate the "foundational" aspect of the architectural metaphor from the overall image of a temple. Keep in mind, too, that Solomon's temple, which is the template for Paul's metaphor, was a finished product, not a work in progress.
Did I say the foundation is laid more than once? No. Rather, what I said is that Eph 2:20 doesn't say whether or not laying the foundation is repeatable. That idea isn't broached one way or the other."
DeleteYou said the idea isn't there, which is false. The idea is there, and the implication of that idea is that the offices had temporary functions. Unrepeatable, once for all, just like Christ's earthly ministry. There are continuing features, but the Messianic, prophetic, and apostolic offices are closed. That was what I was saying.
"Sure, you can say on other grounds that the foundation is laid once for all time, but that doesn't mean this verse speaks to that particular issue. It doesn't affirm or deny it."
Well, it isn't affirmed or denied if eph 2:20 is seen standing unrelated to the rest of Paul's thought (in eph 3 and 4). If you're a continualist, then I implore you to continue to eph 3! :)
"Complaining about the consequences is exegetically irrelevant. For instance, it's true that God made the world. And denying that truth has dire consequences.
It doesn't follow that Eph 2:20 says God made the world. You can't make a verse say more than it does just because you want it to. And just because something is true doesn't mean a given verse of Scripture teaches that particular truth."
You'll find absent in what I said that the conclusions of the cessationist are based primarily on prooftexting eph 2:20. It's based on the whole of Paul's teaching concerning apostles and prophets,
for instance he continues it in Eph 3:1-6 on what he said before, e.g " the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you," and "how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly" and "now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.". That is their role as holy apostles and prophets."
In light of this, would you say that there is a continuing feature in this office? Something that extends beyond Paul's description of the role in the context?
"I'm discussing synonyms. Look it up."
ReplyDeleteYeah, it seemed you were discussing a push for using fundamental contrasted to using "foundational". ("Paul may be making the additional point about the role of apostles and prophets as fundamental, if we treat "fundamental" as a synonym for "foundational.")
But Paul isn't making that point. The translation of foundational is used because Paul's teaching stresses a "once for all"ness of their office.
"After all, we often use "essential" as a synonym for "fundamental" or "foundational." Yet cessationists usually think pastors and elders are essential to church polity, even though they don't regard them as "foundational."
"I didn't say or imply that they were."
You made a comparison based on a weak translation of "foundational" to connote a continual feature of the apostolic and prophetic office the same way elders and pastors are. Pastors and Elders, while essential to the Church, don't play the same role as apostles and prophets even though they are essential as well.
"And there's nothing in 4:11 to indicate apostles and prophets are temporary while the other three positions are permanent. "
Nope, because you are skipping what Ephesians 3 is teaching about prophets and apostles. If there is some other feature of the office, feel free to demonstrate it in light of Paul's teaching.
"Yes, one can make an argument for the cessation of the apostolate, but that's a separate argument."
Both offices were revelatory given the teaching of these texts. So it isn't separate.
"You're a careless reader."
Thanks, Steve!
"Paul uses mixed metaphors. He alternates between different metaphors to suit the immediate needs of his argument. In 2:19, he begins with a household metaphor. In v20 he shifts to an architectural (i.e. building) metaphor. In v21, he sharpens the building metaphor to make it specifically a temple metaphor, but he also includes a biological metaphor about "growth." In 4:13-16, he makes more extensive use of the biological metaphor."
"Room for growth" isn't part of the architectural metaphor (e.g. "foundation"). Rather, that's part of the biological metaphor (i.e. physical maturation of a human body).
I don't disagree with any of that.
"Cessationists arbitrarily separate the "foundational" aspect of the architectural metaphor from the overall image of a temple. Keep in mind, too, that Solomon's temple, which is the template for Paul's metaphor, was a finished product, not a work in progress."
I don't think the separation is arbitrary Paul mentions Apostles and Prophets in Eph 2:20 as architectural. He mentions them all later as biological, but that doesn't mean all of their offices are open. NT is written by apostles and others, their writings are still for the building up of the body.