Ephesians 2:19–22: “[19] So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, [20] having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, [21] in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, [22] in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.”
This passage (specifically verse 20) is a critical text for the cessationist, since it establishes (in his paradigm) the notion that New Testament prophets were given for the foundation stage of the church, and not for the entire church age. In the same way that the apostles are no longer in the church today, neither are prophets. Thus, it is reasoned, the gift of prophecy has ceased.
Virtually everyone agrees that there are no apostles in the church today (in terms of the specific office, as used in Ephesians 2:20; 3:5; and 4:11 and numerous other places in Paul’s writings). After all, an apostle had to be (1) be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:22; 10:39–41; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:7–8); (2) be directly appointed by Jesus Christ (Mark 3:14; Luke 6:13; Acts 1:2, 24; 10:41; Gal. 1:1); and (3) have the ability to confirm his mission by miraculous signs (Matt. 10:1–2; Acts 1:5–8; 2:43; 4:33; 5:12; 8:14; 2 Cor. 12:12). Based on these three criteria (all three of which one must meet to be an apostle), there were no longer any apostles (in the specialized sense) after the first century.
Since the apostolic office has ceased, having accomplished its purpose in laying the foundation for the church, can we then conclude that the prophetic office has also ceased?
This, according to most commentators, depends on who the “prophets” are in this verse. If the “prophets” are New Testament prophets, then the cessationist paradigm is greatly strengthened.
As continuationist Wayne Grudem has written:
If [Ephesians 2:20 is] referring to all the prophets in all the local congregations in first century churches . . . then it would seem that they are portrayed in a unique ‘foundational’ role in the New Testament church, and we have to agree with Dr Gaffin—we would expect this gift to cease once the New Testament was complete (Grudem, Prophecy, 48; cited from here).
At first glance, it appears that the verse is highlighting two distinct offices within the early church—that of apostle and that of prophet. But Grudem sees it differently. In his view, the verse would be better translated as “the apostle-prophets” or “the apostles who are also prophets.” It is the prophetic aspect of the apostle’s ministry that is being discussed in this verse. Thus, the apostolic office is the only one that we should expect to have ceased.
Dr. Grudem’s primary argument for his position appeals to Granville Sharp’s first rule of Greek grammar. According to this rule,
When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle . . . .” (Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, 2).
In other words, in a Greek construction of article-noun-kai-noun, the two nouns refer to the same person.
While it is generally recognized that Granville Sharp’s rule consistently applies to singular nouns, it does not universally apply to plural nouns. Daniel Wallace explains:
“Sharp’s rule Number 1″ doesn’t always work with plural forms of personal titles. Instead, a phrase that follows the form article-noun-”and”-noun, when the nouns involved are plurals, can involve two entirely distinct groups, two overlapping groups, two groups of which is one a subset of the other, or two identical groups (Wallace, 72-78; Online Source).
Because the nouns in this case are plural in form, Granville Sharp’s rule does not necessarily apply. Grudem’s appeal to Ephesians 4:11 (where some interpret a parallel construction as “pastors who are also teachers” rather than “pastors and teachers”) has been strongly criticized. According to R. Fowler White:
The obstacle is that Grudem interprets the syntax of the article-noun-kai-noun plural construction in Eph 2:20 in a way which, as D. B. Wallace has demonstrated, has neither clear nor ambiguous parallels in the NT. In addition, Wallace has shown that even the one true grammatical parallel that Grudem cites (Eph 4:11, tous de poimenas kai didaskalous) has been widely misunderstood because few exegetes have ever seriously investigated the semantic range of the article-noun-kai-noun plural construction. In fact, Wallace boldly challenges the exegesis of Eph 4:11 by Grudem and others, emphatically insisting “that such a view has no grammatical basis” in NT usage. According to Wallace’s findings, the least likely interpretation of Eph 4:11 is that it means “the pastor-teachers, that is, the pastors who are also teachers”; more likely, it means “the pastors and other teachers.” (Online Source)
With his grammatical argument seriously in question, Grudem’s other supporting arguments quickly dissipate. Space does not allow a full discussion in a blog article. However, R. Fowler White’s journal article, which has been referenced several times already in this post, provides a compelling response to each of Grudem’s assertions. In the words of Thomas Edgar, a cessationist:
Ephesians 2:20 could not be more clear. The verse contains no difficult words, nor any difficult or unusual grammatical constructions. The grammatical construction of one article preceding two nouns joined by “and” is a familiar and well-known construction. Any alleged complexities in interpreting this verse arise not from the verse itself but from the presuppositions of the interpreter (Edgar, Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit, 78–79).
In establishing that there are two distinct offices in this verse, Richard Gaffin (in Perspectives on Pentecost) notes that is important to keep several key exegetical points in mind. These can be summarized as follows:
(1) Ephesians 4:11 clearly distinguishes between the apostles and the prophets. The context of the letter, then, points to a distinction in Ephesians 2:20.
(2) First Corinthians 12:28 is the only other text where apostles and prophets are mentioned together. Here also, they are clearly presented as separate groups.
(3) Paul does not designate the apostles as “prophets” anywhere else in his writings.
(4) Since Paul does not do so elsewhere, it is unlikely that he would do so here at least without a little bit of explanation.
We conclude, then, that the grammar, the context (cf. Eph. 4:11), and Paul’s usage elsewhere provides strong evidence for the fact that the “prophets” of 2:20 are distinct from the “apostles.” This would be true, also, of Ephesians 3:5 (in which it is clear that New Testament, not Old Testament, prophets are in view).
To again cite Grudem’s earlier quote (from above):
If [Ephesians 2:20 is] referring to all the prophets in all the local congregations in first century churches [i.e. New Testament prophets in a general sense] . . . then it would seem that they are portrayed in a unique ‘foundational’ role in the New Testament church, and we have to agree with Dr Gaffin—we would expect this gift to cease once the New Testament was complete.
Based on the exegetical evidence, this is exactly what cessationists expect.
For those who would like to study this further, please see the following articles by Dave Farnell, one of our NT professors here at The Master’s Seminary:
Is the Gift of Prophecy for Today? (Part 4)
Fallible New Testament Prophecy/Prophets?: A Critique of Wayne Grudem’s Hypothesis
In fairness, we should also add that some continuationists, such as Jon Ruthven, do not hold to Grudem’s view and yet do not see Ephesians 2:20 as a support to the cessationist position. Ruthven argues that Ephesians 2:20 refers to a foundation that will recur as a pattern until Christ returns (this is in accord with his understanding of Ephesians 4:11–13). In our own opinion, the fact that there are no longer apostles in the church is a strong argument against Ruthven’s recurring pattern view. As Samuel E. Waldron writes: “The admission that the apostolate has ceased is a fatal crack in the foundation of Continuationism” (To Be Continued?, 23).
Also, Grudem has added a response to Wallace in his most recent edition of The Gift of Prophecy: In the New Testament and Today (2000; originally published in 1988). He continues to hold to his view despite the absence of any exact parallels outside of Ephesians 4:11.