Untitled Sermon (9)

Christian Lifestyle

Ephesians 4: 1-24

UNITY IN THE BODY OF CHRIST (4:1–16)

a. Maintaining the unity (4:1–6)

1. As is often the case in Paul’s letters, the doxology marks the end of a section. The doxology at the end of chapter 3 marks the close of the part of the letter that is predominantly doctrinal. Chapters 4–6 are to show in practical detail how glory is to be rendered to God now in the church (3:21). The apostle begins here as he did in chapter 3, by referring to himself as a prisoner (see on 3:1), but here ‘the prisoner in the Lord’ (rv) is the most precise translation of what is written. The chains of his imprisonment limited his bodily movement, but his life was most truly controlled by the fact that it was ‘in the Lord’. The fact that his life in and for Christ had led to imprisonment did not mean that he requested the sympathy of his readers, but it added intensity to his appeal, as now he wished to speak to them concerning the whole manner of their life. He has set before them the great purpose of God in Christ for his church. He has prayed that they may know the wonder of his plan, his love, his power, and every spiritual blessing that he offers. But now in these remaining chapters he is going to write about the quality and kind of life that is demanded of them individually and in the fellowship of Christ’s church.

It is no mere teaching of the Christian ethic that the apostle seeks to give. He whose greatest concern in life has become to ‘present every man mature in Christ’ (Col. 1:28; cf. Acts 20:27, 31) makes earnest entreaty. The word parakalō can mean ‘exhort’, but obviously in this context has its stronger meaning, beg (cf. 2 Cor. 5:20). The link with what precedes is given by the word therefore as in Romans 12:1, indicating that Christian conduct follows from Christian doctrine, that the duty of Christians derives directly from the unspeakable debt of gratitude that they owe for all that they have received in Christ. In the most general terms, that duty is that they should lead a life worthy of their calling. We are back to three great Pauline words (cf. 1 Thess. 2:12). Step by step they are to walk (see on 2:2) in a direction that corresponds to their call (1:18). That call to know the grace of God in Christ, to be the children of God, and to serve him as his ‘dedicated ones’ and messengers of his gospel, should transform every part of life. It involves the obligation to live in a manner that is in accordance with the name of him whose they are and whom they serve (Phil. 1:29), pleasing him in all things (Col. 1:10). ‘Those who have been chosen by God to sit with Christ in the heavenly places must remember that the honour of Christ is involved in their daily lives.’ So Bruce (EE) comments, adding that this first far-reaching instruction is ‘a principle to guide in every situation’.

2. Four particular aspects of such a life are now named, and they are more than personal qualities. For the life worthy of the calling of God is a life in the fellowship of the people of God; and if this is to be maintained these four virtues are vital. The first, emphasized by the characteristic all (cf. 1:8; 4:19, 31; 5:3, 9; 6:18), is lowliness. Very significantly, the Greek noun tapeinophrosynē does not seem to have been used before New Testament times, and the corresponding adjective tapeinos nearly always had a bad meaning, and was associated with words having the sense of slavish, mean, ignoble. Lessons of humility had been taught in the Old Testament, and such a passage as Isaiah 66:2 in the Septuagint is a notable exception to the general pre-Christian use of tapeinos, but to the Greeks humility was not a virtue. To them, as indeed to most non-Christian people in any generation, the concept of ‘the fulness of life … left no room for humility’ (Robinson). In Christ lowliness became a virtue. His life and death were service and sacrifice without thought of reputation (Phil. 2:6–7). Because the Christian is called to follow in his steps, humility has an irreplaceable part in the Christian character (cf. Acts 20:19), and also for the reason that he has been brought to see the greatness and glory and holiness of God, so that he cannot but be overwhelmed by the realization of his own weakness and sinfulness.

The second word, meekness (prautēs), was used in classical Greek in the good sense of mildness or gentleness of character. The adjective (praos), especially, found an important use in describing an animal completely disciplined and controlled. Meekness in the New Testament is used of a person’s attitude to the word of God (Jas 1:21), but more often of one’s attitude to other people (1 Cor. 4:21; 2 Tim. 2:25; Titus 3:2). It is closely connected with the spirit of submissiveness which becomes the keynote of this letter when, in 5:21, the apostle turns to speak of human relationships. Moses is aptly described in Numbers 12:3 as ‘very meek’. For, as Mitton (NCB) puts it, meekness ‘is the spirit of one who is so absorbed in seeking some worthy goal for the common good that he refuses to be deflected from it by slights, injuries or insults directed at himself personally, or indeed by personal considerations of any kind’.

Thirdly, there is patience (makrothymia), a word sometimes used of steadfast endurance of suffering or misfortune (as in Jas 5:10) but more often, as is the case here, of slowness in avenging wrong or retaliating when hurt by another. It is used of God’s patience with humanity (Rom. 2:4; 9:22; 1 Tim. 1:16; 1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 3:15), and the corresponding and consequent quality that the Christian should show towards others (1 Cor. 13:4; Gal. 5:22; Col. 3:12; 2 Tim. 4:2).

Forbearance, the fourth requirement, is also a divine quality (Rom. 2:4). It is the practical outworking of longsuffering. ‘It involves bearing with one another’s weaknesses, not ceasing to love one’s neighbours or friends because of those faults in them which perhaps offend or displease us’ (Abbott). It is ‘that mutual tolerance without which no group of human beings can live together in peace’ (Stott). Such forbearance, and indeed all these four qualities, are possible only in love. For love is the basic attitude of seeking the highest good of others, and it will therefore lead to all these qualities, and include them all (see vv. 15–16 and on 1:4). Paul has prayed that his readers may be ‘rooted and grounded in love’ (3:17), and now he exhorts them to do their part, and to go on to possess all these virtues in love.

3. All that now follows in the rest of the letter may be considered as an expansion of the appeal that has just been made. But its first particular application is to the unity of Christians. Some have taken the unity of the Spirit here to mean the spiritual unity of the church in the sense that human spirits are linked together wherever men and women are found sharing the things that they have ‘in Christ’. We have noted already (on 1:17) that it is sometimes difficult to tell exactly how we should translate and interpret this word ‘spirit’. Here, however, it is almost certain that the apostle views the unity as the gift of God. It was made possible by the cross of Christ (2:14ff.), and is made effective by the working of the Spirit of God. Human beings cannot themselves create it; it is given to them, but their responsibility is to keep it, to guard it in the face of many attempts from within and without the church to take it away. Christians are to be eager to maintain the unity. The Greek participle spoudazontes conveys the idea of zealous effort and care (cf. 1 Thess. 2:17; 2 Tim. 2:15; 2 Pet. 1:10, 15; 3:14).

But, as with his practical bent the apostle has in the previous verse added forbearance to ‘patience’, so here to the abstract ‘oneness’ (a word which in fact he hardly ever uses) he adds the means to such unity, which is maintained by keeping the bond of peace. If by love (which the parallel passage in Col. 3:14 [av] calls ‘the bond of perfectness’) people can live in the peace that Christ has brought them, then unity will be kept indeed.

4. The apostle is aware of the endless variety of temperaments amongst his readers and the diverse racial and social backgrounds from which they have come into the Christian church; but he would have them even more aware of the spiritual realities that now unite them and that should completely transcend differences of background. Already, in 1:13–14, he has spoken of the spiritual blessings that are now shared between Jews and Gentiles, and in 2:11–22 of the barriers between them that have been broken down in Christ. All, he says, now have equal shares in the privileges of grace (3:6). Here, as in a credal summary, perhaps a fragment of an early Christian hymn (see on 5:19), he names what they have in common, a unity by the Spirit in the church, a unity in Christ acknowledged and confessed as Lord, a unity ultimately in God the Father and source of all. As Caird puts it, ‘The corporate unity of the church is not a desirable end, but a datum to which the behaviour of its members must conform.’

They are brought to be one body. To be ‘in Christ’ means to be in his body (see on 1:1), members one of another as truly and intimately as are the organs of the human body. The unity is indeed a spiritual unity, and therefore transcends and surpasses any association or society with its basis in the things of this world. Yet we must beware of thinking of it simply as spiritual and unseen. To say ‘one body’ is more than to say that people are of ‘one spirit’. The sense of spiritual kinship did not satisfy Paul. The apostle who was so concerned with the practical unity of Jews and Gentiles in the church, and with the working together of all Christians, would surely have abhorred many of the divisions that we accept. Where differences in essential doctrine and contradictions in ethical teaching make such divisions, he would strive to know and uphold the way of Christ in each detail. Where differences are caused merely by superficial things or by the selfish individualism of members, he would toil and fight for the breaking down of barriers and the working out of genuine fellowship. It was right and necessary for the Reformers to uphold the doctrine of the ‘invisible Church’ as against a view that membership of an outward organization meant ipso facto membership of Christ; but at the same time the New Testament shows that in the sight of God there is one body of Christ, and in loyalty to him Christians are impelled to strive to ‘let the relations of practical Christian life and work correspond to that fact, to the utmost possible’ (Moule, CB).

There is also one Spirit, and the rv is surely right in taking it as the Holy Spirit. The following verses refer to the Father and the Son, and we have a close parallel to 2:18 which has spoken of our ‘access in one Spirit to the Father’ (cf. 1 Cor. 12:13). All who are members of the one body are that by virtue of the one Spirit of God dwelling in them (Rom. 8:9). This fact prevents any view of the church as a mere organization; for the presence of the Spirit constitutes the church, and is the basis of its unity. Then, all who have the Spirit have a common hope. From a vast variety of backgrounds they have come, but their goal is now the same. The Spirit is ‘the guarantee’ (1:14) and the pledge that in the end all will stand together in the presence of the Lord and be restored fully to his likeness and possess his inheritance. For those who share the glory of that hope (1:18; Rom. 5:2; Col. 1:27), and are concerned to give witness of it to the world, it is folly not to strive now to keep a unity in peace and love.

5. There is also one Lord, even Jesus Christ. This, as 1 Corinthians 12:3 shows us, was the basic, primitive Christian creed (cf. 1 Cor. 8:6; Phil. 2:11). It expresses more, however, than a belief that is shared; it speaks of a common allegiance to one transcendent Lord and where this is more than mere lip-service (cf. Matt. 7:21) it should bind people together more than anything else. Where there is ‘the same Lord’ (Rom. 10:12), Jews and Gentiles, black and white, rich and poor, great and small, are yoked together. Neither personal ambition, nor party spirit, nor disputes about non-essentials will be allowed to break such unity, if Christ is served and honoured as Lord.

It is possible that the one faith means the same attitude of trust that binds us all to the Lord, the same way of access to him and means of life in him. Or it may be that here, and then in verse 13, it means the same vital truths concerning him and his work and purpose. This way of speaking of ‘the faith’ was indeed more common later (1 Tim. 3:9; 4:1, 6; Titus 1:4; Jude 3), but it seems to be used in much this sense in Galatians 1:23 and also in Philippians 1:25 and Colossians 2:7.

The outward sign of this faith (whichever way we take it) and the ‘visible word’ expressing the work of Christ was baptism. Instituted by the Lord himself, it was an experience that every Christian shared. All had passed through the same initiation. All had been ‘baptized into Christ’ (Gal. 3:27), not into a variety of leaders, such as Paul, Peter and Apollos (1 Cor. 1:13), nor into a plurality of churches. ‘By one Spirit’, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:13, ‘we were all baptized into one body.’ The sacrament is therefore a sacrament of unity. It is often asked why no reference was made here to the other great sacrament of the gospel, expressing as it did, even more obviously, the unity and the sharing that there should be between all Christians. Perhaps it is that an argument such as that in 1 Corinthians 10:16–17 would be needed to demonstrate this, rather than just a single word; or perhaps, as Westcott suggests, ‘the Apostle is speaking of the initial conditions of Christian life’, whereas ‘Holy Communion belongs to the support and development of it’.

6. Ultimately the unity is in the one God and Father of us all (cf. 1 Cor. 8:6; 12:5–6). All are his creatures, made in his image as his children from the beginning, and through Christ brought back to his family (see on 1:5). Therefore all Christians belong together as brothers and sisters, and share the conviction that God is their Father, and above all and through all and in all (cf. Rom. 11:36). Whether in a world with deities for each city or nation or aspect of life, as the world of Paul’s day, or in a world which to all practical purposes has renounced God, such conviction about him should bind people more closely than any human tie. Christians believe that they ‘live in a God-created, God-controlled, God-sustained, God-filled world’ (Barclay), and even more, that God indwells them and is working out his purpose through them. Where can such depth and breadth of unity be found as in the fellowship of those who share this faith and experience? It follows inevitably that unnecessary divisions are folly, and weaken the church’s witness in the world to such a glorious faith.

b. Diversity in unity (4:7–16)

7. The great heritage of the faith all Christians share, and having this in common they are responsible to guard the unity of the Spirit. But they may not expect their personalities, their gifts and their tasks to be all alike. In his wisdom, and to make each dependent on others, God has ordained not uniformity, but an endless variety of gifts for members of the body. As Calvin puts it, ‘no member of the body of Christ is endowed with such perfection as to be able, without the assistance of others, to supply his own necessities.’ To each of us is given different gifts for the benefit of all. Paul uses the word grace here in the sense in which we have found it used in 3:2, 7–8: the privilege of a special calling in the service of God. The word implies that there is no place for boasting; none has anything other than what he has received unmerited (cf. 1 Cor. 4:7). No-one has all the gifts; and also it is true that no member of the body is without some spiritual task and spiritual gift for it. To each—not ministers or leaders alone—such grace is given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. These words suggest the Lord’s portioning out, in his wisdom, different kinds of gifts to different members. Both the words measure and grace are used with the meaning they have here in Romans 12:3–8, while 1 Corinthians 12:4 has the same thought as this when it says that ‘there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit’.

8. At this point Paul leads on to a new thought. ‘The measure of Christ’s gift’ is that of the ascended Lord who in the days of his flesh promised such abundant bestowal when he returned to the Father’s presence (John 14:12–14). To express this the apostle quotes Scripture, Psalm 68:18, a passage which perhaps as early as this was associated with Pentecost in Jewish liturgy, and which could be applied to the triumph and ascension of the Lord followed by the bestowal of spiritual gifts to his church. In their original setting the words of the Psalm picture the Lord returning in triumph (either to the Jerusalem sanctuary or to heaven itself), after the overthrow of Israel’s enemies. He has made his enemies captive, and they follow, as it were, in his triumphal procession. As conqueror he has received gifts that he can bestow. Like many of the Psalms, this found ready application to the Christ. He has conquered his enemies, and returned to his Father’s throne in triumph, now to bestow blessings on his people. In fact his former foes, whom he leads in ‘triumph in Christ’ (2 Cor. 2:14; av, rv), like Paul himself, are his gifts to his church.

We must note, however, an important change in the words used. The Hebrew Psalm has words which speak of God ‘receiving gifts among men’. Paul says he gave gifts to men. Various explanations have been offered for the difference. Some see it as an intentional, others as an unintentional, misquotation. It is significant that the Targum (the Jewish Aramaic paraphrase) on the Psalms, which may involve an interpretation going back into pre-Christian times, speaks of the giving rather than the receiving of gifts, as it has ‘Thou ascendedst up to the firmament, O prophet Moses, thou tookest captives captive, thou didst teach the words of the law, thou gavest them as gifts to the children of men.’ It is also possible that the words in this form were used in an early Christian hymn. In any case the Psalm could be understood to speak of the truth expressed in Acts 2:33: ‘Being … exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this …’. The ascension of Christ made possible the outpouring of the Spirit (John 7:39), and so these varied gifts of which he is about to speak in detail.

9–10. We have a further difficulty to deal with in these verses. When we read that He ascended, the meaning is clear. After his resurrection he was exalted in glory, a fact that has been emphasized already in 1:20–21 and 2:6. And when Paul says far above all the heavens, he uses language that agrees with the Jewish concept of a plurality of heavens,, though he is not necessarily limiting himself to a spatial concept (see on 1:20). He means that Christ has been exalted to the highest honour and glory possible (Phil. 2:9–11); he has returned to the Father from whom he came into the world. But what is the meaning of his descent? The word ‘first’ in the av in verse 9 is not found in the majority of the oldest mss and it would seem that, with the more recent English versions, we should omit the word as a later interpretative addition to the text. It must be said also that the tense of rsv had also descended is not required by the Greek. Ascended and descended are in the same tense and same verbal forms in both verses 9 and 10. The descent may be that which Christ made by his Spirit after Pentecost. Against this is the association of the giving of the gifts with his ascension rather than his descent (in v. 8).

If the descent refers to the coming of the Spirit then the lower parts of the earth must mean just ‘the earth below’. If it speaks of the incarnation there are further possibilities of meaning. Some have been led by these words to set this passage alongside 1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6, understood as referring to a descent of Christ after his crucifixion to preach the gospel to those who had died before his coming. The exact meaning of the 1 Peter passages is not certain, but whatever their meaning there seems no reason to suppose that there is this kind of reference here to his preaching to the dead. Above the highest heaven he ascended, and he had been to the deepest depths of the earth. This may thus mean simply this earth, so low in comparison with his heavenly home (cf. Isa. 44:23); or it may denote the fact that he suffered the greatest humiliation when he endured death itself (cf. Phil. 2:8), and thus descended to what Scripture sometimes calls ‘the depths of the earth’ (cf. Ps. 69:15; Rom. 10:7).

There seem to be two points that the apostle is wanting to stress here. Firstly, it is Christ’s will and purpose for everything to be pervaded with his presence (cf. 1:10). He has descended and ascended that he might fill all things. He is supreme over all the powers of heaven and earth (cf. Col. 1:16–18); there is nothing that is not subject to him, no place or order of existence where his presence may not be known and felt. Both the descent and the ascent have this purpose. In particular, as Barclay puts it, ‘the ascension of Jesus meant not a Christ-deserted, but a Christ-filled world’ because of the giving of his Spirit (cf. John 16:7). Secondly, we are to realize that the ascended Lord whom the church now worships is the same as he who came down and lived among us, sharing our sorrows, trials and temptations, and therefore he feels those of his people today.

11. Now Paul goes on to speak of the specific gifts that he has given. The gifts are the people. All, in their particular ministries, are God’s gift to the church. ‘To Christ’, says Calvin, ‘we owe it that we have ministers of the gospel.’ The church may appoint people to different work and functions, but unless they have the gifts of the Spirit, and therefore are themselves the gifts of Christ to his church, their appointment is valueless. The expression also ‘serves well to remind ministers that the gifts of the Spirit are not for the enrichment of oneself but for the enrichment of the Church’ (Allan).

At the later date which some would give to this letter it would seem almost impossible not to have reference to the local ministry of bishops, presbyters and deacons which had come to be of greatest importance to the church. As it is, the apostle is not thinking of the ministers of Christ in their offices but rather according to their specific spiritual gifts and their work, and not least of those who in the exercise of their functions were not limited to a particular locality. This may account for the differences between the list that we have here and the similar list in 1 Corinthians 12:28. It also seems true that, as F. F. Bruce puts it, ‘those that are named’ here ‘exercise their ministries in such a way as to help other members of the church to exercise their own respective ministries’.

First stood the apostles. First in time and first in importance, Masson puts it. The word apostolos is used in three different ways in the New Testament. It could mean simply a messenger, as is the case apparently in Philippians 2:25—we can neglect that meaning here. It was used above all for the twelve, who in many parts of the New Testament are given a special and distinctive position (cf. 1 Cor. 15:5; Rev. 21:14). But we read of others as apostles, not only Paul himself and Barnabas (Acts 14:14), but James the Lord’s brother (Gal. 1:19), Silas (1 Thess. 2:6), and Junias and Andronicus who are mentioned only in Romans 16:7. In fact there would appear to be those who can truly be called apostles (1 Cor. 15:7), who are not even known to us by name. From Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 9:1–2 it would seem that a necessary qualification of an apostle was to have seen the risen Lord, and to have been sent out by him, and thus to have come to be engaged as a foundation member (Eph. 2:20) and worker for the building up of the church. If the qualification for an apostle was thus to have seen and been sent by the risen Lord, the proof of an apostle was his labours in the power of Christ, even ‘with signs and wonders and mighty works’ (2 Cor. 12:12). It should be noted also that, according to Acts 1:21–22 (cf. Acts 2:42), the apostles gave definitive witness to the facts of the ministry of Jesus and to his resurrection.

Closely associated with them in the work of building the church from its foundations, and therefore basic as gifts of Christ to the church, were the prophets (see on 2:20 and 3:5). It is harder for us to see their particular ministry, but they stand out clearly from the New Testament as people of inspired utterance, whose ministry of the word was of the utmost importance for the young church. On occasion they might foretell the future, as in Acts 11:28 and 21:9, 11, but like the Old Testament prophets their great work was to ‘forth-tell’ the word of God. This might be in bringing to light with convicting power people’s sins (1 Cor. 14:24–25), or in bringing new strength to the church by the word of exhortation. The latter is illustrated most strikingly by Acts 15:32 where it is said that in Antioch ‘Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, exhorted the brethren with many words and strengthened them.’

The ministry of apostles, as we have understood the word above, ceased with the passing of the first generation of Christians. The foundational ministry of prophets ceased also. Their work, receiving and declaring the word of God under direct inspiration of the Spirit, was most vital before there was a canon of New Testament Scripture. There continued to be prophets, but not with quite the same ministry as those of the church in the first generation. The apostolic writings were coming to be read widely and accepted as authoritative; the written word took the place of the authoritative spoken word of apostles and prophets making the essential nature of the gospel plain. At the same time the local ministry came to assume much greater importance than that of itinerant ministers, and there was the added problem that there were many false teachers and self-styled ‘prophets’ who went from place to place to peddle their wares.

Next come the evangelists. Only two other references to these in the New Testament can guide us as to their function and work. In Acts 21:8 Philip, whose four daughters were prophets, is called an evangelist, and in 2 Timothy 4:5 Timothy is told to ‘do the work of an evangelist’. We may assume that theirs was an itinerant work of preaching under the apostles, and it may be fair to call them ‘the rank and file missionaries of the church’ (Barclay).

Then, linked together (by the same article in the Gk.) are the pastors and teachers. It is possible that this phrase describes the ministers of the local church, whereas the first three categories are regarded as belonging to the universal church. More likely, the dominant thought is still of spiritual functions and gifts. Apostles and evangelists had a special task in planting the church in every place, prophets for bringing a particular word from God to a situation. Pastors and teachers were gifted to be responsible for the day-to-day building up of the church. There is no hard and fast line to be drawn between the two. The duties of the pastor (literally ‘shepherd’) are to feed the flock with spiritual food and to see that they are protected from spiritual danger. Our Lord used the word in John 10:11, 14 to describe his own work, and he continues to be the chief pastor (Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 2:25; 5:4) under whom others are called to ‘Tend the flock of God’ (1 Pet. 5:2; cf. John 21:15–17; Acts 20:28). Every pastor must be ‘an apt teacher’ (1 Tim. 3:2; cf. Titus 1:9), though it is evident that some have pre-eminently the gift of teaching, and may be said to form a particular division of ministry within the church, and to be a special gift of Christ to his people (Acts 13:1; Rom. 12:7; 1 Cor. 12:28).

12. Three phrases are now used in this verse to describe the purpose of the spiritual gifts just named. As different translations indicate, the three have been connected in various ways. The av took each of them separately. The difference of the prepositions in the Greek is against this, and at least implies that the later two are dependent on the first. It is probably correct to understand the second to depend closely on the first, and the third on the two that precede: to [Gk. pros] equip the saints for [Gk. eis] the work of ministry, for [Gk. eis] building up the body of Christ.

In the first place, then, the ministry of the church is given to it to equip the saints (rsv first edition, 1946, has for the equipment of the saints). The word used (katartismos) is not found elsewhere in the New Testament, although the corresponding verb is used of repairing something (Matt. 4:21); of God’s bringing the universe in the beginning into its intended shape and order (Heb. 11:3); and of restoring to spiritual health a person who has fallen (Gal. 6:1). It may be used, however, of ‘perfecting’ (av) what is lacking in the faith of Christians (cf. 1 Thess. 3:10; Heb. 13:21; 1 Pet. 5:10) and we may say with Robinson that the word denotes ‘the bringing of the saints to a condition of fitness for the discharge of their functions in the Body, without implying restoration from a disordered state’. Their being brought to this condition is not an end in itself, but for a purpose, that they may be fitted for the work of ministry. As clearly as in verse 7 it is thus implied that every Christian has a work of ministry, a spiritual task and function in the body. The word used here (diakonia), or the corresponding verb, is used of menial service (Luke 10:40; 17:8; 22:26–27; Acts 6:2), and so of the particular work of those who came to be known as ‘deacons’, but it is also used in the more general sense of our word ‘service’ (see on 3:7).

What is done for the saints, and by the saints, is for building up the body of Christ. The word oikodomē has been used in 2:21, but here it has a broader meaning. The church is increased and built up, and its members edified, as each member uses his or her particular gifts as the Lord of the church ordains, and thus gives spiritual service to fellow-members and to the head. Because of its applied meaning the use of oikodomē with the body does not necessarily involve confusion of metaphors, but because of what he wishes to say now about the growth and unity of the church, the apostle finds the metaphor of the body more adequate than any other.

13. All three phrases in verse 12 have described the process going on in the life of the church. But the apostle could never think of a process without fixing his eyes on the goal. The verb used at the beginning of the verse (katantaō) is used nine times in Acts for travellers arriving at their destination; neb translates ‘So shall we all at last attain …’. (Cf. Acts 26:7 and Phil. 3:11 for use similar to that here.) The end of the church’s journey is described in three ways. Firstly, it is the unity of the faith. Where the faith (see on v. 5) is duly communicated, people from their different backgrounds of error and ignorance come into a growing understanding of the ‘one hope’ (v. 4), an increasing dependence on the ‘one Lord’ (v. 5), and so to a developing appreciation of the ‘one body’ (v. 4). The goal must be unity in the faith.

Secondly, it is emphasized, though enough has already been said to make this evident, that faith is not just the acceptance of a collection of dogmas, in the embracing of which unity will be found. It is something deeper and more personal. It is unity in the knowledge of the Son of God (see on 1:17). That knowledge which Paul sought supremely for himself (Phil. 3:10) he set also as the goal for others. We can never know any person simply with our mind; and knowledge of such a person as is envisaged here must involve the deepest possible fellowship. For this person is the Son of God, and here we have one of the rare places in all the Pauline letters where this title is used (cf. Rom. 1:4; Gal. 2:20; 1 Thess. 1:10). When Paul speaks of the relation of the Lord to his church and to the Father’s purpose, he regularly uses the title ‘Christ’, but ‘when he would describe Him as the object of that faith and knowledge in which our unity will ultimately be realised’ (Robinson), he speaks of him in his unique position as ‘the Son of God’.

But such knowledge which is fellowship with the Son of God involves the full experience of life ‘in Christ’, and therefore development to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. All the different expressions here speak of maturity. The Greek word teleios used here (rsv mature) has the connotation of full development in 1 Corinthians 2:6, 14:20 and Hebrews 5:14. Manhood here means adulthood, as in 1 Corinthians 13:11 where it is also contrasted with nēpios, the word used in the next verse here for ‘children’. The singular, moreover, expresses again the thought that maturity involves unity; the ‘many’ are to become ‘one new man’ (2:15). Then the word that is used for stature, which may connote age (John 9:21, 23) or physical stature (Luke 19:3) speaks figuratively of maturity, the measure of which is nothing less than the fullness of Christ. As in 1:23 some interpret it here as ‘the measure of the perfect Christ’, made complete by his fulfilment in his church. Others take it as that which is filled by Christ. It seems better to understand it in the way that we have taken the phrase in 1:23, as the complete possession of the gifts and grace of Christ that he seeks to impart to humanity. He has himself the very fullness of God (Col. 1:19; 2:9); he seeks that the Christian should be filled with all of his endowment that can be communicated. Whether the goal can be realized in this life or not is irrelevant. The point is that the Christian is to press forward with no lesser ambition than this. This is human life as it is intended to be, measured only by all that we can understand of the human life of Christ himself.

14. There must be no longer the immaturity of children (nēpioi), characterized by instability in the face of the pressures of different doctrines and standards of life. ‘Maturity brings with it the capacity to emulate various forms of teaching, to accept what is true and reject what is false’ (Bruce, NICNT). The word translated tossed to and fro is the verb from the noun klydōn, used in Luke 8:24 of the raging of the waters of Galilee, and in James 1:6 for the ‘surge of the sea’ (rv); in the latter case it is the waves themselves that are driven by the wind, but here the picture is probably that of a boat tossed in the storm and carried about. This second verb is translated more vividly by neb ‘whirled about’; the Greek verb peripherō often has the idea of such violent swinging about as makes a person dizzy. Christians were realizing already that they had to keep an even keel against every wind of doctrine, as the companion Letter to the Colossians well shows. The unsteady and rudderless could easily be turned from their course. For there were not only those who had been deceived and gone astray without realizing it, but there were some who were lying in wait to deceive (cf. 2 Tim. 3:13). Their activities are described firstly by the word kybia, which means literally playing with dice, and hence trickery or fraud; and secondly as craftiness (panourgia), the word used with reference to our Lord’s questioners in Luke 20:23, and in 2 Corinthians 11:3 of the guile of the serpent. When people wander out of the way of the truth (the Gk. planē, ‘error’ [rv], is lit. ‘wandering’), they do not hesitate to use deceitful wiles, cunning devices, to lead others to follow them.

15. The preachers of the truth for their part cannot and must not resort to such methods (2 Cor. 4:2); they must act in all simplicity and straightforwardness, but at the same time beware of the means that their enemies may use. They are ambassadors of the truth, and are to be found speaking the truth and ‘dealing truly’ (rv mg.—the Gk. word alētheuō included both). Moreover, both are to be done in love. What is upheld, and the manner in which it is supported, are to be in complete contrast to those spoken of in verse 14. Such deceive others to make their own gain; Christians are to hold forth the truth in order to bring spiritual benefit to others, and they are to do so with a winsomeness that only love can make possible. Then, with a metaphor which is as far as possible removed from that which describes the immature as tossed about like a little boat in a storm, it is said that they will grow in stability and spiritual maturity. That growth is into Christ, the development of the life so that it is found more and more ‘in’ him, ‘all things’ (av) and every part of life finding their centre and object and goal in relation to him and in union with him. The preposition might also be translated ‘towards’ or ‘unto’, and thus have the thought of growth towards his perfect humanity as standard, in the way that verse 13 has expressed it.

We should not imagine that the apostle thought of growth into the head. We are wise to take the imagery of growth first, and then the thought of Christ as the head. He may be spoken of as the whole body, but also in a particular way as the head. This has been expressed already in 1:22 and will be again in 5:23. Growth, and indeed every activity of the members, is from him as source and under his direction. The members can be healthy and strong only as each is dependent on him. The next verse develops this point.

16. From Christ alone, as head, the body derives its whole capacity for growth and activity and its direction as one co-ordinated, directed entity. Colossians 2:19 is closely parallel to this verse, and should be studied with it, but there the word translated joined … together is not used. Its only other use in the New Testament is in 2:21. It derives from a word (harmos) used for a joint or fastening in the construction of a building, or for the shoulder-joint of the body. The second participle (symbibazomenon) is used in a general way of bringing things or people together, and of reconciling those who have quarrelled, and of putting together facts in an argument or a course of teaching. Both participles thus give the sense of a functional unity, that is made possible among the members by the direction of the head. But after the participles the Greek is difficult. The word translated joint (haphē) has many meanings. Basically it means a ‘touch’, and so can mean ‘contact’, ‘point of contact’, or ‘grip’, and these meanings have led commentators to a variety of interpretations. Both the context and medical usage of the word for a ‘joint’ of the body justify the rsv rendering, and most English translations follow this. The Greek says literally ‘through every joint of the supply’, which probably means that it is through every joint with which the body is equipped—‘every constituent joint’ (neb)—that growth and true functioning are possible. In other words the body depends for its growth and its work on the Lord’s direction, on his provision for the whole (cf. vv. 11–12), and on his arrangement for the interrelation of the members as well.

Then we are brought back to a word (Gk. energeia) that has become familiar in this letter (cf. 1:19 and 3:7), as the apostle turns from the consideration of the members and the connection between them, to the whole working properly. Each part, in its place and according to its need, must have this functioning that is made possible by the ‘energizing’ of God in the whole. Then, yet again, the purpose of growth is mentioned, and it is made clear that each member does not seek its own growth but that of ‘the body’ (av) as a whole (rsv has bodily growth), not its own upbuilding but the upbuilding of the whole. Moreover, the context makes clear that it is not increase in size of the church that is primarily in view, by members being added to it, but spiritual increase. And this increase is above all in love. The little phrase comes yet again (cf. 1:4; 3:17; 4:2; 5:2), as love determines that each member will seek the upbuilding of all. Then without doubt, if there is a caring community living in love and showing the truth in love, the numerical increase will follow.