94 replies to this topic

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

Paul explicitly says that it is by the saints doing the work of the ministry that the church is edified. The five kinds of ministry people equip the saints; the saints do the work of the ministry; and the work of the ministry builds up the church. One does not need all five kinds of ministry people living today for the church to continue being built up.

I don't have a problem with any of the translations you quoted.

zerinus, on 07 November 2010 - 08:52 AM, said:

That is obviously an illogical way if interpreting those verses. The “edifying” is carried out by means of the ministry of those five offices mentioned. The “edifying” does not happen by itself. It happens by means of ministering of the said officers. Without the continued ministry of the “officers,” the “edifying” cannot take place or continue. And no distinction is made between the different officers. All are equally necessary for that edifying to take place. If the “edifying” must continue, so must the “officers”. So your argument seems to fall flat on its face from the start.And by the way, I looked up this passage in multiple translations, and they all seem to be saying pretty much the same thing....

[Rob Bowman]

WalkerW,

Thank you the compliment and for the serious and thoughtful response.

Construing "the foundation of the apostles and prophets" in Ephesians 2:20 as a genitive of material is a plausible and contextually meaningful view; I think it's probably the best way of construing the genitive. I don't think this exegesis is incompatible with mine, however. The "holy temple" is composed of Christ Jesus as the "cornerstone," the apostles and prophets as the "foundation," and other believers evidently as stones in the edifice of the building. Christ is in heaven, but this doesn't prevent him from continuing to be the cornerstone. The apostles and prophets have passed away and (in my understanding) are with Christ awaiting the coming resurrection, but they have served their role as the foundation. That role is not merely or exclusively their teaching, witness, and revelation, but historically their role as, for the most part, the very first believers in Christ following his death and resurrection. It is both/and, not either/or, with regard to these facets of their role as the foundation. In any case, they are the foundation of the church because they were those early believers through whom Christ made known his resurrection and the truths on which the church's existence depends. Thus, I see no problem in affirming that the apostles and prophets themselves, and not merely their teaching, is the foundation of the church. Likewise, Christ himself, not merely his sacrificial death and resurrection to immortality, is the cornerstone of the church, but of course he is that cornerstone because he did those things for us.

Ephesians 3:5 says nothing to indicate that more mysteries and revelations will continue to be delivered to the church via future generations of apostles and prophets. The text speaks of a specific mystery as having been revealed through those foundational ministry persons. If we knew that Christ had revelations to deliver to us today, we would know that such persons are needed on the earth today; but the text itself does not establish that need.

Thanks again.

WalkerW, on 07 November 2010 - 12:56 PM, said:

Great post, Rob. While I think your interpretation of Eph. 2:20 is plausible, it requires certain assumptions. You speak of a "foundation" being something in the past or temporary. It seems like you are saying the "foundation" is the teaching, witness, and/or revelation of the original apostles and prophets. However, Eph. 2:20 is a genitive of material, meaning the foundation that consists of the apostles and prophets or made up of the apostles and prophets (like a table of wood). The role of these apostles and prophets is defined in Eph. 3:5: they receive the mysteries and revelations of God. I strongly recommend Raymond Brown, "The Pre-Christian Semitic Concept of 'Mystery'," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 20:4 (1958), which links the OT concept of prophets being ushered into the divine council (e.g. Amos 3:7) with the NT concept of apostles and prophets being ushered into the divine mysteries.

The question in my view becomes:

Is it the office of apostles and prophets that is the foundation or the message of the originals? If the latter, then your view makes complete sense. If the former, then it seems to me that the roles are still necessary today. The difference is that the text says the apostles and prophets themselves make up the foundation. The latter one seems a bit ad hoc.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Vance, on 07 November 2010 - 04:49 PM, said:

Why would he need to continually give those offices after he already gave them?  Even if you presume that he was not talking about offices, which he clearly was, but rather individuals, what is to preclude Him from giving again?... Yeah, so the organizational structure of the church with apostles, etc,  was completed. Set in stone if you will.  And with its disappearance,  what? Christ is precluded from restoring it?

This is the wrong question. Mormons routinely cite these verses to prove that we need apostles and prophets today. I have explained why these verses prove no such thing. Asking what is to preclude Christ from giving such persons to the church again misses the point.

You wrote:

Quote

Actually the conjuction "and" at the beginning of vs.11 doesn't require the gifts that follow to have been given "after he ascended to heaven".  It should be obvious that the apostles were called prior to His ascension, and that He organized His church with apostles, etc, PRIOR to His ascension.

I think it is rather obvious that the gift given AFTER His ascension was the Holy Ghost (see vs.3). This is supported by other verses as well.

So the context isn't what you have tried to construct.

Verse 8 uses the plural term "gifts," not the singular "gift." "The measure of Christ's gift" in verse 7 refers to the gift Christ gives each person ("to each one of us grace was given"), which varies from person to person (see the very similar language Paul uses in Romans 12:6). As I have explained elsewhere, although Christ called men to be his apostles prior to his death and resurrection, they didn't begin functioning as apostles in the full sense until after his ascension. Therefore, I think my exegesis of Ephesians 4:7-11 holds up rather well.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

It won't help your case to argue that the clause beginning with "until" in verse 13 connects to all three of the phrases in verse 12. Even if that is so, it doesn't mean that the ministries of all five types mentioned in verse 11 must have living representatives on the earth for the church to function or grow.

You asked:

Quote

So the church that has a foundation can continue to stand when the foundation is ripped out from under it?

No. But no one can do that (cf. Matt. 16:18). The foundation of the apostles and prophets has been laid, and the church continues to grow and be built up on that foundation.

[Thunderfire]

Rob Bowman, on 06 November 2010 - 09:04 PM, said:

  It is important to understand, then, that the apostles and prophets remain the foundation of the Christian church. That function never ends, even though the apostles and prophets themselves died. We do not need apostles and prophets living on the earth today for the church to rest on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Indeed, as I have explained, Paul’s usage of the term themelios suggests that they function as the “foundation” in the sense that those who come after the apostles and prophets build on what they started. What matters is how we build on that foundation (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10).

I appreciate the time you have taken to highlight your beliefs.  As I read it with an open mind, certain truths which I follow kept guiding me back to the belief in having modern day prophets and apostles.  On the surface there is the reality that the LDS is not the only denonimation which believes in or has among them those whom the people regard as holding these responsibilities.  Next comes the need to address if we are really perfected in Christ's example or if the body has in fact fully matured.

These two points alone- 1) that other denominations believe in the need of these offices and that some among them are in fact "anointed" with this authority and 2) that the body of Christ (church) has not matured to what Christ desires for us to be, should serve as a point of discussion.  

But then a third reality also comes into the mix which must be addressed.  If God has more light and truth to reveal or do we have enough?  This for me centers on the kingdom of God which Jesus mentioned often and how this changes our paradigm of beliefs.

I come from the perspective that creation did not end in the Garden of Eden.  Rather when God entertained the notion of creation what he saw as the "pinnacle" or the completion of his process of creation was the kingdom.  This means that God never stopped his process of creation and we are still seeing it unfold until the kingdom comes.  If this is true, then revelation never ceased nor the need for prophets (Amos 3:7-God will do nothing until he first reveal it to his servants the prophets) and the work entrusted to the prophets and apostles are still needed for the perfection of the saints.

If the coming forth of the kingdom is in fact the finale, the pinnacle of the total process of creation, then we begin to see the need of these different priesthood offices in a different light.   But then this leads to the theology of "dispensationalism" where every age of man had a work assigned to it, and a specific law of performance which must be completed before the next dispensation began.

In my opinion, many denominations see the work of perfection as being complete.  That we have been given enough in order to save people from hell and into heaven when we die.   Yet if our perfection and unity is not complete until the final act of creation, then these offices are still necessary.

[Palerider]

WalkerW, on 07 November 2010 - 12:56 PM, said:

Great post, Rob. While I think your interpretation of Eph. 2:20 is plausible, it requires certain assumptions. You speak of a "foundation" being something in the past or temporary. It seems like you are saying the "foundation" is the teaching, witness, and/or revelation of the original apostles and prophets. However, Eph. 2:20 is a genitive of material, meaning the foundation that consists of the apostles and prophets or made up of the apostles and prophets (like a table of wood). The role of these apostles and prophets is defined in Eph. 3:5: they receive the mysteries and revelations of God. I strongly recommend Raymond Brown, "The Pre-Christian Semitic Concept of 'Mystery'," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 20:4 (1958), which links the OT concept of prophets being ushered into the divine council (e.g. Amos 3:7) with the NT concept of apostles and prophets being ushered into the divine mysteries.

The question in my view becomes:

Is it the office of apostles and prophets that is the foundation or the message of the originals? If the latter, then your view makes complete sense. If the former, then it seems to me that the roles are still necessary today. The difference is that the text says the apostles and prophets themselves make up the foundation. The latter one seems a bit ad hoc.

To answer your last question, a third option is the "work" that was done by the Apostles is the foundation.


Here is a parable in Matthew 13: 24-30 I think is too often overlooked by LDS. It has direct bearing on the conversation at hand.

The Man (God) sews good seed in His field (we assume his servants in mortality; prophets and Apostles aid in that effort of laying a foundation).

While these “men sleep” (are killed or pass away) an enemy (Satan) comes by night and sews tares in the field.  As they grow along with the wheat they initially look similar but as they begin to mature and bring forth fruit they (the tares; false doctrine and false men) begin to be recognizable for what they truly are.

The Lord’s servants (the angels in Heaven) question the Lord, “Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?” That is “weed out” those who are teaching false doctrine in the Kingdom which has already been founded.

The Lord’s response is:

“Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

³⁰Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.”

Once the foundation is laid it is not to be disturbed, dug up or re-planted (restored). In the Father’s own wisdom the tares are permitted to grow until the reapers are actually sent forth. There is no indication that a gathering or “restoration” will occur in preparation for the harvest.  

Then notice which aspect is to be gathered first. It is not the wheat but rather the tares that are gathered first, after-which the wheat will be gathered into the Barn (heaven)

Edited by Palerider, 07 November 2010 - 08:11 PM.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 07 November 2010 - 06:14 PM, said:

I have explained why these verses prove no such thing.

And I have explained why your explanation is worthless.

Quote

Verse 8 uses the plural term "gifts," not the singular "gift."

And you think the gift of the Holy Ghost is a single gift?

1 Cor 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
. . .
  7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
  8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
  9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
  10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
  11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

Quote

"The measure of Christ's gift" in verse 7 refers to the gift Christ gives each person ("to each one of us grace was given"), which varies from person to person (see the very similar language Paul uses in Romans 12:6).

And the gifts of the Spirit aren't gifts of grace?

Quote

As I have explained elsewhere, although Christ called men to be his apostles prior to his death and resurrection, they didn't begin functioning as apostles in the full sense until after his ascension.

Really?

Matt 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
  6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
  7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
  8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
. . . .
  27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
. . .
  32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
. . .
  40 ¶ He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Mark 6:  12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.
  13 And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.

In Whose name did the Apostles do these things? And by Whose authority?

Quote

Therefore, I think my exegesis of Ephesians 4:7-11 holds up rather well.

Nope! It doesn't hold up at all.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 07 November 2010 - 06:18 PM, said:

Vance,

It won't help your case to argue that the clause beginning with "until" in verse 13 connects to all three of the phrases in verse 12. Even if that is so, it doesn't mean that the ministries of all five types mentioned in verse 11 must have living representatives on the earth for the church to function or grow.

Says you.

The fact is each phrase following vs. 11 is dependent upon a preceeding phrase, making them all dependent upon verse 11.

Quote

No. But no one can do that (cf. Matt. 16:18).

Sorry, but this verse doesn't support you argument.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The "rock" is the rock of revelation from God (see verse 17).

"the gates of hell" refer to gates of the world of the dead.  Meaning that the gates of the world of the dead cannot stop the activities of the church with regard to the salvation of the dead.

Edited to add an additional clue; It is the church that would assault the "gates of hell". The gates are permanent structures for defence they don't assaut (take the offence against) the church.

That verse has NOTHING to do with the long term viability of the ancient church.

Quote

The foundation of the apostles and prophets has been was laid, and the church continues to grow grew and be built up on that foundation colapsed with the destruction of the foundation.

And unfortunately for you that foundation was destroyed and so the ancient church fell into apostasy.

Thank God it has been restored in the latter-days.

Edited by Vance, 07 November 2010 - 08:54 PM.

[Vance]

Palerider, on 07 November 2010 - 08:09 PM, said:

To answer your last question, a third option is the "work" that was done by the Apostles is the foundation.

There is no foundation (no pun intended) for that option in scripture.  It was the apostles and prophets that were the foundation not their teachings.  Check out the scriptures for yourself.

[WalkerW]

Rob Bowman, on 07 November 2010 - 06:04 PM, said:

WalkerW,

Thank you the compliment and for the serious and thoughtful response.

Construing "the foundation of the apostles and prophets" in Ephesians 2:20 as a genitive of material is a plausible and contextually meaningful view; I think it's probably the best way of construing the genitive. I don't think this exegesis is incompatible with mine, however. The "holy temple" is composed of Christ Jesus as the "cornerstone," the apostles and prophets as the "foundation," and other believers evidently as stones in the edifice of the building. Christ is in heaven, but this doesn't prevent him from continuing to be the cornerstone. The apostles and prophets have passed away and (in my understanding) are with Christ awaiting the coming resurrection, but they have served their role as the foundation. That role is not merely or exclusively their teaching, witness, and revelation, but historically their role as, for the most part, the very first believers in Christ following his death and resurrection. It is both/and, not either/or, with regard to these facets of their role as the foundation. In any case, they are the foundation of the church because they were those early believers through whom Christ made known his resurrection and the truths on which the church's existence depends. Thus, I see no problem in affirming that the apostles and prophets themselves, and not merely their teaching, is the foundation of the church. Likewise, Christ himself, not merely his sacrificial death and resurrection to immortality, is the cornerstone of the church, but of course he is that cornerstone because he did those things for us.

Ephesians 3:5 says nothing to indicate that more mysteries and revelations will continue to be delivered to the church via future generations of apostles and prophets. The text speaks of a specific mystery as having been revealed through those foundational ministry persons. If we knew that Christ had revelations to deliver to us today, we would know that such persons are needed on the earth today; but the text itself does not establish that need.

Thanks again.

I don't see a problem with your interpretation of Eph. 2:20. Quite plausible. Funny enough, I don't think your interpretation would necessarily conflict with LDS theology. Eph. 2:20 just wouldn't be a proof text for current apostles and prophets.

However, regarding Eph. 3:5: true, it does refer to a specific revelation. However, the purpose of the apostles and prophets is made known: revelation. Books like John's Revelation indicates that there were subsequent revelations. We then have to ask as to whether this revelatory role was ever supposed to cease. Eph. 2:20 and 3:5 merely demonstrate that the apostles and prophets are foundational to the Christian church and were at the time of the letter receiving revelation. The New Testament model is that of revelatory apostles. Was this supposed to be the norm?

But this line of argumentation gets away from the exegesis of Eph. 2:20 and 3:5 alone.

[Palerider]

Vance, on 07 November 2010 - 08:44 PM, said:

There is no foundation (no pun intended) for that option in scripture.  It was the apostles and prophets that were the foundation not their teachings.  Check out the scriptures for yourself.

I think the teachings and work of the original Apostles did lay an excellent foundation for the ancient church. As gifted officers they were certainly a part of that foundation. But Paul himself warned of those who would bring in damnable heresies (For such are ^afalse apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.),  not sparing the flock and that there would be a falling away.

1 Cor. 4:9 states: For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.  

Also John warned in Revelations that the saints would be overcome.    

I have no doubt that the Lord will most likely use a priesthood organization again when He personally reigns upon the earth to aid in bringing the church/Israel to her full stature and that they will "all come in the unity of the faith".

Until that harvest takes place as stated in Matthew 13,  the church continues in the "wilderness".

Edited by Palerider, 07 November 2010 - 10:32 PM.

[Sky]

Regardless of the scripture in Ephesians, is there anybody out there who honestly does not want to believe in modern prophets and apostles and in an authorized Priesthood organization?  It’s hard for me to understand how anybody would not welcome that.  It’s a very attractive and compelling aspect of Mormonism for me.
  
Of course, one thing that we can learn from the scriptures is there has been a pattern throughout history of people rejecting the living prophets.  It’s unfortunate that all too many people today are doomed to make that same mistake.

[Palerider]

Sky, on 07 November 2010 - 10:57 PM, said:

Regardless of the scripture in Ephesians, is there anybody out there who honestly does not want to believe in modern prophets and apostles and in an authorized Priesthood organization?  It’s hard for me to understand how anybody would not welcome that.  It’s a very attractive and compelling aspect of Mormonism for me.
  
Of course, one thing that we can learn from the scriptures is there has been a pattern throughout history of people rejecting the living prophets.  It’s unfortunate that all too many people today are doomed to make that same mistake.

Sky, I think the Lord can do about anything He wants regarding His Church here on earth and it's our responsibility to try to recognize those things when they actually do occur .  I'm happy to accept the visitation of angels or the sending of a prophet if God chooses to do so. I think it would be wonderful and very welcome.

But when someone comes to me with such a proposition, the scriptures demand that I "try all the spirits" because there are and will continue to be false prophets and apostles.

One of the things I look for is consistancy in an account of the proceedings. I don't want someone telling me one story to get me into the church and then finding out later that story has enormous holes and inconsistancies in it that cannot be explained away.

It's like buying a piece of real estate, I'd like full disclosure up front so that I can make an informed decision.

For example: When I was a kid ( many, many years ago) I remember my Sunday school teacher telling me what a great person Joseph Smith was and that people persecuted him for no reason and made up terrible lies about him, portraying him as a money digger and treasure seeker. She said he had never done any such thing and that it was all a complete fabrication and terrible LIE.

Well, as it turns out she was wrong about that and so many other things as well.  If the church really and truly has faith in its foundational story then lets hear the WHOLE story. Upfront and from the beginning. Teach everything about the inconsistancies in the three "first vision" stories, Joseph's arrest for fraud, the polygamy cover-up, the Kirtland bank fiasco, the changes in the Book of Mormon, The Book of Abraham problems, The Lamanite DNA issues, the Kinderhook plates (very troubling), How the Book of Mormon was really translated using a rock in a hat!   A little Adam/God theory anyone.....?  The list goes on and on..................

These things are not what Christ's gospel is about. Read the Bible a little more often and then try reading the King Follet discourse and I promise you the Spirit will tell you what is of God and what isn't.

And something else............If Prophets are the consistant pattern then where were they for the last 2000 YEARS?

Edited by Palerider, 08 November 2010 - 01:36 PM.

[zerinus]

Rob Bowman, on 07 November 2010 - 05:47 PM, said:

The five kinds of ministry people equip the saints; the saints do the work of the ministry; and the work of the ministry builds up the church. One does not need all five kinds of ministry people living today for the church to continue being built up.

Wrong! The the "ministry" is part of the "equipment". They are in fact the "equipment". You read that wrong, as I had thought you would. I noticed that word in quotes before I gave the alternate translations, and I had figured you might jump on that one. But sorry, you are wrong again! The "ministry" is the actual "equipment" the body of the Church uses for the "edifying" of the saints.

[ebeddoulos]

Rob Bowman, on 06 November 2010 - 09:04 PM, said:

The major prooftext that Mormons (and others) use to prove that apostles and prophets are needed perpetually in the church is Ephesians 4:11-13. These verses read as follows (all biblical quotations are taken from the KJV):

~SNIP~

In Ephesians 4:11-13, the action or state cannot be that expressed by the verb “gave” (ed?ken) in verse 11, because that verb expresses a past act of giving, “he gave,” not a repeated or continuous giving (which would be “he gives”). In context, Christ “gave” these “gifts” after he ascended to heaven (v. 8 ). The tense and the semantic character of the verb, as well as this context, together lead to the conclusion that “gave” refers to an act that Paul speaks of as past and completed.

~SNIP~

Rob,

I do not lay claim to being a Greek grammarian as you apparently do but isn’t ?????? (ed?ken) – which in Ephesians 4:11 is translated as “gave” – actually an Aorist Active Indicative Verb (AAI)?  You state that ?????? “refers to an act that Paul speaks of as past and completed.”  Is it not true that the Proleptic (Futuristic) Aorist describes an event that is not yet past as though it were already completed?

Quote

[b]Proleptic (Futuristic) Aorist[b]

The aorist indicative can be used to describe an event that is not yet past as though it were already completed in order to stress the certainty of the event.
Rom 8:30 whom he justified, these he also glorified.
(The Berean Christian Bible Study Resources http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gtense.html - accessed 11/08/2010)

That description describes Ephesians 4:11 to the proverbial “T”.  This probably explains why so many, many versions of the Bible translate Ephesians 4:11 using the phrase “to be”?  For an extensive list of examples see the list at the the bottom of my post.  That said, allow me to highlight the Worldwide English New Testament.  Its simplified vocabulary illustrates that this AAI points to an event that occurred in the past with an action which continues into the present.

“The gifts he gave (past) are these: some are to be (future) apostles; some prophets; some evangelists; some pastors and teachers.” (Ephesians 4:11 – WENT – annotations in italicsby Ebed)

Since your entire argument hinges on “an act that Paul speaks of as past and completed”, and since verbs in question from Romans 8:30 and Ephesians 4:11 are both Aorist Active Indicative Third Person Singular, and since any argument against one will impinge on the other, your argument fails.  Nice try though.  I always enjoy an anti-Mormon argument that is not stale and typical.

List of versions using TO BE in Ephesians 4:11 as an indicator of an event that is not yet past as though it were already completed said:

(ALT)  And He gave some [to be] apostles, and some [to be] prophets, and some [to be] evangelists, and some [to be] shepherds [or, pastors] and teachers,
(AMP)  And His gifts were [varied; He Himself appointed and gave men to us] some to be apostles (special messengers), some prophets (inspired preachers and expounders), some evangelists (preachers of the Gospel, traveling missionaries), some pastors (shepherds of His flock) and teachers.
(ASV)  And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
(CENT)  And he gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,
(CEV)  Christ chose some of us to be apostles, prophets, missionaries, pastors, and teachers,
(Coverdale)  And ye same hath set some to be Apostles, some to be prophetes, some to be Euangelistes, some to be shepherdes & teachers,
(EB)  And, he, gave - some, indeed, to be apostles, and some, prophets, and some, evangelists, and some, shepherds and teachers,
(ELG-NT)  He gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some shepherds and teachers.
(ERV)  And that same Christ gave gifts to people—he made some people to be apostles, some people to be prophets, some people to go and tell the Good News, and some people to have the work of caring for and teaching God’s people.
(Geneva)  Hee therefore gaue some to be Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Euangelists, and some Pastours, and Teachers,
(GNB-TEV)  It was he who "gave gifts to people"; he appointed some to be apostles, others to be prophets, others to be evangelists, others to be pastors and teachers.
(HCSB)  And He personally gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,
(HNV)  He gave some to be emissaries; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, shepherds and teachers;
(ISV)  And it is he who gifted some to be apostles, others to be prophets, others to be evangelists, and still others to be pastors and teachers,
(KJV-21)   And He gave some to be apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,
(Knox NT)  Some he has appointed to be apostles, others to be prophets, others to be evangelists, or pastors, or teachers.
(LITV)  And indeed He gave some to be apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists; and some pastors and teachers;
(MKJV)  And truly He gave some to be apostles, and some to be prophets, and some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,
(NCV)  And Christ gave gifts to people -- he made some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to go and tell the Good News, and some to have the work of caring for and teaching God's people.
(NHEBME ) He gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, shepherds and teachers;
(NIRV)  He is the One who gave some the gift to be apostles. He gave some the gift to be prophets. He gave some the gift of preaching the good news. And he gave some the gift to be pastors and teachers.
(NIV)  It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,
(NJB)  And to some, his 'gift' was that they should be apostles; to some prophets; to some, evangelists; to some, pastors and teachers;
(NKJV)  And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,
(Noyes NT)  And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
(NRSV)  The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,
(NSB) He gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, shepherds and teachers.
(RSV)  And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,
(RV)  And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
(TCE)  And he gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,
(VW)  And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,
(WEB)  He gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, shepherds and teachers;
(WENT)  The gifts he gave are these: some are to be apostles; some prophets; some evangelists; some pastors and teachers.
(WmsNT)  And He has given some men to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, some to be pastors and teachers,
(WNT)  And He Himself appointed some to be Apostles, some to be Prophets, some to be evangelists, some to be pastors and teachers,
(WoNT)  And He gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
(WorNT)  And therefore He gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers; to qualify holy men for the work of the ministry,
UPDV)  And he gave some [to be] apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

[Rob Bowman]

ebeddoulos,

You put an awful lot of thought and work into your reply, and I appreciate it. I must be honest with you, though, and say that your suggestion that ed?ken ("gave") in Ephesians 4:11 is proleptic has zero chance of being correct. This extremely rare usage is exemplified by Romans 8:30 (and to be honest I don't know of any other examples off the top of my head), where "these he also glorified" uses an aorist verb apparently to express the certainty of an event that remains future. This cannot apply in Ephesians 4:11 because, as everyone agrees, the church actually did have apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers prior to Paul writing Ephesians.

The addition of the words "to be" in many English versions expresses the idea that in each case "some" were given to serve in this or that capacity. Thus, Christ gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, etc. Other versions express the exact same idea using as: "he gave some as apostles, some as prophets," etc. (NAB, NASB, etc.). Still others express the idea in a more literal fashion by simply placing a comma between "some" and the term of ministry: "and he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets," etc. (KJV). Others mix these ways of expressing the idea. None of these translations mean that the five ministries did not exist in Paul's day but would certainly begin to exist at some time in the future. This isn't even the point of the Worldwide English NT rendering, though I can see how you could take it that way. Again, everyone (that I know!) agrees that apostles, prophets, etc., existed already in Paul's day.

As you put it, nice try, though!

[Vance]

Palerider, on 07 November 2010 - 10:28 PM, said:

I think the teachings and work of the original Apostles did lay an excellent foundation for the ancient church. As gifted officers they were certainly a part of that foundation.

The scriptures as clear.  The apostles and prophets were not "a part of that foundation" but rather they WERE the foundation.

Quote

But Paul himself warned of those who would bring in damnable heresies (For such are ^afalse apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.),  not sparing the flock and that there would be a falling away.

Yes, the great apostasy was predicted.

What part of "not sparing the flock" is so difficult to understand?

Quote

Also John warned in Revelations that the saints would be overcome.

And indeed they were.

Thus setting up the need for the "restitution of all things".

[Palerider]

Vance, on 08 November 2010 - 09:51 AM, said:

The scriptures as clear.  The apostles and prophets were not "a part of that foundation" but rather they WERE the foundation.


Yes, the great apostasy was predicted.

What part of "not sparing the flock" is so difficult to understand?


And indeed they were.

Thus setting up the need for the "restitution of all things".

Which will occur at Christ's coming......show me where it says differently. Show me something Biblical that sets a pre-millenium timeline for that restitution.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Palerider, on 08 November 2010 - 12:49 PM, said:

Which will occur at Christ's coming......show me where it says differently. Show me something Biblical that sets a pre-millenium timeline for that restitution.

Were do the scipitures says that the whole of the resitituion will happen at one point in time?

We know that there will be porphets on the earth before Christ returns per Revelations. 2 of them will be killed and then resurrected. The point is that they are here before Christ returns.

I don't know were you get this idea that any part of the restituion will happen only at Christ's comming.

Edited by Mola Ram Suda Ram, 08 November 2010 - 02:02 PM.

[zerinus]

Rob Bowman, on 06 November 2010 - 09:04 PM, said:

Before we discuss that question, though, one serious problem ought to be noted concerning the use of Ephesians 4:11 to justify the restoration of apostles and prophets in the LDS Church. Mormons acknowledge that apostles and prophets disappeared from the scene for some seventeen centuries. If, then, Ephesians 4:11 is saying that Christ gave the church apostles and prophets and that those ministries were to continue until the church was perfected, how is it that they were allowed to disappear? The persecution suffered by the church is no answer, since the apostles were not all killed at once and the church grew larger and larger during the fiercest times of persecution. If new apostles were needed, why didn’t Christ appear to some Christian men in the late first or early second century and appoint some?

We believe that institution was lost because of a serious Apostasy within the Christian Church, not just because of the persecution and death of the Twelve Apostles. At one time Paul wrote to Timothy: “This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.” (2 Timothy 1:15.) Asia refers to Asia Minor, where Paul did all of his teaching and preaching, and established all the churches to which he later wrote all of his epistles. He says they had all turned against him. The Apostles were taken away because the Church could no longer sustain them.

As to the question of why God did not re-establish His Church on earth shortly thereafter, the answer I should have thought was obvious: because the people were simply not ready for it, otherwise they would not have lost it in the first place. You can compare it with the case of the Israelites. Paul tells us that God gave to the Israelites the Law as a “schoolmaster” to bring them to Christ. If so, why did it take the Israelites such a long time to be “schooled” to get ready for the coming of Christ? Why didn't Jesus come to the Jews 200 years after Moses instead of 2000 years or more? Because the Lord decides His own time, not us. He chooses when the time is right, not us. We don't have the wisdom to, only He does. The Restoration took place when the Lord had predetermined it was the right time for it to take place, just as Jesus Came at the time He considered it the right time for Him to come.