Ephesians 2:20

The aorist passive indicates a completed action in the past. The church has already been built upon this foundation. It is not an ongoing process of 'being built' in the sense that the foundation is being laid repeatedly, but that the action of laying the foundation has already occurred. The church is built *upon* something already established.

A 'foundation' is the initial and essential part of a building, laid once. Once the foundation is laid, construction continues upon it, but the foundation itself is not repeated or modified. This reinforces the idea of a unique and already established base for the church.

The identity of these 'prophets' has been debated: are they Old Testament prophets (who foretold Christ and the church) or New Testament prophets (who received foundational revelation alongside the apostles)? Most commentators agree that it refers to New Testament prophets who, along with the apostles, received direct revelation from God to establish the initial doctrine and structure of the church. The crucial point is that their role was *foundational*, meaning unique and not repeatable in the same sense.

The 'cornerstone' is the most important stone in construction, joining two walls and establishing the alignment of the entire building. The phrase 'Jesus Christ himself' emphasizes his uniqueness and supremacy. He is not part of the foundation in the same sense as the apostles and prophets, but rather he is *the* supreme and unifying foundation upon which everything else is built and aligned. This underscores that the ultimate authority and cohesion of the church reside in Christ.

Patristic

The Church Fathers interpreted 'apostles and prophets' in Ephesians 2:20 as the historical and unique depositaries of divine revelation, who constituted the unrepeatable foundation of the Church. Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 130-202), in his Adversus Haereses (III,1-4; PG 7, 844-855), stressed that apostolic truth, transmitted through the 'rule of faith' and safeguarded by episcopal succession in the churches founded by the apostles, was the normative criterion against any heresy; for him, departing from that apostolic foundation was equivalent to departing from Christ himself. Tertullian (c. 155-220), in his De Praescriptione Haereticorum (chs. 20-21; PL 2, 31-33), developed the 'prescription' argument: only churches with direct apostolic origin can legitimately invoke the original teaching, precisely because that foundation was laid once and for all by the apostles and cannot be reproduced or extended with equal authority. John Chrysostom (347-407), in his Homily IV on the Epistle to the Ephesians (PG 62, 35-40), explicitly commented on Eph 2:20, noting that the apostles and prophets are the foundation insofar as they are transmitters of the doctrine of Christ, the cornerstone; the edifice of the Church is built upon their teaching, not upon new revelations or new foundational apostles. Taken together, the Fathers did not envision a continuation of the apostolic office in its foundational and revelatory dimension: they clearly distinguished between the unique authority of the historical apostles and the pastoral-episcopal function of their successors, who received and guarded the apostolic deposit without adding to it.

Reformed

The Reformed tradition, following Calvin, interprets 'apostles and prophets' as those unique individuals who were divinely commissioned to establish the church and receive the revelation that forms the basis of Scripture (the canon). The foundation is, therefore, the apostolic and prophetic doctrine contained in the Bible. This foundation is immutable and not repeatable. The church's authority today derives from faithful adherence to this already established foundation, not from new apostles or prophets. Calvin, in his Commentaries on Ephesians, emphasizes that the church is 'founded on the doctrine of the apostles and prophets,' with Christ being the 'cornerstone' that holds everything together.

Interpretive tension: Within the Reformed system, tension can arise in differentiating between the foundational 'prophets' of Ephesians 2:20 and the gift of prophecy mentioned in other passages (e.g., 1 Cor 14). While the continuity of spiritual gifts is recognized, it is insisted that the contemporary gift of prophecy does not have foundational or canonical authority, which requires careful exegetical and theological distinction to avoid confusion with the foundational function of the prophets in Ephesians 2:20.

Arminian

The Arminian tradition, exemplified by Wesley, also holds that the church's foundation was laid by the apostles and prophets in the early church era, and that this foundation is apostolic doctrine. Wesley, in his Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, interprets 'apostles and prophets' as those who received direct revelation and laid the groundwork for the Christian faith. Although the Arminian tradition is more open to the continuation of charismatic gifts, including prophecy, the distinction is maintained between the unique foundational function of the New Testament apostles and prophets and the exercise of spiritual gifts in the contemporary church, which do not have the same authority to establish doctrine or modify the foundation.

Interpretive tension: Tension in the Arminian system can arise in balancing the belief in the continuation of prophetic gifts with the affirmation that the apostolic-prophetic foundation is completed. The distinction between 'foundational' prophecy and 'edifying' prophecy (which does not add to doctrine) is crucial, but the line can be blurred in practice, sometimes leading to an overvaluation of 'prophetic words' that could, unintentionally, erode the sufficiency of Scripture as the sole foundation.

Contemporary

Contemporary scholars like F.F. Bruce, Andrew T. Lincoln, and Harold Hoehner, in their commentaries on Ephesians, generally hold that 'apostles and prophets' refer to those who were divinely inspired to establish the early church and its doctrine, their work being a historical and completed foundation. N.T. Wright emphasizes the continuity of salvation history, where the apostolic foundation is the culmination of Israel's history and the beginning of new creation. In contrast, the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) movement interprets this verse as a justification for the restoration of the offices of apostles and prophets with foundational and revelatory authority for the church today, arguing that the church needs a continuous foundation to grow and achieve its ultimate purpose. This reading is a significant departure from the historical and grammatical interpretation of the text.