Does Ephesians teach that the church always needs living apostles on the earth?

[Vance]

I have since learned there is no truer 'evidence' than the Holy Ghost. Others may say differently, but I will solely base it on my own experiences, that I will.

[ebeddoulos]

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!

Rob,

Now if I understand you correctly (I think I do but I do not wish to put words in your mouth) you are saying that since

[Rob Bowman]

ebeddoulos,

Thanks for your response; let me explain why I do not find it persuasive.

1. There is no reason to think that Paul has the resurrected saints of Matthew 27:52-53 in view when he says "these he also glorified" (Rom. 8:30). We don't even know if Paul knew about this particular incident, which is recorded only in Matthew (written almost certainly after Romans) and is at best a minor and obscure footnote even in Matthew's account.

2. There is no reason to think that the resurrected saints of Matthew 27:52-53 were "glorified." I accept as most likely the view that the passage does refer to a resurrection of some departed saints near Jerusalem (alternate exegesis of the text is possible), but even so the text says nothing about them being resurrected to immortal, glorious life. They were more likely resurrected in the same mode as Lazarus, returning to mortal life. Paul's description of resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 has to do with the eschatological resurrection, not the historically past resurrections such as those that Jesus performed prior to his death and resurrection. In fact, Paul's teaching that Christ is the "firstfruits" of the resurrection (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:20, 23) has to do precisely with the point that Christ was the first person resurrected to glorified, immortal life. Thus, Paul's teaching strongly supports the conclusion that the resurrected saints of Matthew 27:52-53 were not "glorified" at that time.

3. I see no reason to consider the theological explanations or speculations of church fathers concerning this matter, certainly not where they are not supported by what the NT says. I am sure if I were to cite church fathers to support my view you would object to such an appeal to persons you regard as part of the Great Apostasy!

4. Paul's wording in Romans 8:30 is generalized, affirming the glorification of all those whom God predestined and justified. It is not referring to a select group of people who had already been glorified.

5. The theological contexts of Romans 8:30 and Ephesians 4:11 are significantly different. Romans 8:30 in context reflects the characteristic Pauline tension between the two ages -- this age and the age to come -- in which our salvation has been decisively accomplished (the "already" aspect) but not consummated (the "not yet" aspect). This already-not yet tension dominates Romans 8 and is directly relevant to Paul's affirmation that those whom God justified he also glorified. No such perspective is at play in Paul's statement that Christ gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers (Eph. 4:11). There is no reason to inject such a perspective or theological motif into Ephesians 4:11. Christ "gave" those gifts after he ascended to heaven and soon afterward poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (see Eph. 4:7-10 for the ascension as the context in Paul's explanation; cf. Acts 2).

6. Ephesians 4:11 makes perfectly good sense taking the aorist indicative in its usual sense as a simple past-tense verb. This is the customary (virtually uniform) usage of the aorist indicative, and its usage throughout this passage ("were called," v. 1; "were called," v. 4; "was given," v. 7; "took captive," v. 8; "gave," v. 8; "ascended," v. 9; "descended," v. 9). We should not look for any other meaning unless the text itself drives us to consider another understanding of the verb, which is simply not the case here.

Rob,

Now if I understand you correctly (I think I do but I do not wish to put words in your mouth) you are saying that since

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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):

for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

I do not appreciate insinuations of this kind. The maturing process of which verse 13 speaks will continue until it is finished, when people in the church will no longer be subject to deception, as verse 14 says. Going on to verse 14 in no way undermines my exegesis of verses 11-13.

May I also point out that the emergence of the LDS Church has not brought spiritual deception to an end? Far from it.

Yes for this reason (Highlighted)

and for this reson most of all...

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

(unless I missed it) Interesting you would leave this scripture out

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

I do not appreciate insinuations of this kind. The maturing process of which verse 13 speaks will continue until it is finished, when people in the church will no longer be subject to deception, as verse 14 says. Going on to verse 14 in no way undermines my exegesisof verses 11-13.

May I also point out that the emergence of the LDS Church has not brought spiritual deception to an end? Far from it.

#1...yes it does undermines your "exegesis" which is one of the stated purposes for Apostles and Prophets!

#2...You don't like "insinuations", but you are OK with coming right out and running down my faith! What arrogance...

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

You wrote:

#1...yes it does undermines your "exegesis" which is one of the stated purposes for Apostles and Prophets!

I have no idea what that statement means.

You wrote:

#2...You don't like "insinuations", but you are OK with coming right out and running down my faith! What arrogance...

Give me a break. It is possible to express disagreements with someone's religion without impugning the motives or character of every individual who adheres to that religion. Some of your fellow LDS here understand that. Apparently, you don't.

[Vance]

Vance,

Okay, I'll bite: who was that Greek scholar?

He is a friend of mine. I realize that it may shock you, but yes, I have friends.

I just got a response back him regarding this topic.

'(ebeddoulos') reading of the Greek is completely correct. ed?ken is in the Aorist proleptic tense - which can be used for something that has not yet happened but assumed that it will happen, it is used to stress the certainty of the event. You can see Romans 8:30 for the same usage, "whom he justified, them he also glorified." Both justified and glorified are in this same tense.'

So much for your "zero chance" drivel.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

You wrote:

I have no idea what that statement means.

You wrote:

Give me a break. It is possible to express disagreements with someone's religion without impugning the motives or character of every individual who adheres to that religion. Some of your fellow LDS here understand that. Apparently, you don't.

What I mean is these 4 scriptures support the first are anything other than this is an incomplete statement

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

His name, please, and his scholarly credentials.

He is a friend of mine. I realize that it may shock you, but yes, I have friends.

I just got a response back him regarding this topic.

'(ebeddoulos') reading of the Greek is completely correct. ed?ken is in the Aorist proleptic tense - which can be used for something that has not yet happened but assumed that it will happen, it is used to stress the certainty of the event. You can see Romans 8:30 for the same usage, "whom he justified, them he also glorified." Both justified and glorified are in this same tense.'

So much for your "zero chance" drivel.

[Vance]

Vance,

His name, please, and his scholarly credentials.

Rob,

The only thing I provided him was your quote.

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.

And he provided the response I posted.

Unlike you, he doesn't have an agenda nor a bias (in your case a blatant bias).

[jmordecai]

Vance,

His name, please, and his scholarly credentials.

Ditto.

[ebeddoulos]

ebeddoulos,

Thanks for your response; let me explain why I do not find it persuasive.

I understand. I have little expectation of persuading you. It is most obvious that you are far too invested in your current theory at this moment to see the full extent of its folly. To quote the 15th century satirist and poet, Samuel Butler:

[ebeddoulos]

Rob,

You seem unable or unwilling to respond. I hope there are no hard feelings. I did enjoy our conversation. I was serious when I said that you made a good try.

Ebed

[Zakuska]

[ebeddoulos]

So if these "resecitated saints" (Robs idea) "appeared unto many". I guess then Lazarus merely... "Appeared" unto the two Mary's also.

John Gill, unless I am abysimally mistaken, did not make the mistake of conflating the miracle of the resuscitation of Lasarus with the resurrection of those who "came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many" (Matthew 27:53) It appears to me though that Rob Bowman has made such an error.

I know that Jesus appeared to the two Marys (Matthew 28:1-10) following his resurrection and I know an angel did so (Mark 16:1-8 ) but I am unfamiliar with where Lazarus appeared to them after his resuscitation. Can you enlighten me?

[Zakuska]

John Gill, unless I am abysimally mistaken, did not make the mistake of conflating the miracle of the resuscitation of Lasarus with the resurrection of those who "came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many" (Matthew 27:53) It appears to me though that Rob Bowman has made such an error.

I know that Jesus appeared to the two Marys (Matthew 28:1-10) following his resurrection and I know an angel did so (Mark 16:1-8 ) but I am unfamiliar with where Lazarus appeared to them after his resuscitation. Can you enlighten me?

I can't but perhaps Rob Bowman can. In fact, I am unaware of any scripture were "resuscitated' people are said to "appear" to anyone. Ressurected people on the other hand... Jesus "Appeared" unto Paul on the road to damascus.

[Rob Bowman]

ebeddoulos,

I have too much on my plate, so I may not get to everyone's comments. That doesn't mean I would have no answer. I'll do the best I can.

Rob,

You seem unable or unwilling to respond. I hope there are no hard feelings. I did enjoy our conversation. I was serious when I said that you made a good try.

Ebed

[Rob Bowman]

The word translated "appeared" in Matthew 27:53 occurs only ten times in the New Testament, so I don't think much of an argument can be developed based on its non-use in the context of resuscitated persons being seen by other people.

[Zakuska]