Ephesians 4:11

Ephesians 4:11. And he gave. ‘He' is emphatic; He, and none other. ‘Gave' refers back to Ephesians 4:6; Ephesians 4:8, and is to be taken in its strict sense; Christ gives the persons to fill the offices; comp. 1 Corinthians 12:28, where the idea is different. Here the historical fact is referred to, but the principle is a permanent one. Meyer:' Christ gives the Church's ministers; the Church takes those given and sets them in the service of the Church. Accordingly the Church, or he who represents the rights and duties of the Church, never has to choose the subjects arbitrarily, but to know and recognize those endowed by Christ as those given by Him, and to place them in the ministry; hence the highest idea of the ecclesiastical examination is to test whether those concerned are given by Christ, without prejudice, however, to other requisites which are matters of ecclesiastical polity.'

Some to be apostles. ‘To be' is properly supplied; they were to be the gift in these positions. The word ‘Apostle,' in its strict sense, applies only to the Twelve and Paul. (On the relation of the latter to the former, see General Introduction, and Excursus on Galatians, chap. Ephesians 2:1-10.) But the term was sometimes loosely applied to others, especially Barnabas (Acts 14:4; Acts 14:14). It should be taken here in the strict sense, since the other terms would include all to whom this title might be loosely applied. It is generally agreed that only those are Apostles, who (1.) were commissioned by Christ Himself; (2.) were witnesses of His resurrection, because they had seen the Risen Lord; (3.) that they had a special inspiration (comp. chaps. Ephesians 2:20; Ephesians 3:5); (4.) that their authority was supreme; (3.) that they were furnished with ample credentials. It would appear from this that they can have no successors in the distinctive features of their office. Rightly, then, they are regarded as extraordinary Church officers. If any claim that the Apostolate has been reestablished, the claim must be made good by abundant proofs of unique inspiration and of supernatural vision of the Lord Himself on the part of the persons for whom the claim is made.

And some, prophets. Those who were inspired occasionally, usually for the instruction of believers, although some of the New Testament prophets predicted (comp. Acts 11:27; Acts 13:1; Acts 15:32; Acts 21:10; and especially 1 Corinthians 14). As ‘prophets' is joined with ‘Apostles' (chaps. Ephesians 2:20; Ephesians 3:5), and in a way to indicate direct inspiration, this office also is to be regarded as extraordinary; any claim that it has been restored must be sustained by abundant proofs of such inspiration.

And some, evangelists. This cannot refer to the writers of the Gospels, but to such persons as Philip (comp. Acts 8:4-12 with Acts 21:8). They seem to have been travelling missionaries, not ‘vicars of the Apostles,' such as Timothy and Titus (as Calvin held). There is no evidence that this office required gifts which are no longer bestowed, and it may be regarded as permanent. But this does not imply a distinct class, or order, of the ministry. The Apostle seems to have avoided the use of the technical terms then applied in the churches. How such ‘evangelists' can be recognized and regulated in their labors is a practical question of Church polity, especially since many are thus termed who present little evidence of having been given for this office.

And some, pastors and teachers. These terms are properly understood of those who labor in some special field, committed to their care and instruction. The only question is, whether two classes are meant, or only one, the two-fold duty of which is thus indicated. The latter view is favored by the fact that ‘some ‘is not repeated, and is held by a majority of commentators. Calvin maintained the former, and the distinction has usually been recognized in the Reformed Church, though practically disregarded. When Paul wrote the ‘pastors' were ‘bishops,' or ‘elders,' and probably were always ‘teachers' also; it is not so clear that the ‘teachers' were always ‘pastors.' It is further probable that there were already differences of organization among the Christian congregations, so that whatever distinction is here implied need not be regarded as pointing to a permanent one. In this most ‘churchly' Epistle there is little support for any claims to a jure divino form of Church polity. ‘The Apostle says nothing of the modes of human appointment or ordination to these various offices. He descends not to law, order, or form, but his great thought is that though the ascended Lord gave such gifts to men, yet their variety and number interfere not with the unity of the Church' (Eadie).