The Appeal and Pattern for Unity
Chapter 4 begins what often is referred to as the ethical or practical section of the epistle. If chapters 1–3 provide the theological basis for Christian unity, then chapters 4–6 contain the practical instruction for its maintenance. Unity has been established (the indicative); now it becomes the duty of the believers to strengthen and maintain unity in their fellowship (the imperative).
This generalization does not mean that chapters 4–6 are devoid of theological content. The division of the epistle into such broad categories is somewhat misleading, because, as in the case of Colossians, the apostle throughout his epistles frequently combines theological and ethical statements (cf. disc. on Col. 3:1ff.). In Ephesians, the moral teaching is based upon what has been said in the earlier chapters (1–3) but also grows out of new theological concerns of the author, particularly with respect to the unity of the church. The liturgical style that characterized much of the first half of the epistle is maintained throughout the second half as well.
It has been suggested that the main theme in Ephesians is unity—a unity that has been effected by the reconciling work of Christ who has united all things in heaven and earth (1:10) and who has brought Jews and Gentiles together into the church. The apostle now exhorts his readers to maintain that unity in their personal, domestic, social, and ecclesiastical lives.
In the opening exhortation (4:1–3), he immediately draws attention to his main concern: The readers need to manifest those virtues characterizing their new life in Christ that “keep the unity of the Spirit” (4:3). This admonition is followed by a list of all the unifying elements of the church (4:4–6), which, in turn, are given further application throughout the remaining chapters.
4:1 Then (“therefore,” RSV), I urge you refers to what has been said in chapters 1–3. As in 3:1, the apostle reminds his readers that his vocation is the reason for his captivity (as a prisoner for the Lord). The Greek preposition en also points to the sphere of his captivity: He is a prisoner “in the Lord.”
The exhortation begins by calling the readers to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. The concept of calling is an important one in biblical thought. On a number of occasions the prophets remind the people of Israel that they have been “called” by God to fulfill a specific function (see Isa. 41:9; 42:6; 43:1; 44:2; 45:3, 4; Hos. 11:1). Christians, likewise, have a calling from God, as is evident in the Lord’s disciples (Mark 1:20), the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 1:1), and the Gentiles (Eph. 3:6).
In Ephesians, the Gentiles have been told that God has chosen them to be his children (1:4, 5), appointed them to praise God’s glory (1:12), called them to a wonderful hope (1:18), and incorporated them into the body of Christ for a life of good works (2:10). Now they are admonished to demonstrate their calling and position in Christ by living a worthy ethical life.
To live a life is a translation of the Greek peripateō, which means “to walk.” At one time their “walk” conformed to “the world’s evil way” (2:2); now they are exhorted to “walk,” to live out their new life in Christ and the unity that is theirs in the church. They are a part of God’s grand design for the world, which includes the uniting of all things in heaven and on earth (1:10).
4:2 This verse presents a list of personal attitudes essential for unity in the body of Christ. There is a striking similarity to the list in Colossians 3:12–15, but here the application is developed around the theme of unity. Stott refers to these virtues as the “five foundation stones of Christian unity” (p. 149). As was noted in Colossians, many of these virtues are related, and it is sometimes difficult to draw distinctions between them.
Humility (tapeinophrosynē) is that attitude of mind that enables one to see people other than oneself. The Greeks disdained the idea of a submissive or subservient attitude, but Christianity, by virtue of Christ’s example in the Incarnation (Phil. 2:5–11), gave it new meaning. When Paul met with the Ephesian elders, he reminded them that his ministry among them was carried out “with great humility” (Acts 20:19). Humility is especially important in the body of Christ, where interpersonal relationships are so important. The Philippian church is a classic example of how pride, selfishness, and conceit produce a fractured fellowship (Phil. 2:1–4).
Gentleness (prautēs) is consideration toward others. A gentle person will not insist upon his or her personal rights or be assertive at the expense of others. Stott notes how humility and gentleness go together by drawing upon an insight from R. W. Dale: “For ‘the meek man thinks as little of his personal claims, as the humble man of his personal merits’ ” (p. 149).
Patience (makrothymia) and bearing with one another (anechō, lit., “endure someone or something”) form another single thought. Patience would be the willingness and the ability to deal with people in a deliberate but courteous way—in the manner that God deals patiently with his people (Rom. 2:4; 9:22; 1 Tim. 1:16; 1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 3:15); Christians are called upon to demonstrate this virtue in dealing with one another (1 Cor. 13:4; Gal. 5:22; 2 Tim. 4:2). Such mutual tolerance within the body will go a long way in maintaining a spirit of unity.
The fifth virtue is love. Though it could be argued that love is not a separate quality from patience but “an amplification of what patience means” (Mitton, p. 138), love could be taken as the crowning virtue that embraces all the rest. Love is emphasized a number of times throughout the epistle (1:4; 3:17; 4:15, 16). And although love may include being helpful to one another, the author realizes that all virtues need to be practiced if there is to be unity within the church.
4:3 Make every effort (Gk. spoudazō, which means “to exert zealous effort,” “to take pains”) to keep the unity. The entire expression underscores the apostle’s concern that his readers to guard carefully the unity that has been given to them. In principle, this unity already exists as something the Spirit gives; now God’s people are admonished to preserve and manifest that unity.
Ephesians is the only epistle in the NT that uses the word unity (enotēs, 4:3, 13). Elsewhere unity is described by such concepts as “fellowship,” “communion,” “one man,” “one body,” and so on. The unity here is a gift of the Spirit and should thus manifest itself in the human spirit.
Peace is introduced as the quality or means that forges a bond holding believers together. This is different from Colossians 3:14, where love binds all things together in perfect unity. In Ephesians, peace was obtained when the hostilities that separated Jews and Gentiles were broken down and both races were united in one new man in Christ (2:14–16); here it is presented as the bond by which that unity is kept.
Now that the author has exhorted his readers to maintain their unity through proper conduct, he presents the theological base from which all unity arises. Verses 4–6 list seven “ones” that relate the unity of the church to the unity of Christ and God.
There are a number of theories about the origin of this passage. Scholars have found striking parallels with forms of Hellenistic Judaism and Stoic philosophy. Beare, for example, lists a number of non-Christian sources that bear witness to the concern that existed in the ancient world about the unity of the cosmos, God, Law, Truth, and all areas of life (pp. 685–86). The assumption is that the author of Ephesians adopted such formulas, gave them a specific Christian content, and incorporated them into his epistle.
Most commentators, however, take verses 4–6 to be a compilation of verses and ideas that Paul has used throughout his writings. The main difference between Paul’s undisputed writings and the epistle to the Ephesians is not so much the content as the structure in which these formulations occur. Only Ephesians collects and arranges the thoughts into a pattern that resembles a liturgical hymn or a creedal confession.
Though the author may be indebted to such Pauline texts as 1 Corinthians 8:6 and 12:4–13, the application that he gives to the ideas found there conforms to his specific concern for unity within the body of Christ. In Corinthians, for example (1 Cor. 12:4–13), a local concern is dealt with regarding a misunderstanding of spiritual gifts and their application in the church’s worship and corporate life. It is emphasized that all spiritual pride and disunity should disappear because such gifts come from the same Spirit. In Ephesians, Christ is the dispenser of spiritual gifts, and the unity that embraces all of society is based upon the “oneness” of God himself as the ultimate source of unity (see Houlden, p. 309).
Structurally, several features of this passage are worth noting: First, the author moves from the church (“body”) to the Godhead. One may have expected him to proceed from the unity of God to the unity of the church, but his order appears to be determined by his concern for unity within the body. Verse 4 flows quite naturally from his exhortation in verse 3 calling for the church to preserve the unity that the Spirit gives; thus, “there is one body and one Spirit.”
Second, there is an obvious emphasis on all the members of the Trinity and the believer’s relationship to the Spirit, Son, and Father. Though there have been a number of ingenious attempts at outlining the apostle’s thoughts, there does not appear to be any conscious symmetry or parallelism in his mind. Stott, for example, applies four of the expressions to different members of the Trinity: “First, the one Father creates the one family. Second, the one Lord Jesus creates the one faith, hope, and baptism. Third, the one Spirit creates the one body” (p. 151). Basically, however, the passage teaches that the unity of the Godhead is the foundation of the church’s unity. “Its unity is of the same order as the unity of Christ and of God; as there cannot be other gods or other lords, so there cannot be other churches” (Beare, p. 686).
4:4 There is one body and one Spirit: The union of body and Spirit is noticeable in 1 Corinthians 8:6; 12:4–6, 13. The emphasis in Ephesians undoubtedly is related to the concept that believers are members of the body by virtue of the work of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 12:13). There is only one body because there is one Spirit.
Besides being one in body and Spirit, they were called to one hope. Hope is the goal or inheritance toward which the body strives in the Spirit (1:14, 18; Col. 1:4, 5). All who have been called by God share in the hope that is common to all believers.
4:5 From “the body,” the apostle moves to “the Head” (Christ) and what unites the believer to him. Lord is the Greek kyrios, which is attributed to Christ on a number of occasions (1 Cor. 8:6; 12:3; Phil. 2:11). The church is established by its acknowledgment of Jesus as “the sovereign Lord.”
Faith may be taken in two ways: First, it could signify “the faith,” that is, that body of teaching that contains all the truths about Christ’s life, work, and so forth. In the early church this became a common expression for the Christian message (Gal. 1:23; Phil. 1:27; 1 Tim. 3:9; 4:1, 6; Titus 1:4; Jude 3). But the absence of the article “the” in this passage makes it more likely that the author is thinking of one’s belief in Jesus as Lord and thus the acceptance and acknowledgment of him as Lord.
Baptism refers to the rite of water baptism, because it is the visible expression of one’s faith in the Lord and is the means by which one becomes a member of Christ’s body, the church (Rom. 6:1–11; Gal. 3:26, 27; Col. 2:11–13). It is doubtful that one baptism carries the idea that baptism is unrepeatable or that it is a polemic against other baptismal practices current at the time. All that is implied is that the one proper, or correct, baptism is the baptism of faith into Christ. Baptism is a sacrament of unity because it expresses a common faith in the one Lord.
The idea of baptism as a sacrament of unity is not unique to Ephesians. Behind Paul’s rather sarcastic remark to the Corinthians—“Were you baptized into the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:13)—lies the implication that their baptism into Christ should unify rather than divide. This is even more forcefully expressed in 1 Corinthians 12:13, where there is a specific reference to baptism “by one Spirit into one body.” The direct mention of Jews and Greeks in this Corinthians passage, as well as in Galatians 3:27, 28, and Colossians 3:10, 11, fits well into the theme of unity in Ephesians.
Though faith, Lord, body, and Spirit all belong to the baptismal event, there is no way of knowing whether these phrases contain a baptismal formula or confession. If one subscribes to the liturgical setting of Ephesians, then it would be possible to envision these verses as a confession that a baptismal candidate recited or that the witnessing congregation sang as a hymn. The opening admonition to live a life that coincides with God’s call could be taken to refer to the new life that is received in baptism. However, the appearance of this formula in Ephesians does not necessarily mean that the epistle is a baptismal treatise or liturgy. Its application of baptismal imagery and theology simply conforms to the author’s purpose in describing the unity of the church. But behind the formula lies the idea of baptism as the “sacrament of unity,” the rite by which Jew and Gentile have been made members of the body of Christ. Both their faith and their baptism are in Jesus Christ as Lord.
4:6 The writer’s thoughts reach their climax in the unity of God (one God and Father of all). The Christian community shared the Jewish concept of monotheism (one God) and through their relationship with Christ, appreciated God as Father (Rom. 8:15; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 3:14) of all, who is over all and through all and in all. The KJV “in you all” reflects a reading that lacks strong manuscript evidence and that has been abandoned in subsequent translations.
Given the context of the passage, it would appear that the author has the community of God’s people in mind (Stott, p. 151), even though such thoughts can embrace the entire universe. The concepts express God’s transcendence (over all), his omnipresence (through all) and his immanence (in all). One wonders if there is a veiled reference to the triune God, for in Christian thought, God’s omnipresence and immanence are manifestations of the Son and the Spirit. The verse is similar to Paul’s benediction in Romans 11:36, where he states: “For from him and through him and to him are all things.”
The Giving of Spiritual Gifts to the Body
4:7 The apostle has been discussing the unity of the whole (4:1–6); now he turns to the individual parts and shows how diversity within the body contributes to its unity. The body is unified but it is not uniform; every person has a special gift that makes a contribution to the whole.
In the verses following, the apostle lists the various gifts necessary for the body to function properly and ultimately to attain its goal of maturity—“attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (4:13). But to each one of us grace has been given. Christ’s giving is always a matter of his grace, and just as the apostle has emphasized how he personally was the recipient of grace (3:2, 7, 8), he reminds the readers that each one of them has received the same privilege. Later, he will show how that privilege leads to responsibility (4:12–16).
The gift is as Christ apportioned it. Though grace suggests the unlimited favor of God, this phrase shows that, as it was given to each individual, it does have limitations. No one person has all the gifts required for the body; rather, the gifts of each member are supplemented by the gifts of all members. It is the working together of each part that produces unity and growth. Here it is the gift that Christ apportioned, not the gift of the Spirit, as in Corinthians (1 Cor. 12:7–13).
The continuity of this passage is interrupted by a parenthesis at 4:9–10. The writer has introduced Christ as the giver of spiritual gifts, but before he goes on to enumerate them (4:11), he pauses to reflect upon the “giver” and how Christ’s dispensing of these gifts relates to the humiliation and exaltation of Christ. This so-called parenthesis (4:9–10) is one of the most difficult and controversial passages in the entire epistle: First, there is the translation of an OT quotation; second, there is the application of the quotation to Christ; and third, there is the meaning of these verses within the context of Ephesians.
4:8 This is why it says indicates that the author is quoting from the OT. The problem, however, is that the quotation in Ephesians differs considerably from Psalm 68:18, which is the only likely source of the quotation.
Psalm 68:18
Ephesians 4:8
When you ascended on high,
When he ascended on high
you led captives in your train;
he led captives in his train
you received gifts from men,
even from the rebellious.
and gave gifts to men.
The NIV translation indicates that there is a change from the second person (you) to the third person (he), and it shows that the author has changed the phrase “you received gifts from” to “he gave gifts to.” Scholarly reaction to this has varied from accusations of deliberate alteration (see Houlden, p. 310), an “unintentional misquotation” (Mitton, p. 146), a piece of rabbinical exegesis (Beare, p. 688), to Stott’s explanation “that the two renderings are only formally but not substantially contradictory” (p. 157).
Initially, the psalm celebrated an earthly triumph of the Israelites over their enemies and the return of the defeated foes with the spoils of war to the capital city. This serves also as a picture of God’s victory over all his enemies during the exodus and his enthronement in the holy city. At a later period, the rabbis interpreted this passage as referring to Moses’ ascension of Mount Sinai to receive the law (Exod. 19). The giving of the Torah (Law) became associated with the festival of Pentecost. In this usage of the psalm, the rabbis understood that Moses ascended the mountain to receive gifts, that is, the law, for people so that he, in turn, might give it to people (see Barth, Eph. 4–6, p. 472; Beare, p. 688). An ancient Targum (an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew) actually changes the wording of the original psalm to “he gave gifts to men.”
When the author of Ephesians comes to discuss the spiritual gifts that Christ bestowed upon the church, he draws upon that psalm because he sees Christ’s ascension to the Father as its prophetic fulfillment (when he ascended on high). As Moses was given the law for the people of Israel, Christ, as a second but greater Moses, gave the Spirit to the church, which, in turn, included the gifts mentioned in 4:11 (he … gave gifts to men). Captives refers to the principalities and powers that he led captive (1:20–22; Col. 2:15).
Either commentators are troubled by the author’s cavalier use of the OT (Houlden, p. 310) and disregard for the original meaning of the OT text, or they accept this as “a true testimony of the Spirit of Prophecy” (Moule, p. 107). Stott reconciles the problem by stressing that “receiving” was for the purpose of “giving” and finds this principle illustrated in Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:33), when he states: “He has been raised to the right side of God and received from him the Holy Spirit, as his Father had promised; and what you now see and hear is his gift that he has poured out on us” (pp. 158f.).
4:9 The author leaves the quotation and expands (parenthetically in NIV) upon the meaning of ascend and descend: What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended. The phrase to the lower, earthly regions raises the second major interpretative problem in this passage. Commentators are full of suggestions, including (a) the earth; (b) the region below the earth, such as Hell or Hades; (c) Christ’s descent at the Incarnation; (d) Christ’s humiliation on the cross and his subsequent death and burial; and (e) Christ’s return at Pentecost to give his Spirit to the church.
Since the apostle does not clarify what he meant, one assumes that his readers must have known to what he was referring. Some may have thought of a tradition in the early church that spoke of Christ visiting the underground between the time of his death and resurrection (1 Pet. 3:19; 4:6). However, it could be just an expressive way of being as inclusive as possible. It thus serves to balance the phrase “higher than all the heavens” in 4:10.
4:10 From descent the apostle turns to ascent and stresses that the same person is meant in both cases: He who descended is the very one who ascended. This must be a reference to an early heresy known as Docetism, which denied the reality and integrity of the Incarnation (cf. 1 John). What the author would be saying is that the same Jesus who became incarnate, who suffered and died, who descended to Hades (?), is the same person who was exalted to the right hand of the Father and who is the dispenser of spiritual gifts.
The ascension is higher than all the heavens. Ancient cosmology depicted at least seven heavens above the earth (see disc. on 3:10). Here again the apostle is saying that Christ has been exalted to “the highest honor and glory possible” (Foulkes, p. 116); his presence permeates everything between the deepest deep and the highest high (“all things in heaven and on earth,” 1:10). Early Christian theology described Christ’s ascension as an exaltation in, through, or beyond the heavens (1:20, 21; Heb. 4:14; 7:26).
The purpose of the ascension is that Christ will fill the whole universe (cf. 1:23). This could mean that Christ simply pervades everything with his presence or that, by doing so, he brings all things into subjection under his sovereignty. At any rate, the central truth about the ascension is that it makes Christ accessible “to all men everywhere at all time” (Mitton, p. 149). In the context of the gifts, this passage shows that the ascended Lord is the same person who descended to the earth in order to give these spiritual gifts to the church.
4:11 After this brief commentary on Psalm 68:18, the apostle returns to his thoughts on the special gifts that Christ has given to the church (4:7). From his rendering of the psalm, he repeats—as if to reemphasize—that Christ is the giver: It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers.
Although this verse may look relatively simple on the surface, there are a number of issues that make its meaning difficult and even ambiguous: First, within the canon of the NT there is often an overlapping of functions attributed to an office. Deacons and elders, for example, perform a similar ministry, and few scholars agree on how presbyters, bishops, and elders are to be distinguished from each other.
Second, churches may have differed in their organizational structure from place to place. Thus, what was true for one specific congregation may not have applied to all the other churches. It is a fairly well accepted theory that the “charismatic” leadership of the early church was gradually replaced by regulated offices (e.g., elders, bishops, deacons). The Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus), for example, stress the offices of the church rather than the variety of gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12.
Third, there also is the question of authority in the early church. Initially, spiritual and ecclesiastical authority belonged to the early leaders—the apostles, prophets, elders, and so on. Gradually, however, this authority was replaced, or rather superseded, by the canon of Scripture. As the early church leaders died, the church was forced to look at the inspired writings that they had left behind as their source of authority. Thus Paul’s apostolic authority could be maintained for succeeding generations through his letters to the churches.
A fourth problem about Ephesians is the intention of the author. What were his reasons for presenting the list that he does? Why does he omit the gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians? Does his selection conform to his presentation of a universal rather than local church? Unfortunately, the answers to these questions are not always easy to determine.
Finally, any interpretation of these “gifts” runs the risk of imposing contemporary ideas upon ancient categories. Since the church today does not generally use the office of apostle, for example, the temptation is to find a modern counterpart in church leaders such as area superintendents and overseers (see Stott, p. 160). There may be a certain legitimacy to this, but it does not help to clarify the original meaning of an office and/or gift and to understand it in the context in which it is used. Here, it is not a case of putting new wine into old skins; the church has new skins into which it is trying to pour old wine.
There are several things that can be noted about Ephesians: First, apostles, prophets, and teachers are the only three categories that are taken over directly from 1 Corinthians 12:28: “And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers.” The apostles and prophets have already been mentioned in the founding of the church (2:20; 3:5); the other offices (evangelists, pastors/teachers) occur for the first time.
Second, the office of evangelist occurs only two other times in the NT. Philip is an “evangelist” (Acts 21:8), and Timothy is exhorted by Paul to “do the work of an evangelist” (2 Tim. 4:5). There is no way of knowing whether the author thought of evangelists as foundational to the church in the same way as apostles and prophets. Certainly their function as proclaimers of the gospel could be considered in this way.
Third, it appears that attempts to separate these offices into foundational and continuing ministries, or those intended for the universal (apostles, prophets, evangelists) and local church (pastors/teachers) are arbitrary. Had the apostle intended to make distinctions, one would have expected him to mention presbyters, bishops, and deacons as well. What is certain, however, is that Christ gave (appointed) these offices to the church for the specific function of having the church attain its full maturity in him (4:12–16).
Apostles: This term comes from the verb apostellō, which means “to send out.” An apostle is one who has been sent. In the NT it is used of the Twelve, of those who are associated with specific churches (2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25), and of Christians generally (John 13:16). In the early church, the qualifications of an apostle of Christ were to have seen Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1, 2) and been a witness to the resurrection (Acts 1:21–23). Apostles were sent out as messengers, probably upon the commission of a church (after the Lord’s death), to exercise leadership in spiritual and organizational matters.
Prophets: In biblical literature, a prophet is a proclaimer (forthteller) as well as a predictor (foreteller). These individuals received a specific message from God, either directly or through his Word, and by way of divine utterances made the will of God known in specific situations. In most cases, it was the communication of a specific and immediate message of God to his people or to the church (see Stott, pp. 161–62).
Evangelists: The most obvious definition of an evangelist is “a preacher of the gospel” (2 Tim. 4:2, “Preach the Word”). In the early church there were itinerant individuals who would move about into unevangelized areas in order to proclaim the gospel. However, an evangelist may also have the gift of making the gospel understandable or of leading individuals to accept it as God’s word for them (cf. 2 Tim. 4:5: “But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry”).
Pastors and teachers: A common debate at this point is whether the author intended to express two distinct offices or whether pastors and teachers are two functions of the same office. The absence of the article before teachers (tous de poimenas kai didaskalous) leads one to suspect that these words express two aspects of the same office—an office that has a pedagogical and pastoral ministry.
This is the only occasion in the NT where the noun poimēn occurs as a title for a church leader. Undoubtedly, it comes from the application of the shepherd imagery that characterized the Lord’s relationship with his disciples. Jesus is the good shepherd (ho poimēn ho kalos, John 10:11–18; cf. also Matt. 18:12–14; Luke 15:3–7; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 2:25; 5:4); on several occasions, leaders in the church are exhorted to “be shepherds of God’s flock” (1 Pet. 5:2; Acts 20:28); church leaders are to pattern their “pastoral” (shepherding) ministry after the example of Christ.
If the primary function of a pastor is to care for the flock in a loving and pastoral way, then the main function of the teacher would be the feeding of the flock through instruction. It is difficult to separate the two, because pastoring and teaching are so closely related. To quote Stott: “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 of 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” (pp. 163–64). Pastoring, which includes an element of teaching, implies a long-term responsibility for the spiritual needs of people.
Additional Notes
4:8 R. Rubinkeiwicz examines the targumic version of the psalm in his article, “Ps LXVII 19 (= EPH IV 8): Another Textual Tradition or Targum?” NovT 17 (1975), pp. 219–24. See also G. V. Smith, “Paul’s Use of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8,” JETS 18 (1975), pp. 181–89.
4:9 For further explanation of these theories, see Abbott, pp. 114–16; Barth, Eph. 4–6, pp. 433–34; Beare, pp. 688–89; Mitton, pp. 146–49; Stott, God’s New Society, pp. 156–59. On the theory of Christ’s descent at Pentecost, cf. G. B. Caird, “The Descent of Christ in Ephesians 4, 7–11,” in Studia Evangelica, vol. 2, ed., F. L. Cross (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1964), pp. 535–45.
4:11 An old but valuable discussion can be found in J. B. Light-foot, “The Christian Ministry,” in Philippians (London: Macmillan, 1898), pp. 181–269. On the offices, cf. K. H. Rengstorf, “apostolos,” TDNT, vol. 1, pp. 407–47; G. Friedrich, “prophētēs,” TDNT, vol. 6, pp. 781–861; idem, “euangelistēs,” TDNT, vol. 2, pp. 736–37; J. Jeremias, “poimēn,” TDNT, vol. 6, pp. 485–502; K. J. Rengstorf, “didaskalos,” TDNT, vol. 2, pp. 148–60.
The Attainment of Unity
4:12 After listing the offices, the apostle now clarifies their function or purpose. In conformity with Corinthians, the gifts are given to the church for the good of the entire body (1 Cor. 12:7; 14:26, 31). The work and the results described fit the ministry entrusted to the pastors and the teachers.
The first and immediate function of church leaders is to prepare God’s people for works of service. The NIV correctly combines preparation and ministry, thus avoiding the error of some earlier translations that made two coordinate clauses out of the sentence (cf. KJV; RSV, 1947 ed.). In the body, every member and not only the ministers must be taught to serve. The word katartismos (“training,” “preparing,” “equipping”) conveys the idea of an harmonious development in which all parts are brought to a condition of being able to perform according to their created purpose (2 Tim. 3:17).
The second phrase, so that the body of Christ may be built up, expresses the ultimate goal of the gifts given to the church. Here building imagery indicates that the body is being built as God’s people are prepared for doing the work of the ministry (diakonia). Every member must contribute to this process, or the body will be deficient in areas of its growth.
4:13 From these two general statements, the author goes on to define more specifically the various aspects of Christian growth in the body of Christ. The building up of the body of Christ includes several important features: First, there is an intellectual component (until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God). Here is a call for the Christian community to collectively work toward attaining the unity of the faith (eis tēn enotēta tēs pisteōs). Since Ephesians already has spoken about the unity inherent in the “faith” (4:5), one sees this as another reminder that the readers are to progressively appropriate what is theirs by possession. The emphasis here is upon the corporate attainment of this unity (we all reach unity) rather than upon individuals striving for spiritual growth apart from the body.
In addition to faith, knowledge of the Son of God is a second condition of unity. Son of God is another designation for Jesus (Rom. 1:4; Gal. 2:20), and there does not appear to be any specific reason why this term is used here. What is important is that the Son of God is essential to unity because he is the object of Christian faith and knowledge. The realization of unity, in other words, is to be found only in a personal relationship of faith and knowledge to the person of Jesus Christ.
A second feature of bodily growth includes personal maturity—we shall become mature (eis andra teleion). Although some scholars take this as a reference to individual or personal maturity (Mitton, p. 154) or to Christ as the “Perfect Man” (Barth, Eph. 4–6, pp. 484–96), the context shows that the author is still thinking about the corporate nature and unity of the church. As a body it is to grow up as mature people, a goal that, of course, can be attained only as each individual member grows in the unity of the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God.
The third feature is something equivalent to Christ-likeness (Mitton, p. 154)—attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. This is the final prepositional phrase (eis … eis … eis …), and it represents the final stage of the church’s maturity. Christian maturity, whether individual or corporate, is that quality of life that belongs to Christ. As the church attains Christ’s full stature there is a reciprocal benefit in that Christ also finds his fullness in the church (1:23).
So far the apostle has been describing Christian unity as a goal to be attained. True, there is diversity within the body with respect to the spiritual gifts that Christ has given to the church, but that diversity is to promote the unity of the faith and to assist the body in reaching its ultimate goal. Believers are to grow out of their individualism into the corporate oneness of the person of Christ. In the following verses he describes some circumstances that hinder the attainment of unity, and then he provides some insights on bodily growth.
4:14 Although unity is an ideal to be realized, the writer is aware that the church’s pilgrimage toward that goal is characterized by immaturity and instability. Currently, the body of Christ acts very much like infants, a designation that implies immaturity, erratic temperament, individualism, self-assertion, and so on. When the church attains its goal, then it will no longer act in a childish way.
Children also are unstable, that is, they can be like a little boat, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men. The church acts in an immature and unstable way when it permits false teachings and doctrines to distract it from attaining its maturity in Christ. There is no way of knowing whether the author has any specific heresy in mind (such as Gnosticism or Docetism, cf., Acts 19:26–35), or whether it is a general exhortation toward sound doctrine. Either way, the teaching of false doctrine promotes sectarianism and individualism rather than corporate unity within the body of Christ.
The apostle expands upon the deceitfulness of humankind by employing a metaphor that comes from a game of dice—in their deceitful scheming. The Greek kybeia basically means “dice playing” but ultimately developed into such concepts as craftiness, trickery, and deceit.
It appears that false teachers deliberately tried to mislead the church through crafty and deceitful teachings. “The people are being swept along by the prevailing crazes and new fashions of thought; but also they are being manipulated by unscrupulous and clever men who by every trick they know are trying to divert them from the main life of the Church into divisive and sectarian movements” (Mitton, p. 155). All these negative qualities will disappear (then we will no longer be …) when the body of Christ has attained its goal of unity and maturity in Christ.
4:15 From the negative, the apostle returns to the positive direction that the church is to take. A divided church is characterized by rivalry, suspicion, hatred, pride, selfishness, lack of direction, and so forth (cf. Phil. 2:2–4). Instead, he pleads that the church should be characterized by the qualities of truth and love (speaking the truth in love). Literally, the phrase should be translated “truthing in love” because there is no verb in the Greek text for speaking, and the essential meaning is that truth needs to be conveyed in love and not by deceit and craftiness.
Truth and love form two essential components of the church’s life. The significant teaching in this phrase is how these two virtues belong together. Christian truth has a moral as well as an intellectual side; it affects the entire person, not just the brain. And though the possession of truth is crucial to the life of the church, it also is important how that truth is obtained and maintained. Christian teachers clearly cannot resort to the kind of trickery that characterizes the false teachers (4:14).
“Truthing in love” suggests the idea of living out the truth in a spirit of love. Some congregations may have all “the truth,” but no love; others may have considerable love, but no truth. What is needed is a combination and balance between the two. Stott makes a fitting and astute statement on this point when he writes: “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.… There is no other route than this to a fully mature Christian unity” (p. 172).
As with the apostle’s other exhortation, this one is directed toward the corporate life of the church as well. The individual must learn to live as a part of a greater whole—we, that is, the entire body, will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. The church is a living body, capable of manifesting such growth because of its relationship to Christ, the Head.
4:16 As the head of the body, Christ directs and controls the growth that is to take place. Thus he is the source as well as the goal of the church’s growth. To illustrate, the author employs a physiological metaphor similar to the one in Colossians 2:19. In Colossians, the emphasis is upon the nourishment and cohesion that the Head gives the body; in Ephesians, the head-body relationship remains, but emphasis is given to the interdependence of individuals within the body in much the same way that muscles, nerves, limbs, and so on are joined together in the human organism. The syn verbs (synarmologoumenon, “to fit or join together,” and symbibazomenon, “to bring, unite, knit together”), underscore this concern, and their present tense indicates an ongoing process within the body of Christ.
Again, the author draws attention to the importance of parts in relation to the whole: The whole body, joined and held together … grows and builds … as each part does its work. It is one thing for individual members to be related to the Head (4:15); but it is equally significant that the growth of the body depends upon the way these members relate to one another and perform their appropriate function as members of the body. This building and growing process takes place in love. As the readers have been exhorted to demonstrate love to each other (4:2, 15), they are reminded again that love is the soil out of which such growth in unity takes place (cf. 3:17).