1.2 Eph_4:11

IN Ephesians 4:11 the apostle Paul tells his audience that the glorified Messiah has bestowed on the church gifted men. These men are described as "apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers." The construction in Greek is tou>j me>n a]posto<louj, tou>j de> profh<taj, tou>j se> eu]aggelista<j, tou>j de> poime<naj kai> didaska<louj. Expositors have long noted that there is no article preceding didaska<louj, which has raised the question: are the teachers to be identified with the pastors or are pastors and teachers two distinct groups? Grammatically speaking the question is: does the article before poime<naj govern both poime<naj and didaska<louj and if so, in what way (i.e., does it unite them loosely, make them identical, etc.)? Expositors have come down on both sides of the fence, though few have seriously investigated the syntax of the construction as a major key to the solution.¹ This ¹ Among the modern commentators, almost all are agreed that one group is seen in this construction (but cf. G. H. P. Thompson, The Letters of Paul to the Ephesians. to the Colossians and to Philemon [CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1969], 69; and C. J. Ellicott, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians [Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1885], 94. Thompson simply asserts that
60 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL passage is perhaps the best known text in the NT which involves the article-noun-kai<-noun plural construction. A proper understanding of the grammar involved may help to solve this exegetical and ec- clesiological problem. But Ephesians 4:11 is not the only debatable passage involving this construction. Just within Ephesians we may also note 1:1, which uses substantival adjectives (toi?j a[gi<oj . . . kai> pistoi?j e]n Xrist&?

]Ihsou?). The question here would be: are the saints to be identified with the faithful in Christ Jesus? Although we would want to argue this theologically, is there in fact grammatical evidence on our side? In 2:20 and 3:5 this construction is used of the apostles and prophets (tw?n a]posto<lwn kai> profhtw?n in 2:20 and toi?j a[gi<oij a]posto<loij au]tou? kai> profh<taij in 3:5). Are these two groups identical? Or, if not, is the foundation of the church built upon the NT apostles and OT prophets (2:20)? Has the mystery of Christ been revealed to OT prophets (3:5)? These are pertinent questions theologically which the syntax of this construction may help to resolve.

"teachers were holders of another office" without giving any evidence. Ellicott argues solely from scanty lexical evidence). Yet those who affirm that one group is identified by the phrase have little syntactical evidence on their side as well. H. Alford (The Greek Testament, vol. 3: Galatians-Philemon, rev. by E. F. Harrison [Chicago: Moody 1958]) argues that "from these latter not being distinguished from the pastors by the tou>j de<, it would seem that the two offices were held by the same persons" (p. 117). But he gives no cross-references nor does he demonstrate that this is the normal usage of the plural construction. B. F. Westcott (Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians [New York: Macmillan, 1906]) argues for one class "not from a necessary combination of the two functions but from their connexion with a congregation" (p. 62). C. Hodge (A Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1856]) boldly states that "The absence of the article before didaska<louj proves that the apostle intended to designate the same persons as at once pastors and teachers [italics added]" (p. 226). But then he curiously backs off from such grammatical dogma by adding that "It is true the article is at times omitted between two substantives referring to different classes. . ." (p. 227), citing Mark 15:1 as evidence. Finally, he reverts to his initial certitude by concluding, "But in such an enumeration as that contained in this verse. . . the laws of language require tou>j de> didaska<louj, had the apostle intended to distinguish the dida<sklaoi from the poime<nej [italics added]"

(ibid.). No evidence is given to support this contention. It is significant, in fact, that of the commentaries surveyed, only Hodge mentioned any other text in which the plural construction occurred--a text which would not support his conclusions! Eadie, Abbott, Salmond, Lenski, Hendriksen, Erdman, Barclay, Wuest, and Barth also see the two terms referring to one group, though their arguments are either not based on syntax or make unwarranted and faulty assumptions about the syntax. Some would insist that the article-noun-kai<-noun plural construction requires that the second group is to be identified with the first, but such a dogmatic position must be abandoned in light of such passages as Matthew 16:1 ("the Pharisees and Sadducees") and Acts 17:12 ("the. . . women. . . and men")! A careful and exhaustive investigation of this phenomenon is therefore necessary if we wish to understand clearly the relation of pastors and teachers in Ephesians 4:11.
THE ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI’-NOUN PLURAL CONSTRUCTION 61 Outside of Ephesians there are several debatable passages which involve this construction as well. For example, we read of "the tax- collectors and sinners" in Matthew 9:11, "the lawyers and Pharisees" in Luke 14:3, and "the apostles and elders" in Acts 15:2. These are but a handful of the plural constructions in the NT, though they are certainly among the more significant. The exegetical and theological significance of this construction is difficult to overestimate. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to investigate the semantic range (and, consequently, the exegetical significance) of the article-noun- kai<-noun plural construction in the NT. I will restrict the discussion to constructions in which the plurals refer to persons and, at the same time, expand the discussion to include all substantives under the title "noun." In order to establish a proper framework for the semantics of this construction in the NT, we must first look at the work of Granville Sharp, then discuss the misunderstanding of his first rule with reference to the plural, and finally suggest a proper semantic grid for the construction.