Ephesians 4:1-16. Conclusion.

Here then is Paul’s vision for the church. God’s new society is to display charity, unity, diversity and growing maturity. These are the characteristics of ‘a life worthy of the calling’ to which God has called us, and which the apostle begs us to lead (verse 1).
The more we share Paul’s perspective, the deeper will be our discontent with the ecclesiastical *status quo*. Some of us are too conservative, too complacent, too ready to acquiesce in the present situation and to resist change. Others are too radical, wanting to dispense with the institution altogether. Instead we need to grasp more clearly the kind of new society God wants his church to be. Then we shall not be content either with things as they are, or with partial solutions, but rather will pray and work for the church’s total renewal.
Some look mainly for structures of unity, and seem to have no comparable concern that the church should become a truly caring community marked by humility, meekness, longsuffering, forbearance and love. Paul’s primary concern is not for structures; he begins and ends with love (verses 2, 16).
Others lay great stress on the fact of the church’s unity as a theological concept clearly articulated in their minds, but appear to see nothing anomalous in the visible disunity which contradicts their theology.
Others are content with a uniformity of church life and liturgy which is dull, boring, colourless, monotonous and dead; they have never glimpsed the variety God intends or the diversity of ministries which should enrich and enliven their membership of the body of Christ.
Others have a static view of the church, and are well satisfied if the congregation manages to maintain its size and programme, without cutback; they have no vision of church growth either by evangelistic outreach or by the Christian maturing of their members.
All such complacency is unworthy of the church’s calling. In contrast to it the apostle sets before us the picture of a deepening fellowship, an eagerness to maintain visible Christian unity and to recover if it is lost, an active every-member ministry and a steady growth into maturity by holding the truth in love. We need to keep this biblical ideal clearly before us. Only then shall we live a life that is worthy of it.
———————————————————–

Tomorrow: Ephesians 4:17 -5:4. A new set of clothes.

Ephesians 4:13-16. 4). Christian unity demands the maturity of our growth (continued).

In contrast to doctrinal instability, which is a mark of immaturity, we should be *speaking the truth in love* in order that we may *grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love* (verses 15-16). We must not look in these verses for inspired instruction on human anatomy and physiology. The apostle’s intention is not to teach us how the human body works, but rather how the body of Christ grows. True, he uses some terms employed by ancient Greek medical writers like Hippocrates and Galen. ‘We can almost see him turn to “the beloved physician”, of whose presence he tells us in the companion epistle (Col.4:14), before venturing to speak - technical language of “every ligament of the whole apparatus” of the human frame.’ But his emphasis is on the head ‘into’ whom we are to grow up (verse 15) and ‘from’ whom the body grows when ‘each part is working properly’. Markus Barth brings out clearly in his translation this focusing of attention on the initiative and work of the Head, Christ: ‘He is at work fitting and joining the whole body together. He provides sustenance to it through every contact according to the needs of each single part. He enables the body to make its own growth so that it builds itself up in love.’ If now we drop the body metaphor and enquire exactly how the church grows into maturity, Paul is ready with his answer. It grows by truth and love. To allow ourselves to be hurled hither and thither by the fierce blasts of false teaching is to condemn ourselves and the church to perpetual immaturity (verse 14). Instead, what we need is ‘the truth’, provided we speak it ‘in love’ (verse 15). For it is ‘in love’ that the church grows and builds itself up (verse 16). What Paul calls for is a balanced combination of the two. ‘Speaking the truth in love’ is not the best rendering of the expression, for the Greek verb makes no reference to our speech. Literally, it means ‘truthing (*aletheuontes*) in love’, and includes the notions of ‘maintaining’, ‘living’ and ‘doing’ the truth. Thank God there are those in the contemporary church who are determined at all costs to defend and uphold God’s revealed truth. But sometimes they are conspicuously lacking in love. When they think they smell heresy, their nose begins to twitch, their muscles ripple, and the light of battle enters the eye. They seem to enjoy nothing more than a fight. Others make the opposite mistake. They are determined at all costs to maintain and exhibit brotherly love, but in order to do so are prepared even to sacrifice the central truths of revelation. Both these tendencies are unbalanced and unbiblical. Truth becomes hard if it is not softened by love; love becomes soft if it is not strengthened by truth. The apostle calls us to hold the two together, which should not be difficult for Spirit-filled believers, since the Holy Spirit is himself ‘the Spirit of truth’, and his firstfruit is ‘love’ (E.g. Jn.14:17; 15:26; 16;13; Gal.5:22). There is no other route than this to a fully mature Christian unity.–
——————————————————

Tomorrow: Conclusion.

Ephesians 4:13-16. 4). Christian unity demands the maturity of our growth.

The apostle goes on to elaborate what he means by *building up the body of Christ*. It will evidently be a lengthy process, leading (in three pregnant phrases) to * the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, mature manhood*, and *the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ*. This is the goal to which the church will one day *attain*.
Because this verb *attain* means literally ‘to come to meet’ (*katantao*), and because the first and third phrases refer explicitly to the Lord Jesus (‘Son of God’ and ‘Christ’), Markus Barth interprets the second (‘mature manhood’) as referring to him too. He translates it ‘the Perfect Man’ and pictures the church as the bride of Christ going out in a joyful festival procession to meet her Bridegroom at his triumphal appearing. It is an attractive reconstruction, and certainly accords with the development of the bride and bridegroom imagery of 5:25-27. On the other hand, it seems somewhat forced, since what we are said to ‘attain’ or ‘meet’ is not simply ‘the Son of God’ but ‘the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God’, not simply ‘Christ’ but ‘the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ’. In other words, the church’s goal is not Christ but its own maturity in unity which comes from knowing, trusting and growing up into Christ.
We pause to note that the church’s unity, although already in one sense given and inviolable, as we have seen, yet needs in another sense to be both ‘maintained’ (verse 3) and ‘attained’ (verse 13). Both verbs are surprising. If unity already exists as a gift, how can it be attained as a goal? Probably we need to reply that just as unity needs to be maintained *visibly*, so it needs to be attained *fully*. For there are degrees of unity, just as there are degrees of sanctity. And the unity to which we are to come one day is that full unity which a full faith in and knowledge of the Son of God will make possible. This expression effectively disposes of the argument that unity can grow without Christian faith or knowledge. On the contrary, it is precisely the more we know and trust the Son of God that we grow in the kind of unity with one another which he desires.
This full unity is also called *mature manhood*. Some interpret this individually of each Christian growing into maturity in Christ, which is certainly a New Testament concept. But the context seems to demand that we understand it corporately. The church is represented as a single organism, the body of Christ, and it to grow up into adult stature. Indeed, Paul has referred to it as the new humanity which God is creating, or as ‘one new man’ (2:15). To the oneness and the newness of this ‘man’ he now adds matureness. The *one new man* is to attain *mature manhood*, which will be nothing less than *the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ*, the fullness which Christ himself possesses and bestows.
Although it seems that this growth into maturity is a corporate concept, describing the church as a whole, yet it clearly depends on the maturing of its individual members, as Paul proceeds to say: *so that we may no longer be children* (verse 14). Of course we are to resemble children in their humility and innocence (Mt.18:3; 1 Cor.14:20), but not in their ignorance or instability. Unstable children are like little boats in a stormy sea, entirely at the mercy of wind and waves. Paul paints a graphic picture, tossed to and fro (*klydonizomenoi*, from *klydon*, rough water or surf) meaning ‘tossed here and there by waves’ (AG) and *carried about (peripheromenoi*) meaning ‘swung round by shifting winds’. Apparently Plato used this latter word of tops, which led E.K.Simpson to dub such people ‘whirligigs’. NEB brings the two storm pictures together by translating ‘tossed by the waves and whirled about by every fresh gust of teaching’. Such are immature Christians. They never seem to know their own mind or come to settled convictions. Instead, their opinions tend to be those of the last preacher they heard or the last book they read, and they fall an easy prey to each new theological fad. They cannot resist *the cunning of men (kybia* means ‘dice-playing’ and so ‘trickery’) or *their craftiness in deceitful wiles*.
————————————————————-

Tomorrow: Ephesians 4:13-16. 4). Christian unity demands the maturity of our growth (continued).

Ephesians 4:7-12. c). The purpose of spiritual gifts is service. (continued).

I saw the principle of the every-member ministry well illustrated when I visited St. Paul’s Church, Darien, Connecticut, a few years ago. It is an American Episcopal church, which has been influenced by the charismatic movement. On the front cover of their Sunday bulletin I read the name of the Rector, the Reverend Everett Fullam, then the names of the associate Rector and of the Assistant to the Rector. Next came the following line: ‘Ministers: the entire congregation.’ It was startling, but undeniably biblical.
So Christ’s immediate purpose in the giving of pastors and teachers to his church is through their ministry of the word to equip all his people for their varied ministries. And the ultimate purpose of this is to build up his body, the church. For clearly the way the whole body grows is for all its members to use their God-given gifts. These gifts are so beneficial both to those who exercise their ministry faithfully and to those who receive it that the church becomes steadily more healthy and mature. If the sixteenth century recovered ‘the priesthood of all believers’ (every Christian enjoying through Christ a direct access to God), perhaps the twentieth century will recover ‘the ministry of all believers’ (every Christian receiving from Christ a privileged ministry to men).
All spiritual gifts, then, are service-gifts. This is their purpose. They are not given for selfish but for unselfish use, namely for the service of other people. Each of the lists of *charismata* in the New Testament emphasizes this. ‘To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good’ (1 Cor.12:7). It follows that their comparative importance (Paul is quite clear that some are ‘higher’ or ‘greater’ than others, 1 Cor.12:31) is to be assessed by the degree to which they ‘edify’ or build up the church. This is why the teaching gifts are of paramount importance, for nothing builds up the church like the truth of God’s Word.
To recapitulate, we have seen that it is the exalted Christ who bestows gifts on his church, that his gifts are very diverse in character, that the teaching gifts are primary, and that their purpose is to equip God’s people for their ministries and so build up Christ’s body.
—————————————————————

Tomorrow: Ephesians 4:13-16. 4). Christian unity demands the maturity of our growth.

Ephesians 4:7-12. c). The purpose of spiritual gifts is service.

In verse 12 Paul states clearly why Christ gave these gifts to his church. The RSV first edition (1946) read: *for the equipment of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for building up the body of Christ*. It will be noted that according to this translation, Christ had three distinct purposes in mind. I think Armitage Robinson was the first commentator to insist that this was a mistake. ‘The second of these clauses’, he wrote, ‘must be taken as dependent on the first, and not…as coordinate with it.’ In other words, the first comma (‘the fatal comma’) - which is ‘without linguistic authority but with undoubted ecclesiological bias - must be erased. If it is allowed to stand, we are faced with ‘a saddening result’, for ‘the verse then means that only the special ministers, not all saints, are called to do “the work of the ministry” and to cooperate in the “building of the body”.’ This interpretation ‘has an aristocratic, that is, a clerical and ecclesiastical flavour, it distinguishes the (mass of the) “saints” from the (superior class of the) officers of the church’.
If the comma is erased, however, we are left with two purposes - one immediate and the other ultimate - for which Christ gave gifts to his church. His immediate purpose was ‘to equip the saints for the work of the ministry’ (RSV second edition 1971) or better ‘to equip God’s people for the work in his service’ (NEB), and his ultimate purpose ‘for building up the body of Christ’. The former expression about equipping God’s people is of far-reaching significance for any true understanding of Christian ministry. For the word *ministry (diakonia*) is here used not to describe the work of pastors but rather the work of so-called laity, that is, of all God’s people without exception. Here is incontrovertible evidence that the New Testament envisages ministry not as the prerogative of a clerical elite but as the privileged calling of all the people of God. Thank God that in our generation this biblical vision of an ‘every-member ministry’ is taking a firm hold in the church.
It does not mean that there is no distinctive pastoral ministry left for clergy, rather it establishes its character. The New Testament concept of the pastor is not of a person who jealously guards all ministry in his own hands, and successfully squashes all lay initiatives, but of one who helps and encourages all God’s people to discover, develop and exercise their gifts. His teaching and training are directed to this end, to enable the people of God to be a servant people, ministering actively but humbly according to their gifts in a world of alienation and pain. Thus, instead of monopolizing all ministry himself, he actually multiplies ministries.
What model of the church, then, should we keep in our minds? The traditional model is that of the pyramid, with the pastor perched precariously on its pinnacle, like a little pope in his own church, while the laity are arrayed beneath him in serried ranks of inferiority. It is a totally unbiblical image, because the New Testament envisages not a single pastor with a docile flock but both a plural oversight and an every-member ministry. Not much better is a model of the bus, in which the pastor does all the driving while the congregation are the passengers slumbering in peaceful security behind him. Quite different from either the pyramid or the bus is the biblical model of the body. The church is the body of Christ, every member of which has a distinctive function. Although the body metaphor can certainly accommodate the concept of a distinct pastorate (in terms of one ministry - and a very important one - among many), there is simply no room in it either for a hierarchy or for that kind of bossy clericalism which concentrates all ministry in the hands of one man and denies the people of God their own rightful ministries.
————————————————————-

Tomorrow: Ephesians 4:7-12. c). The purpose of spiritual gifts is service (continued).

Ephesians 4:7-10. b) The character of spiritual gifts is extremely varied (continued).

Looking back, we observe that all five gifts relate in some way to the ministry of teaching. Although there are neither apostles nor prophets in the original sense today, there are evangelists to preach the gospel, pastors to tend the flock, and teachers to expound the word. Indeed, they are urgently needed. Nothing is more necessary for the building up of God’s church in every age than an ample supply of God-gifted teachers. Yet I wonder if this need has ever been greater than it is in our own day. In some areas of the third world great ‘people movements’ are taking place. Large numbers, in some cases whole villages and tribes, are accepting Christ, and the church growth rate exceeds the population growth rate. This exciting fact brings with it both problems and dangers, however. The newly baptized converts are spiritual babies. As such they are prone to sin and error, and almost defenceless against false teaching. Above all else they need teaching from the Word of God. In some situations, believe it or not, missionaries are calling for a moratorium on converts. ‘For heaven’s sake’, they pray to God, ‘don’t give us any more, for we don’t know what to do with the thousands we already have.’ I sometimes urge my charismatic friends, therefore, some of whom seem to me to be preoccupied with the less important gifts, to remember Paul’s dictum ‘earnestly to desire the higher gifts’ (1 Cor.12:31), and to consider whether these are not the teaching gifts. It is teaching which builds up the church. It is teachers who are needed most.
Another important question is raised in this verse (11). There is no mention in it of presbyter-bishops or deacons (to whom reference is made, for example, in Phil.1:1 and 1 Tim.3:1, 12), still less of the threefold order ‘bishops, presbyters and deacons’ which came to be developed in the second century and is widely acknowledged in Christendom today. How should we account for their omission here? Is this just an earlier stage before the more developed situation reflected in the Pastoral Epistles? Alternatively, should we distinguish between an ‘institutional’ ministry appointed by the church (‘bishops, presbyters and deacons’) and a ‘charismatic’ ministry appointed by Christ (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers’)? No, neither of these explanations should commend itself to us. To separate the ‘institutional’ from the ‘charismatic’, or ministerial ‘order’ from ministerial ‘gifts’, is a false distinction and a disastrous one. That there is such a thing by God’s intention as an institutional ministry or a ministerial order (whether threefold or twofold does not matter for our purposes here) is clear from the Pastoral Epistles. Timothy was to select and ordain presbyters and deacons for every church. But how would he select them? What were to be their qualifications? Partly he was to assure himself of the integrity of their moral character, partly of their doctrinal orthodoxy, and partly of their gifts (e.g. ‘an apt teacher, *didaktikos*, 1 Tim.3:2). It is inconceivable that the church should select, train and ordain people who lack the appropriate God-given gifts. Ordination to the pastoral ministry of any church should signify at least (1) the public recognition that God has called and gifted the person concerned, and (2) the public authorization of this person to obey the call and exercise the gift, with prayer for the enabling grace of the Holy Spirit. So we must not separate what God has united. On the one hand, the church should acknowledge the gifts which God has given people, and should publicly authorize them and encourage their exercise in ministry. On the other, the New Testament never contemplates the grotesque situation in which the church commissions and authorizes people to exercise a ministry for which they lack both the divine call and the divine equipment. No, gift and office, divine enabling and ecclesiastical commissioning, belong together. It seems to me that Paul indicates this by numbering ‘pastors and teachers’ among Christ’s gifts to his church, since the work of ordained presbyters is precisely to shepherd and teach Christ’s flock. ‘They therefore are insane’, writes Calvin without mincing his words, ‘who neglecting this means (sc. of building up the church), hope to be perfect in Christ, as in the case with fanatics who pretend to secret revelations of the Spirit, and the proud, who content themselves with the private reading of the Scripture, and imagine they do not need the ministry of the church.’
—————————————————————

Tomorrow: Ephesians 4:7-12. c). The purpose of spiritual gifts is service.

Ephesians 4:7-10. b). The character of spiritual gifts is extremely varied (continued).

There is another view, however, popularized by ‘pentecostal’ and ‘charismatic’ Christians, namely that God is again raising up prophets and prophetesses today, who speak his word in his name and by his direct inspiration. I have to confess my own grave hesitation about this claim. Those who make it seldom seem to recognise either the uniqueness of the original apostles and prophets or the superfluity of successors once the New Testament Scriptures became available to the church. Besides, there have been many similar claims in the history of the church, which do not encourage one’s confidence in the modern phenomenon. In those churches in which the possibility of such a gift is accepted, however, it is important to insist that so-called ‘prophetic utterances’ could never be of more than local and limited value (to individuals or a particular congregation, not the whole church), that they must always be carefully tested by Scripture and by the known character of the speaker, and that the regular, systematic, thoughtful exposition of the Bible is much more important for the building up of the people of God.
After apostles and prophets Paul mentions *evangelists*. This noun occurs only three times in the New Testament (here, in Acts 21:8 of Philip and in 2 Tim.4:5 of Timothy himself), although of course the verb ‘to evangelize is frequently used to describe the spreading of the gospel. Since all Christians are under obligation, when they have an appropriate opportunity, to bear witness to Christ and his good news, the gift of an ‘evangelist’ (bestowed only upon some) must be something different. It may refer to the gift of evangelistic preaching, or of making the gospel particularly plain and relevant to unbelievers, or of helping timorous people to take the plunge of commitment to Christ, or of effective personal witnessing. Probably the gift of an evangelist may take all these different forms and more. It must relate in some way to an evangelistic ministry, whether in mass evangelism, personal evangelism, literature evangelism, film evengelism, radio and television evangelism, musical evangelism or in the use of some other medium. There is a great need for gifted evangelists today who will pioneer new ways of exercising and developing their gift, so as to penetrate the vast unreached segments of society for Christ.
Since the definite article is not repeated in the expression some pastors and teachers*, it may be that these are two names for the same ministry. Calvin did not think so, for he suggested that the administration of discipline, the sacraments, warning and exhortation belonged particularly to pastors. Yet it is clear that ‘pastors’ (that is, ‘shepherds’), who are called to ‘tend’ God’s flock, do so in particular by ‘feeding it’, i.e. by teaching (cf.Jn.21:15-17; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet.5:2). Perhaps one should say that, although every pastor must be a teacher, gifted in the ministry of God’s Word to people (whether a congregation or groups or individuals), yet not every Christian teacher is also a pastor (since he may be teaching only in a school or college rather than in a local church).
——————————————————————

Tomorrow: Ephesians 4:7-10. b). The character of spiritual gifts is extremely varied (continued)

Ephesians 4:7-10. b). The character of spiritual gifts is extremely varied.

We should not hesitate, therefore, to say that *in this sense* there are no apostles today. In 1975 John Noble wrote and published a booklet entitles *First Apostles, Last Apostles*. In it his concern is ‘to arouse my fellow Christians to look for apostles to shape church life in our day’, who will ‘unite and release an army under God which will accomplish his purpose in these end-times’. His reading of history is that when the original apostles died, ‘they left a vacuum of authority into which the wrong men stepped’, i.e. the bishops. He criticizes both Catholicism and Protestantism, the former for ‘investing absolute authority in one man’ and the latter for ‘giving every individual the right to rule the church’. We can certainly agree with him that throughout the long and chequered history of the church there have been many misuses of authority, but he misses in his exposition the vitally important truths (1) that the original apostles as eye-witnesses of the historic risen Jesus can in the nature of the case have no successors, and (2) that their authority is preserved today in the New Testament, which is the essential ‘apostolic succession’. Once we have insisted, however, that there are today no apostles of Christ with an authority comparable to that of the apostles Paul, Peter and John, it is certainly possible to argue that there are people with apostolic ministries of a different kind, including episcopal jurisdiction, pioneer missionary work, church planting, itinerant leadership, etc.
What about *prophets*? Here again it is necessary to make a distinction. In the primary sense in which the bible uses the word, a prophet was a person who ‘stood in the council of God’, who heard and even ‘saw’ his word, and who in consequence ‘spoke from the mouth of the Lord’ and spoke his word ‘faithfully’ (cf. Je.23:16-32). In other words a prophet was a mouthpiece or spokesman of God, a vehicle of his direct revelation. *In this sense* we must again insist that there are no prophets today. Nobody can presume to claim an inspiration comparable to that of the canonical prophets, or use their introductory formula ‘Thus says the Lord’. If this were possible we would have to add their words to Scripture, and the whole church would need to listen and obey. Yet this is the sense in which Paul appears to be using the word here. He puts the prophets next after the apostles (as in 1 Cor.12:28; ‘second prophets’), and he brackets ‘apostles and prophets’ as the church’s foundation and the recipients of fresh revelation from God (2:20; 3:6). As the foundation on which the church is being built the prophets have no successors, any more than the apostles have, for the foundation was laid and finished centuries ago and we cannot tamper with it in any way today.
But, as with apostles so with prophets, having first established the uniqueness of the original teachers of the church, we then have to ask if there is a subsidiary gift of some kind. It seems right to answer ‘yes’, but then to confess that we do not know for certain what it is! Some see it as a special gift of biblical exposition, an unusual degree of insight into the Word of God, so that by the ministry of the Holy Spirit modern ‘prophets’ hear and receive the Word of God, not however as a new revelation but as a fresh understanding of the old. Others see it as a sensitive understanding of the contemporary world, a reading of the signs of the times, together with an indignant denunciation of the social sins of the day and a perceptive application of Scripture to them. Those who hold this view draw attention to the socio-political oracles of the Old Testament prophets. A third view concentrates on the effect which the ministry of the New Testament prophets had on their listeners, bringing to unbelievers a conviction of sin and to believers ‘upbuilding and encouragement and consolation’ (1 Cor.14:3; cf. Acts 15:32). In these three views the ‘prophetic’ gift is detected in the handling of the Word of God, for one cannot think of God’s prophets in isolation from God’s Word. It is understood as a gift of insight into either the biblical text or the contemporary situation, or both, namely a powerful combination of accurate exposition and pertinent application.
————————————————————-

Tomorrow: Ephesians 4:7-10. b). The character of spiritual gifts is extremely varied (continued).

Ephesians 4:7-10. b). The character of spiritual gifts is extremely varied.

Paul specifically says so in 1 Cor.12:4: ‘Now there are varieties of gifts’. It is important to recall this because many today have a restricted view of *charismata*. For example, some people speak and write of ‘the nine gifts of the Spirit’, presumably to make a neat but artificial parallel with the Spirit’s ninefold fruit (Gal.5:22-23). Others seem to be pre-occupied, even obsessed, with only three of the more spectacular gifts (‘tongues’, ‘prophecy’ and ‘healing’). In fact, however, the five lists given in the New Testament mention between them at least twenty distinct gifts, some of which are very prosaic and unsensational (like ‘doing acts of mercy’, Rom. 12:8). Moreover, each list diverges widely from the others, and gives its selection of gifts in an apparent haphazard fashion. This suggests not only that no one list is complete, but that even all five together do not represent an exhaustive catalogue. Doubtless there are many more which are unlisted.
In our text Paul selects only five for mention. Christ (*autos*, ‘he’, is emphatic, verse 11) gave some to be *apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers*. The word ‘apostle’ has three main meanings in the New Testament. Once only it seems to be applied to every individual Christian, when Jesus said: ‘A servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent (*apostolos*) greater than he who sent him.’ (Jn.13:16) So every Christian is both a servant and an apostle. The verb *apostello* means to ‘send’, and all Christian people are sent out into the world as Christ’s ambassadors and witnesses, to share in the apostolic mission of the whole church (Jn.17:18; 20:21). This cannot be the meaning here, however, for in this sense all Christians are ‘apostles’, whereas Paul writes that Christ gave only ‘some’ to be apostles.
Secondly, there are ‘apostles of the churches’ ( 2 Cor.8:23; cf. Phil.2:25), messengers sent out by a church either as missionaries or on some other errand. And thirdly there were the ‘apostles of Christ’, a very small and distinctive group, consisting of the Twelve (including Matthias who replaced Judas), Paul, James the Lord’s brother, and possibly one or two others. They were personally chosen and authorized by Jesus, and had to be eyewitnesses of the risen Lord (Acts 1:21, 22; 10:40-41; 1 Cor.9:1; 15:8-9). It must be in this sense that Paul is using the word ‘apostles’ here, for he puts them at the top of his list, as he does also in 1 Corinthians 12:28 (‘first apostles’), and this is how he has so far used the word in his letter, referring to himself (1:1) and to his fellow apostles as the foundation of the church and the organs of revelation (2:20; 3:26).
—————————————————————-

Tomorrow: Ephesians 4:7-10. b). The character of spiritual gifts is extremely varied (continued).

Ephesians 4:7-10. a). The giver of spiritual gifts is the ascended Christ (continued).

After the quotation from Psalm 68:18 Paul adds in parenthesis that Christ having *ascended* into heaven implies that *he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth* (verse 9). Because of the immediate context, which concerns the gifts of Christ to his church following his ascension, G.B.Caird makes a novel suggestion that his ‘descent’ was his ‘return at Pentecost to give his Spirit to the church’. But, ingenious as this is, the natural interpretation of the words suggest that his descent preceded his ascent rather than followed it. The early fathers understood this as a reference to his descent into Hades (Acts 2:25ff. and Rom. 10:7). They associated it with 1 Peter 3:19 (‘he went and preached to the spirits in prison’) which they interpreted as his spoiling or ‘harrowing’ hell. But, whatever the 1 Peter text means, there is no obvious reference to hades or hell in Ephesians 4:9. Calvin (following the Reformed commentators like Charles Hodge) argued from the ‘ascended into heaven’ of John 3:13 that ‘the lower parts of the earth’ is a genitive of apposition or definition, that what it means is simply ‘the earth’, and that Christ’s descent refers to his incarnation. NEB takes it this way too, namely that he descended ‘to the lowest level, down to the very earth’. Perhaps, however, the reference is more general still, namely that Christ descended to the depths of humiliation when he came to earth. Or possibly the allusion is to the cross, and ‘to the experience of the nethermost depths, the very agonies of hell’ which Christ endured there.
Such an interpretation would fit well with Philippines 2:5-11, where ‘even death on the cross’ describes his deepest humiliation, which was followed by his supreme exaltation. This was ‘far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named’ according to 1:21, and here ‘far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things’ (verse 10), or ‘so that he might fill the universe’ (NEB). What is in Paul’s mind, therefore, is not so much descent and ascent in spatial terms, but rather humiliation and exaltation, the latter bringing Christ universal authority and power, as a result of which he bestowed on the church he rules both the Spirit himself to indwell it and the gifts of the Spirit to edify it or bring it to maturity.
In the light of this emphasis on Christ, ascended, exalted, filling the universe, ruling the church, bestowing gifts, it would clearly be a mistake to think of *charismata* as being exclusively ‘gifts of the Spirit’ and to associate them too closely with the Holy Spirit or with experiences of the Holy Spirit. For here they are the gifts of Christ, while in Romans 12 they are the gifts of God the Father. It is always misleading to separate the three Persons of the Trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Together they are involved in every aspect of the church’s wellbeing.
————————————————————-

Tomorrow: Ephesians4:7-10. b). The character of spiritual gifts is extremely varied.

Ephesians 4:7-10. a). The giver of spiritual gifts is the ascended Christ.

According to verse 7 each gift is Christ’s gift, and this truth is now enforced in the following verse by a quotation from Psalm 68:18: *When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men*.
Psalm 68 is a call to God to come to the rescue of his people and vindicate them again, as in olden days. For he went in triumph before his people after the exodus (verse 7), so that Mount Sinai trembled (verse and kings were scattered (verses 11-14). Then, desiring Mount Zion as his abode (verse 16), he came from Sinai to his holy place (verse 17) and ascended the high mount, leading captives in his train. It is all very vivid imagery. It seems that the transfer of the ark to Zion is likened to the triumphant march of Yahweh into his capital.
Paul applies this picture to Christ’s ascension, not arbitrarily because he detected a vague analogy between the two, but justifiably because he saw in the exaltation of Jesus a further fulfilment of this description of the triumph of God. Christ ascended as conqueror to the Father’s right hand, his train of captives being the principalities and powers he had defeated, dethroned and disarmed (1:20-22; cf. Col.2:15).
In the application of Psalm 68:18 to Christ, however, there is a textual problem. For the Psalm reads that God ascended the mount, ‘receiving gifts from men’, whereas Paul’s quotation is that Christ ‘gave gifts to men’. Some commentators do not hesitate to say that Paul changed the wording to suit his purpose. For example, J.H.Houlden writes: ‘There is no need to suppose that the alteration was other than deliberate’. Others think it was ‘an unintentional misquotation’. Because of the apostle’s known regard for Scripture both these explanations seem *a priori* unlikely.
The place to begin an explanation is surely to see that the two renderings are only formally but not substantially contradictory. Words cannot be interpreted by themselves, but only in context. So we need to remember that after every conquest in the ancient world there was invariably both a receiving of tribute and a distribution of largesse. What conquerors took away from their captives, they gave away to their own people. The spoils were divided, the booty was shared (For Old Testament examples see Gn.14; Jdgs. 5:30; 1 Sam.30:26-31; Ps 68:12 and Is. 53:12). It seems possible that the Hebrew text itself may imply this, since the verb could be translated ‘brought’ rather than ‘received’, and it is not without significance that two ancient versions or translations, one Aramaic and the other Syriac, render it ‘gave’. So evidently this was already a traditional interpretation.
One other interesting point needs to be made. Liturgical custom in the synagogues associated Psalm 68 with Pentecost, the Jewish feast commemorating the giving of the law. Paul’s use of it in reference to the Christian Pentecost, then makes a remarkable analogy. As Moses received the law and gave it to Israel, so Christ received the Spirit and gave him to his people in order to write God’s law in their hearts and through the pastors he appointed (verse 11) to teach them the truth. This whole argument that ‘receiving’ and ‘giving’ belong indissolubly to each other is aptly illustrated in Acts 2:33 where Peter on the day of Pentecost said: ‘Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit; he (sc. Jesus) has poured out this which you see and hear’. Christ could only give the gift he had received.
—————————————————————

Tomorrow: Ephesians 4:7-10. a). The giver of spiritual gifts is the ascended Christ (continued).

Ephesians 4:7-12. 3). Christian unity is enriched by the diversity of our gifts.

The contrast between verses 6 and 7 is striking. Verse 6 speaks of God as Father of us *all*, who is above *all*, through *all* and in *all*. Verse 7, however, begins: *But grace was given to each of us…* Thus Paul turns from ‘all of us’ to ‘each of us’, and so from unity to the diversity of the church.
He is, in fact, deliberately qualifying what he has just written about the church’s unity. Although there is only one body, one faith and one family, this unity is not to be misconstrued as a lifeless or colourless uniformity.. We are not to imagine that every Christian is an exact replica of every other, as if we had all been mass-produced in some celestial factory. On the contrary, the unity of the church, far from being boringly monotonous, is exciting in its diversity. This is not just because of our different cultures, temperaments and personalities (which, though true, is not Paul’s point here), but because of the different gifts which Christ distributes for the enrichment of our common life.
Verse 7 refers to Christ’s *grace* in bestowing different gifts. Although Paul does not here employ the term *charismata* for ‘gifts’ (as he does in Rom. 12:6 and 1 Cor. 12:4), yet clearly it is to these that he is referring. For ‘grace’ is *charis*, and ‘gifts’ are *charismata*. Moreover, it is very important to understand the difference between them. ‘Saving grace’, the grace which saves sinners, is given to all who believe (See 2:5, 8: ‘By grace you are saved’); but what might be termed ‘service grace’, the grace which equips God’s people to serve, is given in different degrees *according to the measure of Christ’s gift* (verse 7). The unity of the church is due to *charis*, God’s grace having reconciled us to himself; but the diversity of the church is due to *charismata*, God’s gifts distributed to church members.
It is, of course, from this word *charismata* that the adjective ‘charismatic’ is derived. The so-called ‘charismatic movement’, although controversial in a number of its distinctive emphases, has without doubt been used by God to bring spiritual renewal to many churches and individual Christians. Nevertheless, we should register a biblical protest against the designation ‘charismatic movement’, whether its adherents themselves chose it or were given it. ‘Charismatic’ is not a term which can be accurately applied to any group or movement within the church, since according to the New Testament the whole church is a charismatic community. It is the body of Christ, every single member of which has a gift (*charisma*) to exercise or function to perform.
What, then, does this paragraph teach us about *charismata* or spiritual gifts? It tells us about their giver, their character and their purpose.
—————————————————————–

Tomorrow: Ephesians 4:7-10. a). The giver of spiritual gifts is the ascended Christ.

Ephesians 4:3-6. 2). Christian unity arises from the unity of God (continued).

Just so, the fact of the church’s indestructible unity is no excuse for acquiescing in the tragedy of its actual disunity. On the contrary, the apostle tells us to be *eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit*. The Greek verb for ‘eager’ (*spoudazontes*) is emphatic. It means that we are to ‘spare no effort’ (NEB), and, being a present participle, it is a call for continuous, diligent activity. Marcus Barth expresses the sense vividly: ‘It is hardly possible to render exactly the urgency contained in the underlying Greek verb. Not only haste and passion, but a full effort of the whole man is meant, involving his will, sentiment, reason, physical strength, and total attitude. The imperative mood of the participle found in the Greek text excludes passivity, quietism, a wait-and-see attitude, or a diligence tempered by all deliberate speed. Yours is the initiative! Do it now! Mean it! *You* are to do it! I mean it! - Such are the overtones in verse 3.’
Where I ask myself, is this eagerness for unity to be found among evangelical Christians today? Is this an apostolic command we are guilty of largely ignoring?
Take the local church first, for presumably it is to this that Paul is primarily referring . Some Christian fellowships are marred by rivalries between individuals or groups which have been allowed to fester for years. How can we possibly condone such things? We need to be ‘eager’ for love. unity and peace, and more active in seeking it.
But Ephesians, as we have seen, may have been a circular letter addressed to several churches. Perhaps even in the city of Ephesus itself there were now so many Christians that they met in several district house churches. We know, for example, that Aquilla and Priscilla had a church in their home when they lived in Rome (Rom.16:3-5), and probably also when they moved to Ephesus (Acts 18:26). So Paul may have in mind the need for unity *between* as well as *within* the churches. If so, his concern would apply to inter-church relationships today. This is not the place to go into the technical terms which are used for various kinds of relations between churches, such as ‘open communion’, ‘intercommunion’, ‘full communion’ and ‘organic union’. There is room for differences of conviction among us as to the precise form or forms in which God wants Christian unity to be expressed. But we should all be eager for some visible expression of Christian unity, provided always that we do not sacrifice fundamental Christian truth in order to achieve it. Christian unity arises from our having one Father, one Saviour, and one indwelling Spirit. So we cannot possibly foster a unity which pleases God either if we deny the doctrine of the Trinity or if we have not come personally to know God the Father through the reconciling work of his Son Jesus Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit. Authentic Christian ‘unity’ in truth, life and love is far more important than ‘union’ schemes of a structural kind, although ideally the latter should be a visible expression of the former.
————————————————————–

Tomorrow:. Ephesians 4:7-12. 3). Christian unity is enriched by the diversity of our gifts.

Ephesians 4:3-6. 2). Christian unity arises from the unity of our God (c0ntinued).

At this point a necessary distinction needs to be drawn. It is not just between the ‘visible’ and the ‘invisible’ church. That distinction is true, but the concept of the invisible church (whose members are known only to God) has been misused by some as an excuse for opting out of responsible membership in the visible church. So the distinction needs to be somewhat refined. It is between the church’s unity as an invisible reality present to the mind of God (who says to himself ‘I have only one church’) and the church’s disunity as a visible appearance which contradicts the invisible reality (causing us to say to ourselves, ‘There are hundreds of separated and competing churches’). We are one, for God says so, and in interdenominational conventions and congresses we sense our underlying unity in Christ. Yet outwardly and visibly we belong to different churches and different traditions, some of which are not even in communion with one another, while others have strayed far from biblical Christianity.
The apostle himself recognizes this paradoxical combination of unity and disunity. For in this very passage, in which the indestructible unity of the church is so emphatically asserted, the possibility of disunity in also acknowledged. Consider verse 3, which we have so far omitted and in which we are told to be *eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace*. This is a very strange exhortation. Paul first describes the church’s unity as ‘the unity of the Spirit’ (meaning a unity which the Holy Spirit creates) and then argues that this unity is as indestructible as God himself. Yet in the same context he also tells us that we have to maintain it! What can he mean? What is the sense of urging the maintenance of something indestructible, and of urging *us* to maintain it, when it is ‘a unity of the Spirit’, which he created and is therefore presumably himself responsible for preserving?
There seems to be but one possible answer to these questions, namely that to *maintain* the churches unity must mean to maintain it visibly. Here is an apostolic exhortation to us to preserve in actual concrete relationships of love (*in the bond of peace*, that is, by the peace which binds us together) that unity which God has created and which neither man nor demon can destroy. We are to demonstrate to the world that the unity we say exists indestructibly is not the rather sick joke it sounds but a true and glorious reality.
Perhaps the analogy of a human family will help us to grasp our responsibility more clearly. We will imagine a couple called Mr and Mrs John Smith, and their three sons, Tom, Dick and Harry. They are one family; there is no doubt about that. Marriage and parenthood have united them. But in the course of time the Smith family disintegrates. Father and mother quarrel, keep up an uneasy truce for several years, become increasingly estranged and finally get a divorce. The three boys also quarrel, first with their parents and then with each other, and separate. Tom goes to live in Canada, Dick in South Africa and Harry in Australia. They never meet, write or telephone. They lose contact with each other altogether. More than that. So determined are they to repudiate each other that they actually change their names by deed poll. It would be hard to image a family which has experienced a more disastrous disintegration than this. All mutual relationships have been severed.
Now supposing we were cousins of the Smith family, how would we react? Would we shrug our shoulders, smile complacently and mutter ‘Oh well, never mind, they are still one family, you know’? We would be quite correct. In God’s sight I reckon they are still one family, indestructibly. Mr and Mrs Smith are still husband and wife and still parents of their three sons, who are still brothers. For simply nothing can alter the unity of the family which circumstances of marriage and birth have imposed upon it. But would we acquiesce in this situation? Would we try to excuse or minimize the tragedy of their disunity by appealing to the indestructibility of the family ties? No, this would not satisfy either our mind or our heart or our conscience. What, then, would we do? Surely we would seek to be peacemakers. We would urge them to ‘maintain the unity of the family by means of the bond of peace’, that is, to demonstrate their family unity by repenting and getting reconciled to one another.
—————————————————————-

Tomorrow: Ephesians 4:3-6. 2). Christian unity arises from the unity of our God (continued).

Ephesians 4:3-6. Christian unity arises from the unity of our God.

Even the casual reader of verses 3-6 (thought by some to be part of a Christian hymn or a creed for catechumens) is struck by Paul’s repetition of the word ‘one’; in fact, it occurs seven times. A more careful reading discloses that three of these seven unities allude to the three Persons of the Trinity (*one Spirit*, verse 4; *one Lord*, verse 5, i.e. the Lord Jesus; and *0ne God and Father of us all*, verse 6), while the remaining four allude to our Christian experience in relation to the three Persons of the Trinity. This truth can be expressed in three simple affirmations.
First, there is *one body* because there is only *one Spirit* (verse 4). The one body is the church, the body of Christ (1:23), comprising Jewish and Gentile believers; and its unity or cohesion is due to the one Holy Spirit who indwells and animates it. As Paul writes elsewhere, ‘By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and all were made to drink of one Spirit.’ (1 Cor.12:13). Thus, it is our common possession of the one Holy Spirit that integrates us into one Body.
Secondly, there is *one hope* belonging to our Christian calling (verse 4), *one faith* and *one baptism* (verse 5) because there is only *one Lord*. For the Lord Jesus Christ is the one object of the faith, hope and baptism of all Christian people. It is Jesus Christ in whom we have believed, Jesus Christ into whom we have been baptized (E.g. 1 Cor.1:13; Gal:3:27), and Jesus Christ for whose coming we wait with expectant hope.
Thirdly, there is one Christian family, embracing *us all* (verse 6) because *there is one God and Father…who is above all and through all and in all*. A few manuscripts read ‘in *you* all’, clarifying that the ‘all’ of whom God is Father means ‘all Christians’, not ‘all people’ indiscriminately, or ‘all things’ (the universe). Armitage Robinson calls this addition of the word ‘you’ ‘a timid gloss’. Perhaps it is; and certainly the overwhelming manuscript evidence omits it. Nevertheless, it is a correct gloss. For the ‘all’ *above, through* and *in* whom God is Father, are his family or household, his redeemed children. (cf. 1:2,17; 2:18-19;3:14-15).
We are now in a position to repeat the three affirmations, this time the other way round and in the order in which the Persons of the Trinity are normally mentioned. First, the one Father creates the one family. Secondly, the one Lord Jesus creates the one faith, hope and baptism. Thirdly, the one Spirit creates the one body.
Indeed we can go further. We must assert that there *can* be only one Christian family, only one Christian faith, hope and baptism, and only one Christian body, because there is only one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You can no more multiply churches than you can multiply Gods. Is there only one God? Then he has the only one church. Is the unity of God inviolable? Then so is the unity of the church. The unity of the church is as indestructible as the unity of God himself. It is no more possible to split the church than it is possible to split the Godhead.
In stating the matter thus baldly and dogmatically (as the apostle Paul himself did), it is not difficult to imagine what the reader is thinking. You will be saying to me something like this: ‘It is all very well declaring that we cannot split the church; the truth is we have been extremely successful in doing the very thing you are saying we cannot do!’ How, then, can the evident phenomenon of the disunity of the church be reconciled with the biblical insistence on the indestructibility of its unity?
———————————————————–

Tomorrow: Ephesians 4:3-6. 2). Christian unity arises from the unity of our God (continued).

Ephesians 4:2. 1). Christian unity depends on the charity of our conduct.

Paul immediately portrays the life worthy of our calling as being characterized by five qualities - lowliness, meekness, patience, mutual forbearance and love. He has prayed to God that we may be ‘rooted and grounded in love’ (3:17); now he addresses his appeal to us to see to it that we live a life of love. This is where he begins, and this is also where we should begin. Too many start with structures (and structures of some kind are indispensable), but the apostle starts with moral qualities. Certainly, in the quest for Christian unity, if we have to choose, we must say that the moral is more important than the structural.
*Lowliness* was much despised in the ancient world. The Greeks never used their word for humility (*tapeinotes*) in a context of approval, still less of admiration. Instead they meant by it an abject, servile, subservient attitude, ‘the crouching submissiveness of a slave’. Not till Jesus Christ came was a true humility recognized. For he humbled himself. And only he among the world’s religious and ethical teachers has set before us as our model a little child.
Moreover, the word Paul uses here is *tapeinophrosyne*, which means ‘lowliness of mind’, the humble recognition of the worth and value of other people, the humble mind which was in Christ and led him to empty himself and become a servant (Phil.2:3-8, the same noun being used in verse 3).
Now humility is essential to unity. Pride lurks behind all discord, while the greatest single secret of concord is humility. It is not difficult to prove this in experience. The people we immediately, instinctively like, and find it easy to get on with, are the people who give us the respect we consider we deserve, while the people we immediately, instinctively dislike are those who treat us like dirt. In other words, personal vanity is a key factor in all our relationships. If, however, instead of manoeuvring for the respect of others (which is pride) we give them our respect by recognizing their intrinsic God-given worth (which is humility), we shall be promoting harmony in God’s new society.
*Meekness (praotes*) was warmly applauded by Aristotle. Because he hated extremes and loved the ‘the golden mean’, he saw in *praotes* the quality of moderation, ‘the mean between being too angry and never being angry at all’. The word was also used of domesticated animals. So ‘meekness’ is not a synonym for ‘weakness’. On the contrary, it is the gentleness of the strong, whose strength is under control. It is the quality of a strong personality who is nevertheless master of himself and the servant of others. Meekness is ‘the absence of the disposition to assert personal rights, either in the presence of God or of men’. It is particularly appropriate in pastors who should also use their authority only in a spirit of gentleness (1 Cor.4:21; 2 Tim.2:25)
‘Lowliness’ and ‘meekness’ form a natural couple. For ‘the meek man thinks as little of his personal claims, as the humble man of his personal merits’. They are found together in perfect balance in the character of our Lord Jesus who described himself as ‘gentle and lowly in heart’ (Mt.11:29 (*praos…kai tapeinos*); cf. 2 Cor.10:1)
The third and fourth qualities also form a natural pair, for *patience (makrothymia*) is long-suffering towards aggravating people, such as God in Christ has shown towards us (e.g. Rom.2:4; 1 Tim.1:16), while *forbearing one another* speaks of that mutual tolerance without which no group of human beings can live together in peace. *Love* is the final quality, which embraces the preceding four, and is the crown and sum of all virtues. Since to love is constructively to seek the welfare of others and the good of the community, its ‘binding’ properties are celebrated in Colossians 3:14.
Here, then, are five foundation stones of Christian unity. Where these are absent no external structure of unity can stand. But when this strong base has been laid, then there is good hope that a visible unity can be built. We may be quite sure that no unity is pleasing to God which is not the child of charity.
—————————————————————

Tomorrow: Ephesians 4:3-6. 2). Christian unity arises from the unity of our God.

Ephesians 4:1-16. Unity and diversity in the church.

For three chapters Paul has been unfolding for his readers the eternal purpose of God being worked out in history. Through Jesus Christ, who died for sinners and was raised from death, God is creating something entirely new, not just a new life for individuals for a new society. Paul sees an alienated humanity being reconciled, a fractured humanity being united, even a new humanity being created. It is a magnificent vision.
Now the apostle moves on from the new society to the new standards which are expected of it. So he turns from exposition to exhortation, from what God has done (in the indicative) to what we must be and do (in the imperative), from doctrine to duty, ‘from the *credenda… to the agenda*, from mind-stretching theology to its down-to-earth, concrete implications in everyday living.
He begins: *I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you…* He had taught them, and he has prayed for them (1:15-23 and 3:14-19); now he addresses to them a solemn appeal. Instruction, intercession and exhortation constitute a formidable trio of weapons in any teacher’s armoury. Besides, Paul was no ordinary teacher. He uses the emphatic personal pronoun, the *ego* of self-conscious apostolic authority, as in 3:1. And again he describes himself as *a prisoner for the Lord*, using a slightly different grammatical construction but the same *double entendre*, that he is both a prisoner of Christ and a prisoner for Christ, both bound to him by the chains of love and in custody out of loyalty to his gospel. Thus the authority of one of Christ’s apostles and the passionate conviction of a man under house arrest because of his vision of a united church, together undergird his exhortation. *I beg you*, he writes, *to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called*.
What this life is to be like can be determined only by the nature of the divine call of which it is to be worthy. What is this? The new society which God is calling into being has two major characteristics. First, it is ‘one’ people, composed equally of Jews and Gentiles, the single family of God. Secondly, it is a ‘holy’ people, distinct from the secular world, set apart (like Israel in Old Testament days) to belong to God. Therefore because God’s people are called to be one people, they must manifest their unity, and because they are called to be a holy people, they must manifest their purity. Unity and purity are two fundamental features of a life worthy of the church’s divine calling. The apostle treats the unity of the church in verses 1-16 and the purity of the church from 4:17 to 5:21.
During the last half-century and more a great deal has been said and written about the unity of the church. The modern preoccupation with it may be traced to the influential ‘Appeal to all Christian People’ which was issued by the 1920 Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops under the chairmanship of Randall Davidson, Archbishop of Canterbury. Following this, the movement towards reunion gathered speed, two notable milestones being the inauguration of the Church of South India in 1947 and of the World Council of Churches in 1948. Since then some more united churches have come into being, while other union schemes have founded; and the movement may be said to be in the doldrums. It is all the more important, therefore, to look with fresh eyes at Ephesians 4:1-16, since this is one of the two classic New Testament passages on the subject of Christian unity (the other being John 17). It should prove both a strong stimulus to concern ourselves with Christian unity and a healthy corrective to a number of misleading notions about it.
Paul elaborates four truths about the kind of oneness which God intends his new society to enjoy. They may be stated in the following four propositions:

1). It depends on the *charity* of our character and conduct (verse 2).
2). It arises from the *unity* of our God (verses 3-6).
3). It is enriched by the *diversity* of our gifts (verses 7-12).
4). It demands the *maturity* of our growth (verses 13-16).

It will be observed that charity, unity, diversity and maturity appear to be the key concepts of this section.
————————————————————–

Tomorrow: Ephesians 4:2. 1). Christian unity depends on the charity of our conduct.

Ephesians 3:20:21. 3). The conclusion of his prayer.

We notice now that the apostle’s four petitions are sandwiched between two references to God. In verses 14-16 he is the Father of the whole family and possess infinite riches in glory; in verses 20 and 21 he is the one who works powerfully within us. Such a God can answer prayer.
God’s ability to answer prayer is forcefully stated by the apostle in a composite expression of seven stages. (1) He is able to *do* or to work (*poiesai*), for he is neither idle, nor inactive nor dead. (2) He is able to do what *we ask*, for he hears and answers prayer. (3) He is able to do what we ask *or think*, for he reads our thoughts, and sometimes we imagine things for which we dare not and therefore do not ask. (4) He is able to do *all* that we ask or think, for he knows it all and can perform it all. (5) He is able to do *more…than (hyper*, ‘beyond’) all that we ask or think, for his expectations are higher than ours. (6) He is able to do much more, or *more abundantly (perissos*), than all that we ask or think, for he does not give his grace by calculated measure. (7) He is able to do very much more, *far more abundantly*, than all that we ask or think, for he is a God of super-abundance. This adverb *hyperekperissou* is one of Paul’s coined ‘super-superlatives’. English equivalents which have been proposed are ‘immeasurably more’ (NIV) or ‘vastly more than more’, but perhaps the feel of it is best conveyed by ‘infinitely more’ (AG,JBP). It states simply that there are no limits to what God can do.
The infinite ability of God to work beyond our prayers, thoughts and dreams is *by the power at work within us*, within us individually (Christ dwelling in our hearts by faith) and within us as a people (who are the dwelling place of God by his Spirit). It is the power of the resurrection, the power that raised Christ from the dead, enthroned him in the heavenlies, and then raised and enthroned us there with him. That is the power which is at work within the Christian and the church.
Paul’s prayer relates to the fulfilment of his vision for God’s new society of love. He asks that its members may be strengthened to love and to know the love of Christ, though this surpasses knowledge. But then he turns from the love of God past knowing to the power of God past imagining, from limitless love to limitless power. For he is convinced, as we must be, that only divine power can generate divine love in the divine society.
To add anything more would be inappropriate, except the doxology. *To him be glory*, Paul exclaims, to this God of resurrection power who alone can make the dream come true. The power comes from him; the glory must go to him. To him be glory *in the church and in Christ Jesus together*, in the body and in the Head, in the bride and in the Bridegroom, in the community of peace and in the Peacemaker, to *all generations (in history), for ever and ever (in eternity), Amen*.
——————————————————————

Tomorrow: Ephesians 4:1-16. Unity and diversity in the church.

Ephesians 3:16b-19. d). Filled up to God’s fullness.

‘Fullness’ is a characteristic word of Ephesians, as it is of Colossians. In Colossians Paul tells us not only that God’s fullness dwells in Christ, but also that in Christ we ourselves have come to fullness (Col.1:19; 2:9-10). At the same time, he makes it plain in Ephesians that we still have room for growth. As individuals we are to go on being filled with the Spirit (5:18), and the church, although already the fullness of Christ (1:23), is still to ‘grow up into him’ till it reaches his fullness (4:13-16). ‘Growth into fullness’ is therefore the theme of Paul’s fourth and last petition for his Asian readers. He prays that they *may be filled with all the fullness of God*. It is uncertain how this genitive should be understood. If it is objective, then God’s fullness is the abundance of the grace which he bestows. If it subjective, it is the fullness which fills God himself, in other words his perfection. Staggering as the thought may be, the latter seems the more probable because the Greek preposition is *eis*, which indicates that we are to be filled not ‘with’ so much as ‘unto’ the fullness of God. God’s fullness or perfection becomes the standard or level up to which we pray to be filled. The aspiration is the same in principle as that implied by thecommands to be holy as God is holy, and to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect (1 Pet.15-16; Mt.5:48).
Such a prayer must surely look on to our final state of perfection in heaven when together we enter the completeness of God’s purpose for us, and are filled to capacity, filled up to that fullness of God which human beings are capable of receiving without ceasing to be human. Another way of expressing the prospect is that we shall become like Christ, which is God’s purpose and promise (Rom.8:29; 1 Jn.3:2), for Christ is himself the fullness of God. Yet another way of putting it is to say that we shall attain the fullness of love, of which Paul has just spoken in his prayer. Then Jesus’ own prayer will be fulfilled: ‘That the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.’ (Jn.17:26).
In saying that Paul’s last petition points to heavenly perfection, we have no liberty to try to evade its contemporary challenge. For God expects us to be growing daily towards that final fullness, as we are being transformed by the Holy Spirit into Christ’s image from one degree of glory to another (2 Cor.3:18).
As we now look back down the staircase which we have been climbing with Paul, we cannot fail to be struck by his audacity. He prays that his readers may be given the strength of the Spirit and the ruling presence of Christ, the rooting of their lives in love, the knowledge of Christ’s love in all its dimensions, and the fullness of God himself. These are bold petitions. Climbers of this staircase become short of breath, even a little giddy. But Paul does not leave us in suspense.
————————————————————–

Tomorrow: Ephesians 3:20-21. 3). The conclusion of his prayer.

Ephesians 3:16a-19. b). Rooted and grounded in love.

If we had the opportunity to ask Paul for what purpose he prayed that Christ would control and strengthen his readers, I think he would reply that he wanted them to be strengthened to love. For in the new and reconciled humanity which Christ is creating love is the pre-eminent virtue. The new humanity is God’s family, whose members are brothers and sisters, who love their Father and love each other. Or should do. They need the power of the Spirit’s might and of Christ’s indwelling to enable them to love each other, especially across the deep racial and cultural divide which previously had separated them.
To express how fundamental Paul longs for their love to be, he joins two metaphors (one botanical, the other architectural), both of which emphasize depth as opposed to superficiality. These Christians are to be *rooted and grounded*, or to have ‘deep roots and firm foundations’ (NEB). Thus Paul likens them first to a well-rooted tree, and then to a well-built house. In both cases the unseen cause of their stability will be the same: love. Love is to be the soil in which their life is to be rooted; love is to be the foundation on which their life is built. One might say that their love is to be of both a ‘radical’ and a ‘fundamental’ nature in their experience, for these English words refer to our roots and our foundations.

c). Knowing Christ’s love.
We observe that the apostle now passes from our love (in which we are to be rooted and grounded) to Christ’s love (which he prays we may know). Indeed, he acknowledges that we need strength or power for both, strength to love and power to comprehend Christ’s love. Certainly the two cannot be separated, and it is partly by loving that we learn the meaning of his love.
Paul prays that we *may have power to comprehend* the love of Christ in its full dimensions - its *breadth and length and height and depth*. Modern commentators warn us not to be too literal in our interpretation of these, since the apostle may only have been indulging in a little rhetoric or poetic hyperbole. Yet it seems to me legitimate to say that the love of Christ is ‘broad’ enough to encompass all mankind (especially Jews and Gentiles, the theme of these chapters), ‘long’ enough to last for eternity, ‘deep’ enough to reach the most degraded sinner, and ‘high’ enough to exalt him to heaven. Or, as Leslie Mitton expresses it, finding a parallel to Romans 8:37-39: ‘Whether you go forward or backward, up to the heights or down to the depths, nothing will separate us from the love of Christ.’ Ancient commentators went further. They saw these dimensions illustrated on the cross. For its upright pole reached down to earth and pointed to heaven, while its crossbar carried the arms of Jesus, stretched out as if to invite and welcome the whole world. Armitage Robinson calls this a ‘pretty fancy’. Perhaps he is right and it is fanciful, yet what it affirms about the love of Christ is true.
We shall have power to comprehend these dimensions of Christ’s love, Paul adds, only *with all the saints*. The isolated Christian can indeed know something of the love of Jesus. But his grasp of it is bound to be limited by his limited experience. It needs the whole people of God to understand the whole love of God, *all the saints* together, Jews and Gentiles, men and women, young and old, black and white, with all their varied backgrounds and experiences.
Yet even then, although we may ‘comprehend’ its dimensions to some extent with our minds, we cannot ‘know’ it in our experience. It is too broad, long, deep and high even for all the saints together to grasp. It *surpasses knowledge*. Paul has already used the ‘surpassing’ word of God’s power (1:19) and grace (2:7); now he uses it of his love. Christ’s love is as unknowable as his riches are unsearchable (verse 8). Doubtless we shall spend eternity exploring his inexhaustible riches of grace and love.
—————————————————————

Tomorrow d). Filled up to God’s fullness.

Ephesians 3:16b-19. The substance of his prayer.

I like to think of the apostle’s petition as a staircase by which he climbs higher and higher in his aspiration for his readers. His prayer-staircase has four steps, whose key words are ‘strength’, ‘love’, ‘knowledge’ and ‘fullness’. More precisely, he prays first that they may be *strengthened* by the indwelling of Christ through his Spirit; secondly that they may be rooted and grounded in *love*; thirdly that they may *know* Christ’s love in all its dimensions, although it is beyond knowledge; and fourthly that they may be *filled* right up to the very fullness of God.

a). Strengthened with might.
The prayer opens: *that..he may grant you to be strengthened with might through his Spirit in the inner man, and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith* (verses 16-17a). These two petitions clearly belong together. Both refer to the Christian’s innermost being, his ‘inner man’ on the one hand and his ‘heart’ on the other. Then, although one specifies the strength of the *Spirit* and the other the indwelling of *Christ*, both surely refer to the same experience. For Paul never separates the second and third persons of the Trinity. To have Christ dwelling in us and to have the Spirit dwelling in us are the same thing. Indeed, it is precisely by the Spirit that Christ dwells in our hearts (See Jn.14:16-18; and Rom. 8:9-11), and it is strength which he gives us when he dwells there. Moreover, the experience of ‘Christ in you’ was a part of the ‘mystery’ and so of the privilege of Gentile believers (Col.1:27).
Some are puzzled by this first petition when they remember that Paul is praying for Christians. ‘Surely’, they say, ‘Christ dwells by his Spirit within every believer? So how can Paul ask here that Christ may dwell in their hearts? Was Christ not already within them?’. To these questions we begin by replying that indeed every Christian is indwelt by Christ and is the temple of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9, 10; 1 Cor.6:19). Nevertheless as Charles Hodge rightly comments, ‘The indwelling of Christ is a thing of degrees’. So also is the inward strengthening of the Holy Spirit. What Paul asks for his readers is that they may be ‘fortified, braced, invigorated’, that they may ‘know the strength of the Spirit’s inner reinforcement’ (JBP), and may lay hold ever more firmly ‘by faith’ of this divine strength, this divine indwelling.
That this is Paul’s meaning is further confirmed by his choice of word for the ‘indwelling’ of Christ in the heart. There are two similar Greek verbs *paroikeo* and *katoikeo*. The former is the weaker. It means to ‘inhabit (a place) as a stranger’ (AG), to live in fact as a *paroikos*, the very word Paul has used in 2:19 for an alien who is living away from his home. *Katoikeo*, on the other hand, means to settle down somewhere. It refers to a permanent as opposed to a temporary abode, and is used metaphorically both for the fullness of the Godhead abiding in Christ (Col.2:9) and for Christ’s abiding in the believer’s heart (here in verse 17). Bishop Handley Moule draws out the implications: ‘The word selected (*katoikein*)…is a word made expressly to denote residence as against lodging, the abode of a master within his own home as against the turning aside for a night of the wayfarer who will be gone tomorrow.’ Again, it is ‘the residence always in the heart of its Master and Lord, who where he dwells must rule; who enters not to cheer and soothe alone but before all things else to reign’. Thus Paul prays to the Father that Christ by his Spirit will be allowed to settle down in their hearts, and from his throne there both control and strengthen them. For the fourth time in the letter one is struck by the natural trinitarian structure of the apostle’s thought (cf. 1:3,17 and 2:18).
—————————————————————

Tomorrow: Ephesians 3:16b-19.b). Rooted and grounded in love.

Ephesians 3:14-21. Confidence on God’s power.

One of best way to discover a Christian’s chief anxieties and ambitions is to study the content of his prayers and the intensity with which he prays them. We all pray about what concerns us, and are evidently not concerned about matters we do not include in our prayers. Prayer expresses desire. For example, when Paul prayed for the salvation of his Israelite kinsfolk, he wrote of his ‘heart’s desire and prayer to God for them’ (Rom. 10:1). As the hymn puts it, ‘Prayer is the soul’s sincere desire, uttered or unexpressed.’
This is certainly true of this second prayer of Paul’s in Ephesians in which he pours out his soul to God. He has been explaining both Christ’s peace-making work, which resulted in the creation of the new society, and his personal involvement in this because of the special revelation and commission he had received. Now he turns from exposition to intercession. He prays that God’s wonderful plan which he has been elaborating may be even more completely fulfilled in the readers’ experience. Prayer and preaching should always go together. As Jesus watered with prayer the good seeds of instruction he had sown in the Upper Room (Jn.13-17), so Paul follows up his teaching with earnest prayer, and by recording it enables us to overhear him. As Bishop Handley Moule put it: ‘Who has not read and re-read the closing verses of the third chapter of the Ephesians with the feeling of one permitted to look through parted curtains into the Holiest Place of the Christian life?’

1). The introduction to his prayer (verses 14-16a).
The apostle begins *For this reason…*, resuming his train of thought where he had left it in verse 1. What ‘reason’ is in his mind? What is it that moves him to pray? Surely it is both the reconciling work of Christ and his own understanding of it by special revelation? These are the convictions which undergird his prayer. This being so, an important principle of prayer emerges. The basis of Paul’s prayer was his knowledge of God’s purpose. It was because of what God had done in Christ and revealed to Paul that he had the necessary warrant to pray. For the indispensable prelude to all petition is the revelation of God’s will. We have no authority to pray for anything which God has not revealed to be his will. That is why Bible reading and prayer should always go together. For it is in Scripture that God has disclosed his will, and it is in prayer that we ask him to do it (See e.g. Jn.15:7 and 1 Jn.5:14).
Paul goes on: *I bow my knees*. The normal posture for prayer among the Jews was standing. In Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the Publican both men stood to pray (Lk.18:11,13). So kneeling was unusual. It indicated an exceptional degree of earnestness, as when Ezra confessed Israel’s sins of penitence, Jesus fell on his face to the ground in the Garden of Gethsemane, and Stephen faced the ordeal of martyrdom (Ezr.9:5ff.; Mt.26:39; Lk.22:41; Acts 7:59, 60). Scripture lays down no rule about the posture we should adopt when we pray. It is possible to pray kneeling, standing, sitting, walking and even lying, although we may feel inclined to agree with William Hendriksen that ‘the slouching position of the body while one is supposed to be praying is an abomination to the Lord’.
*I bow my knees before the Father*. Already the apostle has called God ‘the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ and therefore because we are in Christ ‘our Father’, from whom all blessings flow (1:2-3). He has also declared that Jews and Gentiles are fellow members of the Father’s family, who enjoy equal access to their Father in prayer (2:18, 19). Here he goes on to affirm that from this Father, before whom he kneels in reverent humility, *every family in heaven and on earth is named*. At least, this is the RSV and NEB translation, and *pasa patria* may quite properly be rendered ‘every family’. Yet there is something inherently inappropriate about this reference to a multiplicity of families, since the dominant theme of these chapters is that through Christ the ‘one God and Father of us all’ (4:6) has only one family or household to which Jewish and Gentile believers equally belong. It seems better, therefore, to translate *pasa patria* ‘the whole family’ (AV), ‘his whole family’ (NEB margin) or ‘the whole family of believers’ (NIV). Then the addition of the words *in heaven and on earth* will indicate that the church militant on earth and the church triumphant in heaven, though separated by death, are nevertheless only two parts of the one great family of God.
At the same time, there is a deliberate play on words in the Greek sentence, since ‘father’ is *pater* and ‘family’ is *patria*. In consequence, some translators have tried to preserve the verbal assonance in English, and have rendered the phrase ‘the Father from whom all fatherhood…derives its name’ (JBP, NIV margin). Commentators point out that the word *patria* does not normally mean ‘fatherhood’, but rather ‘family’. Nevertheless, it is a family descended from the same father, and so the concept of fatherhood is implied and ‘the abstract idea of *paternity* seems uppermost here’. It may be then, that Paul is saying not only that the whole Christian family is named from the Father, but that the very notion of fatherhood is derived from the Fatherhood of God. In this case, the true relation between human fatherhood and the divine fatherhood is neither one of analogy (‘God is a father like human fathers’), nor one of projection (Freud’s theory that we have invented God because we needed a heavenly father figure), but rather one of derivation (God’s fatherhood being the archetypal reality, ‘the source of all conceivable fatherhood’).
To this Father Paul prays that he will give his readers certain gifts *according to the riches of his glory*. Both ‘riches’ and ‘glory’ are characteristic words in this letter, and here as in 1:18 are in combination. Paul has no doubt either that God has inexhaustible resources at his disposal or that out of them he will be able to answer his prayer.
————————————————————–

Tomorrow: Ephesians 3:16b-19. 2). The substance of his prayer.

Ephesians 3:1-13. Conclusion. b). The church is central to the gospel.

The gospel which some of us proclaim is much too individualistic. ‘Christ died for me,’ we say, and then sing of heaven: ‘Oh, that will be glory for me.’ Both affirmations are true. As for the first, the apostle himself could write, ‘The Son of God…loved me and gave himself for me,’ (Gal.2:20). As for the so-called ‘glory song’, the gospel does promise ‘glory’ for believers in heaven. But this is far from being the full gospel. For it is evident from Ephesians 3 that the full gospel concerns both Christ and the ‘mystery’ of Christ. The good news of the unsearchable riches of Christ which Paul preached is that he died and rose again not only to save sinners like me (though he did), but also to create a single new humanity; not only to redeem us from sin but also to adopt us into God’s family; not only to reconcile us to God but also to reconcile us to one another. Thus the church is an integral part of the gospel. The gospel is good news of a new society as well as of a new life.

c). The church is central to Christian living.
It is noteworthy that Paul concludes this section as he began it (verse 1), namely with a reference to his own sufferings in the Gentile cause. He addresses to them the following exhortation: *So I ask you not to lose heart over what I am suffering for you, which is your glory* (verse 13). Now ‘suffering’ and ‘glory’ are constantly coupled in the New Testament. Jesus said that he would enter his glory through suffering, and that his followers would have to tread the same path. Here, however, Paul writes something different, namely that *his* sufferings will bring *them* (his Gentile readers) glory. He is suffering in prison on their behalf, as their champion, standing firm for their inclusion in God’s new society. So convinced is he of the divine origin of his vision that he is prepared to pay any price to see it become a reality. That is the measure of Paul’s concern for the church.
Now of course it may be argued that Paul was exceptional. He was after all the apostle to the Gentiles. He had received a special revelation and a special commission. So one would expect him to have to suffer for the church. Nevertheless, the principle is applicable to all Christians. If the church is central to God’s purpose, as seen in both history and the gospel, it must surely also be central to our lives. How can we take lightly what God takes so seriously? How dare we push to the circumference what God has placed at the centre? No, we shall seek to become responsible church members, active in some local manifestation of the universal church. We shall not be able to acquiesce in low standards which fall far short of the New Testament ideals for God’s new society, whether mechanical, meaningless worship services, or fellowship which is icy cold and even spoiled by rivalries which make the Lord’s Supper a farce, or such inward-looking isolation as to turn the church into a ghetto which is indifferent to the outside world and its pain. If instead (like Paul) we keep before us the vision of God’s new society as his family, his dwelling place and his instrument in the world, then we shall constantly be seeking to make our church’s worship more authentic, its fellowship more caring and its outreach more compassionate. In other words (like Paul again), we shall be ready to pray, to work and if necessary to suffer in order to turn the vision into a reality.
————————————————————–

Tomorrow: Ephesians 3:14-21. Confidence in God’s power.

Ephesians 3:1-13 Conclusion.

The major lesson taught by this first half of Ephesians 3 is the biblical centrality of the church. Some people construct a Christianity which consists entirely of a personal relationship to Jesus Christ and has virtually nothing to do with the church. Others make a grudging concession to the need for church membership, but add that they have given up the ecclesiastical institution as hopeless. Now it is understandable, even inevitable, that we are critical of many of the church’s inherited structures and traditions. Every church in every place at every time is in need of reform and renewal. But we need to beware lest we despise the church of God, and are blind to his work in history. We may safely say that God has not abandoned his church, however displeased with it he may be. He is still building and refining it. And if God has not abandoned it, how can we? It has a central place in his plan. What then does this passage teach about the biblical centrality of the church?

a). The church is central to history.
Verse 11, as we saw, alludes to *the eternal purpose* of God. It is also called his ‘plan’ or ‘the plan of the mystery’ (verse 9). What we are told is that this plan or purpose of God, which was conceived in eternity, kept ‘hidden for ages’ (verse 9) and ‘not made known to the sons of men in other generations’ (verse 5), he has now *realized in Christ Jesus our Lord*, first through his historical work of salvation and then through its subsequent proclamation in the world. What is this eternal purpose which is now being worked out in history, this divine plan which thus belongs to both history and eternity? It concerns the church, the creating of a new and reconciled humanity in union with Jesus Christ. This is the ‘mystery’, hidden for ages but now revealed.
Is this our view of history? We have all studied history at school and may have found it (as I did) abominably dull. Perhaps we had to memorize lists of dates or of the kings and queens who ruled our country. But what is the point of history? Was Henry Ford right in 1919, during his libel suit with the Chicago Tribune, he said, ‘History is bunk’? Is history just the random succession of events, each effect having its cause and each cause its effect, yet the whole betraying no overall pattern but appearing rather as the meaningless development of the human story? Was Marx right in his dialectical understanding of the historical process? Or has history some other clue?
Christians affirm in contrast to all other views, that history is ‘his story’, God’s story. For God is at work, moving from a plan conceived in eternity, through a historical outworking and disclosure, to a climax within history, and then on beyond it to another eternity of the future. The Bible has this linear understanding of time. And it tells us that the centre of God’s eternal-historical plan is Jesus Christ, together with his redeemed and reconciled people. In order to grasp this, it may be helpful to contrast the perspective of secular historians with that of the Bible.
Secular history concentrates its attention on kings, queens and presidents, on politicians and generals, in fact on ‘VIPs’. The Bible concentrates rather on a group it calls ‘the saints’, often little people, insignificant people, unimportant people, who are however at the same time God’s people - and for that reason are both ‘unknown (to the world) and yet well-known (to God).
Secular history concentrates on wars, battles and peace-treaties, followed by yet more wars, battles and peace-treaties. The Bible concentrates rather on the war between good and evil, on the decisive victory won by Jesus Christ over the powers of darkness, on the peace-treaty ratified by his blood, and on the sovereign proclamation of an amnesty for all rebels who will repent and believe.
Again, secular history concentrates on the changing map of the world, as one nation defeats another and annexes its territory, and on the rise and fall of empires. The Bible concentrates rather on a multi-national community called ‘the church’, which has no territorial frontiers, which claims nothing less than the whole world for Christ, and whose empire will never come to an end.
No doubt I have painted the contrast between the secular and the biblical views of history too starkly. For the Bible does not ignore the great empires of Babylon, Egypt, Greece and Rome; and a true secular history cannot ignore the fact of the church. Yet it is a question of perspective, of priorities. The living God is the God of all the nations of the world, yet within the universal human community there exists a ‘covenant community’, his own new society, the beginning of his new creation. It is to this people only that he has pledged himself with the everlasting promise: ‘I will be their God, and they shall be my people.’
Tomorrow: Conclusion b). The church is central to the gospel.

Ephesians 3:10. c). Making known God’s wisdom to the cosmic powers (continued).

I do not think I can leave these verses, especially verse 10, without at least mentioning a quite different interpretation which is gaining popularity. It rests on the understanding of ‘the principalities and powers’ as being not cosmic intelligences (i.e. angels and demons) but rather the politico-economic structures of human society. I shall reserve a full exposition and critique of this view until we reach the warfare with the ‘principalities and powers’ in 6:12, but I cannot altogether ignore it here. Its importance may be gauged by G.B.Caird’s statement about verse 10: ‘It is hardly an exaggeration to say that any interpretation of Ephesians stands or falls by this verse.’ He believes that God’s purpose is to use the church not only to *inform* ‘the powers’ but actually to *redeem* them, since ‘even such structures of power and authority as the secular state are capable of being brought into harmony with the love of God’. Markus Barth elaborates this concept of the far flung ‘cosmic’ influence of the church: ‘Political and social, cultural and religious forces, also all other institutions, traditions, majorities and minorities are exposed to her testimony.’ Dictatorships and democracies, organisations promoting racism and civil rights, etc., etc. ‘all these and other powers are given a unique chance by God: they are entitled to see in their midst the beginning of a new heaven and a new earth’. He is referring to the church’s role as indicated in verse 10. Naturally, I feel very diffident about disagreeing with scholars of this calibre but, having weighed the matter carefully, I feel bound to declare myself on it: I do not believe either that Paul was referring to social structures on earth when he wrote of principalities and powers in the heavenlies, or that, whatever their identity, he intended the making known to them of God’s manifold wisdom to be understood as a redemptive (as opposed to an informative) activity. But I will say no more on this topic here.
Looking back over Paul’s exposition of the peculiar privilege which had been given him by God’s grace to be the apostle to the Gentiles, it is instructive to note the different media and phrases of God’s communication. First, he made known the mystery of his plan to Paul himself (and the other apostles and prophets, verse 5) by revelation. Secondly, he commissioned Paul (and others) to preach the gospel to everybody throughout the world. Thirdly, his manifold wisdom and eternal purpose were made known to the principalities and powers through the fact of the church as they watched it grow. This is the circle of divine communication, for the good news was passed from God to Paul, from Paul and others to all mankind, and from the church on earth back to heaven again, to the cosmic powers. At each stage the medium changes. It is by direct revelation that God disclosed his plan to Paul, by the verbal proclamation of the gospel that the message spreads today, and by a visual model (the multi-cultural Christian community) that it finally reaches the unseen angelic spectators. Nothing is more honouring to the gospel, or more indicative of its surpassing importance, than this programme for its universal communication.
————————————————————

Tomorrow: Ephesians 3:1-13. Conclusion.

Ephesians 3:10. c). Making known God’s wisdom to the cosmic powers.

The apostles perspective broadens further. He tells us that, although the gospel is addressed primarily and directly to humans, it brings a message indirectly to angels also, *to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places*. What does this mean?
The first result to be expected from the preaching of ‘Christ’s unsearchable riches’ and ‘the mystery’ would be the birth and growth of the church. Gentiles and Jews would embrace the gospel, be converted, and find themselves joint members of the family of God and the body of Christ. Indeed this had already happened, as Paul was writing. He was not theorizing. ‘The mystery’ was not an abstraction. It was taking concrete shape before people’s eyes. And in this new phenomenon, this new multi-racial humanity, the wisdom of God was being displayed. Indeed, the coming into existence of the church, as a community of saved and reconciled people, is at one and the same time a public demonstration of God’s power, grace and wisdom: first of God’s mighty resurrection power (1:19-2:6), next of his immeasurable grace and kindness (2:7), and now thirdly of his *manifold wisdom*. The word for manifold (*polupoikilos*) means ‘many coloured’, and is used to describe flowers, crowns, embroidered cloth and woven carpets. The simpler word *poikilos* was used in the LXX of the ‘coat of many colours’ (AV) or ‘richly ornamented robe (NIV) which Jacob gave to his youngest son Joseph (Gn. 37:3,23,32). The church as a multi-racial, multi-cultural community is like a beautiful tapestry. Its members come from a wide range of colourful backgrounds. No other human community resembles it. Its diversity and harmony are unique. It is God’s new society. And the many coloured fellowship of the church is a reflection of the many-coloured (or ‘many-splendoured’, to use Francis Thompson’s word) wisdom of God.
So then, as the gospel spreads throughout the world, this new and variegated Christian community develops. It is as if a great drama is being enacted. History is the theatre, the world is the stage, and church members in every land are the actors. God himself has written the play, and he directs and produces it. Act by act, scene by scene, the story continues to unfold. But who are the audience? They are the cosmic intelligences, *the principalities and powers in the heavenly places*. We are to think of them as spectators of the drama of salvation. Thus ‘the history of the Christian church becomes a graduate school for angels’.
Our knowledge of these spiritual beings is limited, and we must be careful not to go beyond what Scripture teaches into idle speculation. It is clear, however, that they are not omniscient. The apostle Peter tells us that they did not fully understand the teaching of either the Old Testament prophets or the New Testament apostles regarding the good news of salvation in Christ, for these are ‘things into which angels long to look’ (1 Pet.1:10-12). Similarly we may infer from verse 10 here that God had not revealed to them directly his master plan for the church, but intended rather to make it knownto them *through the church* itself, as it came into being and grew. It is through the old creation (the universe) that God reveals his glory to humans; it is through the new creation (the church) that he reveals his wisdom to angels. It seems legitimate to say that though we cannot see them, they can see us. They watch fascinated as they see Gentiles and Jews being incorporated into the new society as equals. Indeed, they learn from the composition of the church not only *the manifold wisdom of God* (verse 10) but also his *eternal purpose* (verse 11). This purpose *he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord*, in the arena of history, through his death and resurrection, the gift of his Spirit, the preaching of the gospel and the emergence of the church. For *in* him (Christ) and *through our faith in him* all of us, whether Jews or Gentiles, *have boldness and confidence of access* (verse 12). This universal access of all Christian people to God through Christ is what the sixteenth-century reformers termed ‘the priesthood of all believers’; it is a foundation privilege of all who are in Christ, in fact of ‘the church’, the universal Jew-Gentile community, of which Paul has just been writing.
—————————————————————

Tomorrow: Ephesians 3:10. c). Making known God’s wisdom to the cosmic powers (continued).

Ephesians 3:9. b). Making known the mystery to all men.

The second part or stage of Paul’s privileged ministry he expresses in these terms: *to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things*. Verse 9 does not simply repeat verse 8. There are three significant differences.
First, the preaching of the gospel is now defined not as *euangelizo* (to ‘announce good news’) but as *photizo* (to ‘enlighten’). Paul has already used the verb in his prayer in 1:18. So the thought shifts from the content of the message (good news) to the condition of those to whom it is proclaimed (in the darkness of ignorance). Jesus himself had characterized Paul’s commission in these terms, since he told him he was sending him to the Gentiles ‘to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God’. (Acts 26:17-18). Paul never forgot this. His own conversion on the road to Damascus had resulted from the bright shining of a light from heaven, not just externally but internally. As he put it later: ‘It is the God who said “Let light shine out of darkness” who has shone in our hearts’ (2 Cor. 4:6). Indeed, *photismos* is the word he uses there to describe his ‘enlightenment’ involved in his conversion. We ourselves must always remember in our evangelism that ‘the prince of darkness’ holds men and women in darkness, and that only by a divine enlightenment will their eyes be opened to see. Our responsibility is to be faithful in spreading the gospel, since this is the means which God has ordained by which to bring light to those in darkness.
A second difference between verse 8 and verse 9 lies in Paul’s description of his message. In verse 8 he calls it *the unsearchable riches of Christ*, in verse 9 *the plan of the mystery*. These are not just divergent expressions for the same thing; again they indicate a shift in emphasis. One may say that Christ’s ‘unsearchable riches’ is the broader of the two concepts. It embraces Christ’s remedy for the two Gentile alienations (from God and from Israel) and therefore the totality of his salvation. The ‘mystery’ concentrates on only one of the two reconciliations. True, the mystery is ‘the mystery of Christ’; it centres on Christ. But what it declares about Christ is that through him and in him Jews and Gentiles are incorporated on equal terms in the same single community. Let me point the difference more sharply in this way: according to verse 8 Paul’s message was Christ, according to verse 9 it was the church.
The third difference between verses 8 and 9 is that Paul directs his ministry in the former verse to *the Gentiles*, and in the latter to *all men*. This was necessary because the mystery concerned both Jews and Gentiles. It was a message of mutual reconciliation and of joint membership in God’s new society, which was also the new humanity he was creating. Perhaps this is the reason why in verse 9 Paul describes God as the One *who created all things*. He who created the universe has now begun a new creation and will one day finish it. Indeed, the ‘mystery’ includes the great promise that finally God will unite all things in and under Christ (1:9-10). So in verse 9 Paul brings creation and redemption together in his mind. The God who created all things in the beginning will recreate all things in the end.
——————————————————–

Tomorrow: Ephesians 3:10. c). Making known God’s wisdom to the cosmic powers.

Ephesians 3:8. a). Making known Christ’s riches to the Gentiles.

Since the mystery revealed to him concerned God’s plan to incorporate the Gentiles in Christ, it was only logical that the ministry entrusted to him should be directed first and foremost to them. He was commissioned *to preach to the Gentiles*. ‘Preach’ here is *euangelizo*, to ‘announce good news’, for he is well aware that his gospel was a message of great good news for the Gentiles. It consisted of *the unsearchable riches of Christ*, the riches which he possesses in himself and which he bestows on those who come to him. What these riches are we may judge from Paul’s exposition in Ephesians 1 and 2. They are riches freely available because of the cross. They include resurrection from the death of sin, victorious enthronement with Christ in the heavenlies, reconciliation with God, incorporation with Jewish believers in his new society, the end of hostility and the beginning of peace, access to the Father through Christ and by the Spirit, membership of his kingdom and household, being an integral part of his dwelling place among men, and all this only a foretaste of yet more riches to come, namely the riches of the glory of the inheritance which God will give to all his people on the last day.
No wonder Paul terms Christ’s riches *unsearchable*. The word *anexichniastos* means literally ‘not to be tracked out’. In the Greek version of Job 5:9 and 9:10 it was applied to the wonders of God’s creation and providence, which are beyond our understanding, and Paul himself has already used it in Romans 11:33 of the deep mysteries of God’s plan of salvation. The riches of Christ are similar. Like the earth they are too vast to explore, like the sea too deep to fathom. Translators and commentators compete with one another in their attempt to find a dynamic equivalent in English. The riches of Christ, they say, are ‘unsearchable’, ‘inexplorable’, ‘untraceable’ ‘unfathomable’, ‘inexhaustible’, illimitable’, inscrutable’ and ‘incalculable’. Perhaps GNB’s ‘infinite’ is the simplest. for what is certain about the wealth Christ has and gives is that we shall never come to an end of it.
Indirectly in these past verses the apostle has indicated two of the strongest incentives to evangelism. He began by emphasizing that the revelation and the commission which had been given to him belong indissolubly together, for what had been made known to him he must without fail make known to others. All revealed truth is held in stewardship. It is given to be shared, not monopolized. If men cannot keep their scientific discoveries to themselves, how much less should we keep to ourselves the divine disclosures? Paul then went on to emphasize the valuable content of the message itself. He was convinced, as we must be, that Christ never impoverishes those who put their trust in him, but always immeasurably enriches them. Here then was the double obligation Paul felt, first to share God’s truth and secondly to share Christ’s riches. So what is needed today for a recovery of evangelical zeal in the church is the same apostolic conviction about the gospel. Once we are sure that the gospel is both truth from God and riches for mankind, nobody will be able to silence us.
—————————————————————

Tomorrow: Ephesians 3:9. b). Making known the mystery to all men.

Ephesians 3:7-13. 2). The divine commission to Paul or the ministry entrusted to him.

At the end of verse 6 Paul has virtually equated ‘the mystery’ with ‘the gospel’. At least he writes that it is ‘through the gospel’ that Jewish and Gentile Christians become united to Christ. This can be so only because the gospel announces the mystery, so that people come to hear it, to believe it and to experience it.
Now this equation of ‘mystery’ and ‘gospel’ is significant, because the mystery was essentially truth revealed *to* Paul, while the gospel was essentially truth proclaimed *by* Paul. Paul himself made this connection, because he was convinced that the good news had been revealed to him only in order to be communicated. He says so plainly: *Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace which was given to me* (verse 7). Thus if the first gift of God’s grace to him was ‘the mystery’ itself which had been revealed to him (verses 2-3), the second was the ministry which had been entrusted to him and by which he would share it with others. He had received it by God’s grace, and would exercise it *by the working of his power*.
This commission or ministry Paul regards as an enormous privilege. For what he calls *this grace*, which we might call ‘this privileged gift of God’, had been given to him, in spite of the fact that he was *the very least of all the saints* (verse 8), or ‘the meanest member of the holy people’. It is a very striking expression. He takes the superlative (*elachistos*, ‘least’ or ‘smallest’) and does what is impossible linguistically but possible theologically; he turns it into a comparative (*elachistoteros*, ‘leaster’ or ‘less than the least’). Perhaps he was deliberately playing on the meaning of his name. For his Roman surname ‘Paulus’ is Latin for ‘little’ or ‘small’, and tradition says that he was a little man. ‘I *am* little,’ he may be saying, ‘little by name, little in stature, and morally and spiritually littler than the littlest of all Christians.’ In affirming this he is neither indulging in hypocrisy nor grovelling in self-depreciation. He means it. He is deeply conscience both of his own unworthiness because he ‘formally blasphemed and persecuted and insulted’ Jesus Christ (1 Tim.1:13) and of Christ’s overflowing mercy towards him. A good indication that his modesty was neither sham nor morbid is that it did not hinder him from taking responsibility as an apostle. On the contrary, in this very passage he twice uses the self-conscience apostolic *ego* ‘I’ (3:1; 4:1). Thus, he combined personal humility with apostolic authority. Indeed, while ‘minimizing himself he magnified his office’.
The privileged ministry of spreading the gospel, entrusted to him by the grace of God, he now elaborates in three stages:
————————————————————–

Tomorrow: Ephesians:3:8. a). Making known Christ’s riches to the Gentiles.

Ephesians 3:1-6. 1). The divine revelation to Paul, or the mystery made known to him.

Three times in this short paragraph Paul uses the word ‘mystery’: *how the mystery was made known to me by revelation (verse 3)…you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ (verse 4)…to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery* (verse9). It is a key word for our understanding of the apostle Paul. We need to realize that the English and Greek words do not have the same meaning. In English a ‘mystery’ is something dark, obscure, secret, puzzling. What is ‘mysterious’ is inexplicable, even incomprehensible. The Greek word *mysterion* is different, however. Although still a ‘secret’, it is no longer closely guarded but open. Originally, the Greek word referred to a truth into which someone had been initiated. Indeed it came to be used of the secret teachings of the heathen mystery religions, teachings which were restricted to initiates. But in Christianity there is no esoteric ‘mysteries’ reserved for a spiritual elite. On the contrary, the Christian ‘mysteries’ are truths which, although beyond human discovery, have been revealed by God and so now belong openly to the whole church. More simply, *mysterion* is a truth hitherto hidden from human knowledge or understanding but now disclosed by the revelation of God.
If that is the general meaning of ‘mystery’ in the New Testament, what is the particular open secret or revealed truth, which was *not made known to the sons of men in other generations* but *has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit* (Verse 5) and uniquely, Paul adds, *made know to me by revelation* (verse 3)? He calls it in verse 4, as in Colossians 4:3, *the mystery of Christ*. So evidently it is a specially revealed truth ‘of which Christ is both the source and the substance’. Its exact nature Paul spells out with force and clarity in verse 6. It is *how the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.* Thus the mystery concerns Christ and his one Jewish-Gentile people. In order to define it more precisely, Paul assembles (and in one case invents) three parallel, composite expressions. Each has the same prefix *syn*, ‘together with’, and indicates what Gentile believers now have and are in partnership with Jewish believers. What is this? Gentiles are ‘co-heirs’ (*synkleronoma*), ‘concorporate’ (*syssoma*) and ‘co-sharers’ (*symmetocha*) of the promise. But these three unusual Greek words need to be spelled out a little. What Paul is declaring is that Gentile and Jewish Christians together are now fellow heirs of the same blessing, fellow-members of the same body and fellow-partakers of the same promise. And this shared privilege is both *in Jesus Christ* (because it is enjoyed equally by all believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, provided that they are in union with Christ) and *through the gospel* (because the gospel proclamation includes this unity and so makes it available to those who believe).
To sum up, we may say that ‘the mystery of Christ’ is the complete union of Jews and Gentiles with each other through the union of both with Christ. It is this double union, with Christ and with each other which was the substance of the ‘mystery’. God had revealed it specially to Paul, as he had written briefly (verse 3) in the previous chapter. But it had also been made known to God’s *holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit* (verse 5), and through them ‘to his saints’ (Col.1:26, An example was the special revelation to the apostle Peter of God’s purpose to include the Gentiles, as recorded in Acts 10 and 11.). It is now therefore the common possession of the universal church.
It was a new revelation. For it was *not made known…in other generations* (verse 5) but was *hidden for ages* (verse 9). These statements have puzzled Bible readers because the Old Testament did reveal that God had a purpose for the Gentiles. It promised, for example, that all the families of the earth would be blessed through Abraham’s posterity; that the Messiah would receive the nations as his inheritance; that Israel would be given as a light to the nations; and that one day the nations would make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and even ‘flow to it’ like a mighty river (Gn.12:1-3; Ps.2:8; Is.42:6; 49:6; 2:2-4). Jesus also spoke of the inclusion of the Gentiles and commissioned his followers to go and make them his disciples. But what neither the Old Testament nor Jesus revealed was the radical nature of God’s plan, which was that the theocracy (the Jewish nation under God’s rule) would be terminated, and replaced by a new international community, the church; that this church would be ‘the body of Christ’, organically united to him; and that Jews and Gentiles would be incorporated into Christ and his church on equal terms without any distinction. It was this complete union of Jews, Gentiles and Christ which was radically new, and which God revealed to Paul, overcoming his entrenched Jewish prejudice (cf. his claim to direct revelation in Gal.1:12).
————————————————————-

Tomorrow: Ephesians 3:7-13. 2). The divine commission to Paul or the ministry entrusted to him.