========================================================================
  THE SEMANTIC RANGE OF THE ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI-NOUN PLURAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
  by Daniel B. Wallace
========================================================================

Daniel Wallace's scholarly article examining Granville Sharp's rule of Greek
grammar regarding article-noun constructions and its theological implications
for affirming Christ's deity.

  Chapters: 6

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. 1.2 Eph_4:11
    2. 1.3 THE WORK OF GRANVILLE SHARP
    3. 1.4 THE MISUNDERSTANDING
    4. 1.5 A PROPER SEMANTIC GRID
    5. 1.6 THE PHENOMENON
    6. 1.7 CONCLUSION

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: 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.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: 1.3 THE WORK OF GRANVILLE SHARP
========================================================================

THE WORK OF GRANVILLE SHARP Granville Sharp (1735-1813) was an English
philanthropist and abolitionist. He was a student of the Scriptures, although he
was not a clergyman. He believed strongly in the verbal inspiration of the Bible
and in the deity of Jesus Christ. His strong belief in Christ’s deity led him to
study the Scriptures in the original in order to defend more ably that precious
truth. Through this motivation he became a good linguist, able to handle
accurately both the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture. One of his
publications, written before he dis- covered his "rule," was a defense of the
view that "Jehovah" (YHWH) of the OT referred, at times, to each person of the
Trinity. As he studied the Scriptures in the original, he noticed a certain
pattern, namely, when the construction article-noun- kai<-noun involved per-
sonal nouns which were singular and not proper names, they always referred to
the same person. He noticed further that this rule applied in several texts to
the deity of Jesus Christ. So in 1798 he published a lengthy volume entitled,
Remarks on the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament:
Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, from Passages Which Are
Wrongly Translated in the Common English Version [KJV]. The volume went through
four editions (three British and one American).2 2 The contents of this
paragraph are from C. Kuehne, "The Greek Article and the Doctrine of Christ’s
Deity," Journal of Theology 13 (September, 1973) 15-18.

62GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL In this work Sharp articulated six rules, though
what has com- monly become known as "Sharp’s Rule" is the first of these. Sharp
articulated this rule as follows: When the copulative kai< connects two nouns of
the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of
personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and
attri- butes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article o[, 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: i.e.
it denotes a farther description of the first-named person. . .3 To put this
simply, in the construction article-noun- kai<-noun, four requirements must be
met if the two nouns refer to the same person: (1) both nouns must, of course,
be personal; (2) both nouns must be common nouns, i.e., not proper names; (3)
both nouns must be in the same case; and (4) both nouns must be singular in
number.

Although many today have argued against the validity of this rule, no one has
demonstrated its invalidity in the NT.4 The implications of 3 Granville Sharp,
Remarks on the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament:
Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, from Passages Which Are
Wrongly Translated in the Common English Version, 1st American edition
(Philadelphia: B. B. Hopkins, 1807), 3.

4 The best modern defense of the validity of Sharp’s rule that I have seen is a
seven- part series in the Journal of Theology by C. Kuehne ("The Greek Article
and the Doctrine of Christ’s Deity" in JT 13 [September, 1973] 12-28; 13
[December 1973] 14-30; 14 [March 1974] 11-20; 14 [June, 1974] 16-25; 14
[September, 1974] 21-33; 14 [December, 1974] 8-19; 15 [March, 1975] 8-22).
Unfortunately, this journal apparently has such a limited circulation that this
superb series has hardly been noticed. It may be added here that the primary
reason evangelicals have been hesitant to adopt the validity of this rule is the
anti-Trinitarian bias of last century’s greatest grammarian of NT Greek, G. B.
Winer. A. T. Robertson vividly points out Winer’s influence: A strange timidity
seized some of the translators in the Jerusalem Chamber that is reproduced by
the American Committee. There is no hesitation in translating John i.l as the
text has it. Why boggle over 2 Peter i.1? The explanation is to be found in
Winer’s Grammar (Thayer’s Edition, p. 130; W. F. Moulton’s (p. 162), where the
author seeks by indirection to break the force of Granville Sharp’s rule by
saying that in 2 Peter i. 1 "there is not even a pronoun with swth?roj." That is
true, but it is quite beside the point.

There is no pronoun with swth?roj in 2 Peter i. 11, precisely the same idiom,
where no one doubts the identity of "Lord and Saviour." Why refuse to apply the
same rule to 2 Peter i. 1, that all admit, Winer included, to be true of 2 Peter
i. 11? . . . The simple truth is that Winer’s anti-Trinitarian prejudice
overruled his grammatical rectitude in his remark about 2 Peter i. 1.

. . . It is plain, therefore, that Winer has exerted a pernicious influence,
from the grammatical standpoint, on the interpretation of 2 Peter i. 1, and
Titus ii. 13. THE ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI’-NOUN PLURAL CONSTRUCTION 63 this rule for
the deity of Christ in passages such as Titus 2:13 (tou? mega<lou qeou? kai>
swth?roj h[mw?n Xristou? ]Ihshou?) and 2 Peter 1:1 (tou? qeou? h[mw?n kai>
swth?roj ]Ihsou? Xristou?) are, to say the least, rather significant.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: 1.4 THE MISUNDERSTANDING
========================================================================

THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF SHARP’S RULE WITH REFERENCE TO THE PLURAL Considered to
be Legitimately Applied to the Plural by Some As we have already seen by
surveying some commentaries on Ephesians 4:11, several commentators assumed that
the article-noun- kai<- noun plural construction identified the second noun with
the first just as the singular construction did.5 Wuest articulates this
assumption most clearly: "The words ’pastors’ and ’teachers’ are in a
construction called Granvill [sic] Sharp’s rule which indicates that they refer
to one individual.”6 How has such an assumption arisen? On this we can only
conjecture, but it is possibly due to (1) the lack of clarity by Sharp himself
in stating his first rule and (2) a continued ambiguity in the grammars. As we
saw earlier, Sharp does not clearly state that his rule is applicable only in
the singular. Such a conclusion may be at best only inferred via an argument
from silence (i.e., in stating that "the latter always relates to the same
person. . . i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person,”17
Sharp only refers to the singular). However, a perusal of his monograph reveals
that he insisted on the singular in order for the rule to apply absolutely.8 The
grammars have perpetuated this ambiguity. Some, of course, have dogmatically
stated (and without sufficient evidence) that the rule Scholars who believed in
the Deity of Christ have not wished to claim too much and to fly in the face of
Winer, the great grammarian, for three generations. But Winer did not make out a
sound case against Sharp’s principle as applied to 2 Peter i. 1 and Titus ii.
13. Sharp stands vindicated after all the dust has settled.

(A. T. Robertson, "The Greek Article and the Deity of Christ," The Expositor,
8th Series, vol. 21 [1921] 185, 187.) 5 See n. 1 for a survey of these
commentaries.

6 K. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament Ephesians and
Colossians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 101.

7 G. Sharp, Remarks, 3.

8 On pp. 5-6 Sharp points out that . . . there is no exception or instance of
the like mode of expression, that I know of, which necessarily requires a
construction different from what is here laid down, EXCEPT the nouns be proper
names, or in the plural number; in which cases there are many exceptions. . . .

64 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL does not even apply in the singular.9 Others have
sided with Sharp, but apparently have neglected his requirement that the
construction be in the singular, or else their discussion is vague enough to be
misleading.10 Robertson stands apart as having the most lengthy 9 E.g., W. H.
Simcox (The Language of the New Testament [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1890])
declares: ". . . in Tit. ii. 13, 2 Peter i. 1, we regard qeou? and swth?roj as
indicating two Persons, though only the former word has the article" (p. 50). G.
B.

Winer (A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, trans. and rev. by W.
F.

Moulton, 3rd ed., rev. [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1882]), as was mentioned in n.
4, allowed his theological bias to override the plain evidence from the syntax
governed by Sharp’s Rule: In Tit. ii. 13. . . considerations derived from Paul’s
system of doctrine lead me to believe that swth?roj is not a second predicate,
co-ordinate with qeou? . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[In n. 2 at the bottom of the same page:] In the above remarks it was not my
intention to deny that, in point of grammar, swth?roj h[mw?n may be regarded as
a second predicate, jointly depending on the article tou?; but the dogmatic
conviction derived from Paul’s writings that this apostle cannot have called
Christ the great God induced me to show that there is no grammatical obstacle to
our taking the clause kai> swt . . . Xristou? by itself, as referring to a
second subject (p. 162).

J. H. Moulton (A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 1: Prolegomena, 3rd ed.

[Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908]) is strongly influenced by Winer’s comment on
Titus 2:13, reading it as though borne from a sober grammatical judgment: "We
cannot discuss here the problem of Titus 213, for we must as grammarians, leave
the matter open: see WM 162, 156n [italics added]" (p. 84). But his own
Trinitarian persuasion comes through as he cites evidence from the papyri that
the phrase found in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 was used of one person, the
emperor (ibid.). Finally, M. Zerwick (Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples
[Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963]) states that the rule is only
suggestive, "since the unity of article would be sufficiently accounted for by
any conjunction, in the writer’s mind, of the notions expressed" (p. 60).

10 E.g., L. Radermacher (Neutestamentliche Grammatik, 2nd ed. [Tubingen: J. C.

B. Mohr, 1925]) makes an ambiguous statement: "Wenn mehrere Substantiva in der
Auflahlung miteinander verbunden werden, gentigt oft der Artikel beim ersten
Wort und zwar nicht allein bei gleichem Genus" (p. 115), citing ta? e]nta<lmata
kai> didaskali<aj (Colossians 2:22) as evidence. He goes on to say that the same
phenomenon occurs in hellenistic Greek, citing o[ h!lioj kai> selh<nh as an
example (ibid.). His two examples are both impersonal, one being singular and
the other plural. A case could be made for the first example expressing
identity, but certainly not the second. W. D.

Chamberlain (An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament [New York:

Macmillan, 1941]) seems to have a clear understanding as to when the rule
applies and when it does not, but he does not clearly articulate this to the
reader (p. 55). F. Blass and A. Debrunner (A Greek Grammar of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian literature, trans. and rev. by R. W. Funk [Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1961]) seem to support the rule in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter
1:1, but also apply it to proper, impersonal names (p. 145)! They make no
comment about the plural. C. F. D. Moule (An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek,
2nd ed. [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1959]) has a sober treatment of the
rule, seeing its application in the singular and questioning it in the plural
(pp. 109-10). But he sides with Radermacher by allowing it THE
ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI’-NOUN PLURAL CONSTRUCTION 65 discussion of the article-noun-
kai<-noun construction though he con- siders the impersonal construction to fit
the rule and the plural construction to specify two distinct groups.11 Improper
Semantic Approach by Others More recently, a few have recognized that the rule
applies absolutely only to singular nouns.12 Their articulations as to when the
with impersonal nouns. N. Turner (A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3:

Syntax, by N. Turner [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963] and Grammatical Insights
into the New Testament [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965]) seems to vacillate in
his. discussion, for he apparently allows the rule to stand with the singular
nouns (Syntax, 181; Insights, 15-16), but also applies it to the plural at his
discretion (Syntax, 181).

Thus he speaks of a "unified whole" with reference to Ephesians 2:20, Luke 22:4,
and Acts 15:2, but then declares that this same construction may "indeed
indicate that two distinct subjects are involved [italics mine]" (ibid.), citing
the common phrase oi[ Farisai?oi kai> Saddoukai?oi as an illustration. It is
doubtful that the construction indicates two antithetical ideas; it is rather
better to say that it allows for this. J. H.

Greenlee (A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. [Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963]) is very unclear when he applies the rule to impersonal
constructions (Ephesians 3:18) and plurals (John 7:45) (p. 50). C. Vaughan and
V. E. Gideon (A Greek Grammar of the New Testament [Nashville: Broadman, 1979])
apply the rule to both impersonal and personal constructions, making no comment
about the plurals (p. 83). They do note, however, that there are exceptions with
the impersonal constructions (ibid., n. 8). Finally, J. A. Brooks and C. L.
Winberry (Syntax of New Testament Greek [Washington: University Press of
America, 1979]) apply the rule to personal, impersonal, and plural constructions
explicitly (pp. 70-71). It is no wonder, therefore, that the exegetes have
misread the semantic range of the plural construction since the grammarians have
almost universally failed to restrict the application of the rule to the
singular or have been so vague as to speak only of some kind of unity (whether a
loose tie or apposition) with reference to the plural.

11 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of
Historical Research, 4th ed. (Nashville: Broad man, 1934), 785-89.

12 E. A. Blum ("Studies in Problem Areas of the Greek Article" [Th.M. thesis,
Dallas Theological Seminary, 1961]) declares with reference to Sharp’s first
rule

(p. 29):

Since he is talking about nouns of personal description, Wuest was wrong in
applying the rule to Acts 2:23 [t^? . . . boul^? kai> prognw<sei]. Since he
limits his rule to the singular, it is wrong to apply the rule to the "pastors
and teachers" of

Ephesians 4:11.

Kuehne is in full agreement, observing that Sharp "specifically excluded plural
personal nouns and proper names from the rule" (JT 13 [December, 1973] 17). A.
M.

Malphurs ("The Relationship of Pastors and Teachers in Ephesians 4:11" [Th.M.
thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1978]) concurs: "Therefore, Sharp states
that plural nouns as well as proper names are an exception to his rule because
some examples in the Scriptures seem to agree with the rule while others
contradict it"

(p. 23). R. D. Durham ("Granville Sharp’s Rule" [unpublished paper, Grace Theo-
logical Seminary, 1972]) acknowledges the exceptions to the rule of the plural
and proper names, but thinks that Sharp meant to include impersonal nouns as
meeting the 66 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL rule does and does not apply are,
therefore, among the clearest presentations I have seen. However, when they
examine the plural construction, their semantic approach is inadequate in that
the only question they raise is: are the two groups identical or distinct?13
Such a question for the singular, personal construction is entirely adequate:
either the first-named person is identical with the second-named person or he is
distinct. But the very nature of a plural construction demands that several
other questions be asked if we are to see with precision its semantic range
(i.e., since the plural construction deals with groups, there may be other
possibilities besides absolute distinc- tion and absolute identity). Thus,
although the most recent treatments of the article-noun- kai<-noun plural
construction are accurate in absolutely applying Sharp’s rule only to the
singular, they are never- theless inadequate in only raising the same question
they asked of the singular construction.14 requirements of his first rule (p.
7). Finally, G. W. Rider ("An Investigation of the Granville Sharp Phenomenon
and Plurals" [Th.M. thesis, Grace Theological Seminary, 1980]) sides with Durham
in treating plurals and proper names as exceptions, but impersonal nouns as
fitting the rule (pp. 23-25). Thus all five of the most recent treatments on the
article-noun- kai<-noun construction acknowledge that Sharp in- tended to
exclude plurals and proper names from consideration. However, Durham and Rider
believe that Sharp did not exclude impersonal constructions. Although this point
is ancillary to the subject of this paper, I believe that Durham and Rider have
misread Sharp, for Sharp explicitly states that he accepts the impersonal
constructions as fitting the second, third, fifth, and sixth rules, but not the
first or fourth (Remarks, 120; cf. also pp. 140-42 in which Sharp refutes a
certain Mr. Blunt for bringing in impersonal constructions as exceptions to the
rule). It may be added here that there has been quite a bit of confusion and
misunderstanding by some over the application of the impersonal construction to
Sharp’s first rule. For example, some see the rule applying in Ephesians 3:18
(to> pla<toj kai> mh?koj kai> u!yoj kai> ba<qoj) because the four terms of
measurement all refer to God’s love. Although this is true, the four terms are
not identical with each other. Such would have to be the case if Sharp’s rule
were to apply here. Cf. also Revelation 1:9; Revelation 5:12 for very clear
references where the impersonal construction does not fit the rule.

13 Blum, "Problem Areas," pp. 26-27 (Blum is not to be faulted, however, since
the plural construction is entirely ancillary to the point of his thesis);
Kuehne (JT 13 [December, 1973]) has a lengthy discussion on the plural
construction, though he deals with it under only two semantic grids: identical
vs. distinct groups (pp. 18-21);

Malphurs ("Pastors and Teachers") follows the same scheme as Kuehne (pp. 24-29),
neglecting any semantic nuances besides distinction and identity; Durham
("Sharp’s Rule") attempts to make all plural constructions fit the rule, even
though he recognizes that Sharp considered the plurals as a clear exception (pp.
31-34). It seems to me that Durham’s error is that he does not distinguish unity
from identity (cf. the comments in n. 12 with reference to impersonal
constructions); finally, Rider ("The Granville Sharp Phenomenon and Plurals")
deals only with the question of distinction vs. identity, even though his thesis
is specifically on the plural phenomenon (pp. 41-78, 79-96).

14 This is completely understandable because (1) when those who have studied
Sharp’s rule finally turn to the plural construction, the question foremost in
their minds most naturally is: does the plural construction fit the rule or not?
Thus by their THE ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI’-NOUN PLURAL CONSTRUCTION 67


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: 1.5 A PROPER SEMANTIC GRID
========================================================================

A PROPER SEMANTIC GRID As was mentioned in the preceding section, the only
question that has been raised with reference to the semantics of the article-
noun-kai<-noun plural construction is: are the two groups identical or distinct?
A proper semantic grid should see this question as ad- dressing the outer
limits, the black and white of the semantics of the plural construction.
However, there are various shades of gray which also need to be explored. The
approach in this section is to layout in chart form the antecedently possible
semantic range of the plural construction. Then, in the final section, the
plural construction in the NT will be investigated briefly to see what the
actual semantic range is.

Two Entirely Distinct Groups, Though United The grammars are agreed that even
when two entirely distinct groups are in view, the fact that the article
precedes only the first- named group indicates that they are united somehow.
Thus, by way of illustration,15 in the clause, "The Democrats and Republicans
approved the bill unanimously," the two political parties, though distinct, are
united on a particular issue. Illustrations of this kind are numerous, e.g.,
"the mothers and children," "the fathers and daugh- ters," "the coaches and
athletes," etc. This particular semantic nuance is diagrammed in Chart 1.16 Two
Overlapping Groups It is theoretically possible that the plural construction in
the NT could refer to two overlapping groups. That is, some members of the
first-named group could belong to the second-named group and vice- versa. The
idea of this nuance would probably be expressed in modem English by "The X
and/or Y" and vice-versa. We could preoccupation with this very question, they
lock themselves into a binary system which does not allow them to see other
alternatives; and (2) as James Barr laments in his The Semantics of Biblical
Language (Oxford: Oxford University, 1961), most theological students (myself
included) rarely have any substantial training in modem linguistics (pp.
288-96). Since this is the case, we should not necessarily expect that those who
have been trained in theology as a prior discipline should be able to ask all
the right linguistic questions of the article-noun-kai<-noun plural
construction.

15 In this and the following sections, English illustrations will be used only
to demonstrate, via analogy, that a particular semantic nuance is possible. I am
not implying by such illustrations that the English idiom is identical with the
Greek.

16 In this and the following charts, the definite article before the first noun
and the kai< between the two nouns are omitted because these charts are intended
to depict the semantics, not the structure, of the article-noun-kai<-noun plural
construction. It is assumed that the reader is well acquainted with the
structure under consideration.

68 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

Chart I illustrate this with such phrases as "the student council members and
football players," "the blind and elderly," "the scientists and Chris- tians,"
"the healthy and wealthy and wise," "the poor and miserable."

It is possible in each of these constructions that some overlap could take
place, given a particular context. This particular semantic nuance is diagrammed
in Chart 2.

Chart 2 First Group Sub-Set of Second The third possibility is that the
first-named group is a sub-set of the second, i.e., it is entirely included with
the second-named group. The idea then would be "The X and [ other] Y. " Thus, by
way of illustration, one could speak of "the angels and created beings, " "the
southern Baptists and evangelicals," "the deaf and handicapped," "the saints and
sinners." This particular semantic nuance is diagrammed in

Chart 3.

Second Group Sub-Set of First The fourth possibility is that the second-named
group is a sub-set of the first. The idea then would be "The X and [in
particular] Y." This could be illustrated with such phrases as "the created
beings and THE ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI’-NOUN PLURAL CONSTRUCTION 69

Chart 3 angels," "the handicapped and deaf," "the teachers and professors," etc.
This particular semantic nuance is diagrammed in Chart 4.

Chart 4 Two Groups Identical Finally, the groups may be entirely identical. The
idea may be expressed, "The X who are Y ," or "The X even Y." Thus, by way of
illustration, one could speak of "The Los Angeles Dodgers and world champions of
baseball," "the evil and wicked," "the Gentiles and outsiders," "the powerful
and mighty," etc. This particular semantic nuance is diagrammed in Chart 5.

Chart 5 70 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL As far as I can tell, these five nuances
comprise the antecedently possible semantic range of the article-noun- kai<-noun
plural con-struction. It remains to be seen whether this is the actual semantic
range in the NT.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: 1.6 THE PHENOMENON
========================================================================

THE PHENOMENON IN THE NEW TESTAMENT I have discovered 70 plural constructions in
the NT which fit the pattern article-noun- kai<-noun17 and 7 other plural
constructions which perhaps fit this pattern.18 Of these seven questionable
instances, I consider one to be legitimate,19 bringing the total to 71
constructions 17 As noted earlier in the paper, I am restricting my discussion
to personal constructions. These constructions are found in the following texts:
Matthew 2:4; Matthew 3:7; Matthew 5:6; Matthew 5:20; Matthew 9:11; Matthew
11:28; Matthew 12:38; Matthew 16:1; Matthew 16:6; Matthew 16:11-12; Matthew
16:21; Matthew 20:18; Matthew 21:12; Matthew 21:15; Matthew 26:47; Matthew 27:3;
Matthew 27:12; Matthew 27:41; Mark 2:16 (twice); 12: Matthew 15:1; Luke 5:30.
6:35. 7:32- 8:21; 9:22; 11:28; 12.4; 14:3, 21, 15:9, 18.9.

20:46; 22:4, 52; John 1:40 John 7:45; John 11:31; John 11:45; John 20:29 20:29;
Acts 15:2; Acts 16:4; Acts 17:12; Acts 23:7; Romans 16:7;

1 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 1:7; Ephesians 1:1; Ephesians
2:20; Ephesians 3:5; Ephesians 4:11; Php 3:3; 1 Thessalonians 5:12; 1 Timothy
4:3; 1 Timothy 5:8; 2 Timothy 3:6; Titus 1:15; Hebrews 5:2; 1 Peter 2:18; 2
Peter 2:10; 2 Peter 3:16; 3 John 1:5; Revelation 1:3; Revelation 11:9;
Revelation 12:17; Revelation 18:9; Revelation 21:8.

18 See Luke 1:2; Luke 10:30; Acts 8:25; Acts 9:15; Acts 17:18; Colossians 1:2;
Hebrews 6:4-6.

19 The one legitimate construction, as I see it, is in Colossians 1:2 (toi?j . .
. a[gi<oij kai> pistoi?j a]delfoi?j). Here it is possible to construe a[gi<oij
as an attributive adjective modifying a]delfoi?j (with pistoi?j being the second
attributive) rather than as a substantival adjective. However, in light of the
well worn substantival use of a!gioj in the NT generally (cf., e.g., Acts 9:13;
Acts 9:32; Romans 8:27; Romans 12:13; 1 Corinthians 6:1-2; Ephesians 2:19;
Ephesians 3:8;

Php 4:22; 1 Timothy 5:10; Hebrews 6:10), in the Pauline salutations more
particularly (cf., e.g., Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Php
1:1), and in the parallel in Ephesians especially (1:1), a[gi<oij here is
probably substantival and, consequently, fitting the article-noun- kai<-noun
plural construction. The other constructions, which I do not consider to be
legitimate, are: (I) Luke 1:2 (oi[ a]p ] a]rxh?j au]to<ptai kai> u[phre<tai
geno<menoi) involves a definite article which functions as a substantiver of the
prepositional phrase, though independently of the following nouns; (2) Luke
10:30, cited by Durham ("Sharp’s Rule," p. 34), does not use the article but the
personal pronoun oi!; (3) Acts 8:25, cited by Durham (ibid.) and Rider ("The
Granville Sharp Phenomenon and Plurals," pp. 71-72), employs the article in the
place of a personal pronoun with circumstantial participles (Oi[ me>n . . .
diamartura<menoi kai> lalh<santej); (4) in Acts 9:15, manuscripts B and C* add
the article (tw?n e]qnw?n te kai> basile<wn ui[w?n te ]Israh<l), but the
construction employs as well as kai< for its conjunctions; (5) Acts 17:18, cited
by Rider ("The Granville Sharp Phenomenon and Plurals," pp. 51-52), involves two
adjectives which are not sub- stantival, but attributive (tw?n ]Epikourei<wn
kai> Stwi*kw?n filoso<fwn); (6) Hebrews 6:4-6 involves five substantival
participles, but the second member of the group uses te instead of kai< for its
conjunction (tou>j . . . fwtisqe<ntaj, geusame<nouj te . . . kai> genhqe<ntaj .
. . kai> .. . . geusame<nouj . . . kai> parapeso<ntaj). It should be noted that
although this construction does not fit the precise construction discussed in
this paper, it is still clearly analogous to it. That is to say, all of the
participles must be governed by the article and, consequently, must be
substantival Thus the view held by some that the last participle (parapeso<ntaj)
is conditional (and therefore circumstantial) flies in the face of clear
syntactical usage (cf. J. A. Sproule, "Parapeso<ntaj in Hebrews 6:6,"

GTJ 2 [1981] 327-32). THE ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI’-NOUN PLURAL CONSTRUCTION 71 which
will form the substance of this portion of the paper. With regard to the use of
participles, adjectives, and nouns as substantives, the breakdown is as follows:
(1) 25 constructions involve participles;20 (2) 6 constructions involve
adjectives;21 (3) 17 constructions involve nouns;22 and (4) 23 constructions are
mixed.23 Semantic Classifications A well-established principle of lexical and
syntactical investiga- tion is to define the actual field of meaning by bringing
forth clear instances of a particular word or construction. Then, the ambiguous
and/or exegetically significant passages would be expected to fit into one of
the previously determined categories. The antecedent proba- bility24 that the
ambiguous text will fit into an established category is determined by the total
amount of constructions and the percentage of those which are clearly
identiftable.25 Thus, for example, if we were unable to find one clear instance
in which two nouns in an article- noun- kai<-noun plural construction were
identical, we would be on rather shaky ground to demand such an interpretation
in Ephesians 4:11 -- especially if such an interpretation were based primarily
on the syntax. Our approach here, therefore, will first be to see which of the
five antecedently possible categories have valid examples in the NT and second,
to discuss some of the ambiguous and exegetically significant examples.

20 See Matthew 5:6; Matthew 11:28; Matthew 21:12; Matthew 21:15; Mark 12:40 Luke
7:32; Luke 8:21; Luke 11:28; Luke 12:4; Luke 18:9; Luke 20:46; John 1:40 John
11:31; John 11:45; John 20:29 20:29; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 1:7; Php 3:3
(three participles);

1 Thessalonians 5:12 (three participles); 2 Timothy 3:6; Hebrews 5:2; 2 Peter
2:10; Revelation 1:3; Revelation 12:17; Revelation 18:9.

21 See Luke 6:35; Luke 14:21 (four adjectives); Ephesians 1:1; 1 Timothy 5:8; 1
Peter 2:18; 2 Peter 3:16.

22 See Matthew 2:4; Matthew 3:7; Matthew 5:20; Matthew 12:38; Matthew 16:1;
Matthew 16:6; Matthew 16:11-12; Matthew 20:18; Luke 22:4; John 7:45; Acts 17:12;
Acts 23:7; Ephesians 2:20; Ephesians 3:5; Ephesians 4:11; Revelation 11:9.

23 These may be divided into two groups: mixed constructions with participles
and mixed constructions without participles. With participles: 1 Timothy 4:3
(adjective, parti- ciple); Titus 1:15 (participle, adjective); Revelation 21:8
(adjective, adjective, participle, noun, noun, noun, noun). Without participles:
Matthew 9:11 (na); 16:21 (ann); 26:47 (na); 27:3 (na), 12 (na), 41 (na); Mark
2:16 (twice--an, na); 15:1 (an); Luke 5:30 (na); 9:22 (ann);

14:3 (an); 15:9 (an); 22:52 (nna); Acts 15:2 (na); 16:4 (na); Romans 16:7 (an);
1 Corinthians 5:10 (na); Colossians 1:2 (an); 3 John 1:5 (na).

24 By "antecedent probability" I mean the probability which has been established
by grammar alone--before other exegetical considerations enter the picture.

25 Thus, for example, if there are over 80 article-noun-kai<-noun personal,
singular constructions in the NT, and all except the few Christologically
significant ones are clear that one person is being identified by the two nouns,
then there is an extremely high antecedent probability that in Titus 2:13; 2
Peter 1:1, et al., the biblical author is referring to one person. Arguments
against such a view must be based on other than syntax, yet it is significant
that those who do argue against the view usually attempt to use syntax as the
primary weapon in their arsenal!

72 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL Validation of the Semantically Possible Categories
Two Entirely Distinct Groups, though United. I have discovered 19 clear examples
of this semantic group.26 For example, in Matthew 3:7 we read tw?n Farisai?wn
kai> Saddoukai<wn. Although the two reli- gious parties were entirely distinct,
the one article unites them in some way. This is the first mention of either
Pharisees or Sadducees in Matthew’s gospel, and it may be significant that he
presents these two parties which were historically opposed to one another27 as
united in their opposition to the Messiah’s forerunner. Matthew mentions the
Pharisees and the Sadducees together only four other times in his gospel and in
each instance the construction is article- noun-kai<-noun and the two groups are
contrasted with the Messiah.28 In Matthew 16:21 we read tw?n presbute<rwn kai>
a]rxiere<wn kai> gram- mate<wn. These were the three distinct parties which
comprised the Sanhedrin.29 (Some have erroneously insisted that this
construction fits the Granville Sharp rule because these three groups all refer
to the Sanhedrin. However, to say that A + B + C = D is not the same as saying A
= B = C, the latter equation being what the Granville Sharp rule asserts.) This
phrase, involving at least two of the three groups, occurs another eight times
in the NT.30 Apart from constructions involving the religious parties or groups
which comprised the San- hedrin (for at least one of the substantives), there is
only one clear example in which the two nouns are entirely distinct. In Acts
17:12 we see "women. . . and men" in the construction (tw?n . . . gunaikw?n . .
. kai> a]ndrw?n). Nevertheless, even though the clear examples almost
exclusively occur in set phrases, in light of such clear examples of entirely
distinct groups united by one article (accounting for 27% of all plural
constructions), the dogmatic insistence of many exegetes

26 See Matthew 2:4; Matthew 3:7; Matthew 16:1; Matthew 16:6; Matthew 16:11-12;
Matthew 16:21; Matthew 20:18; Matthew 26:47; Matthew 27:3; Matthew 27:12;
Matthew 27:41; Mark 15:1; Luke 9:22; Luke 22:4; Luke 22:52; John 7:45; Acts
17:12; Acts 23:7.

27 J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1969),265- 67. Cf. also E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age
of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135), rev. and ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M.
Black (Edinburgh:

T. & T. Clark, 1979), 2. 409-11.

28 See Matthew 16:1; Matthew 16:6; Matthew 16:11-12. See also Acts 23:7 for the
only other instance of these two groups in this construction.

29 On a]rxiereu<j, see Schrenk, "a]rxireu<j," TDNT, 3. 270-71; Jeremias,
Jerusalem, 179-80; Schurer, Jewish People, 2. 212-13; on grammateu<j, see
Jeremias, Jerusalem, 236; Schurer, Jewish People, 2. 212-13; on presbu<teroj,
see BAGD, s.v. "presbu<teroj,"

2. a. 13.; G. Bomkamm, "presbu<teroj," TDNT, 6. 659; Schurer, Jewish People,
2.212-

13.

30 See Matthew 2:4; Matthew 20:18; Matthew 26:47; Matthew 27:3; Matthew 27:12;
Matthew 27:41; Mark 15:1; Luke 9:22. On three other occasions, the chief priests
are mentioned with another group(s): Luke 22:4 (toi?j a]rxiereu?sin kai>
strathgoi?j); Luke 22:52 (tou?j . . . a]rxierei?j kai> strathgou>j . . . kai>
presbute<rouj); John 7:45 (tou>j a]rxierei?j kai> Farisai<ouj). THE
ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI’-NOUN PLURAL CONSTRUCTION 73 that this construction fits the
Granville Sharp rule does not seem to be borne out of sober reflection.

Two Overlapping Groups. I have discovered only two clear examples of this
semantic group, making it the least attested category. In Luke 14:21 we read
tou>j ptwxou>j kai> a]napei<rouj kai> tuflou>j kai> xwlou>j. It must be
remembered that although these four adjectives are not synonymous, this does not
preclude them from identifying the same group. (Otherwise it would not be
possible for a blind man to be poor!) However, it is doubtful that in this
parable the slave was told to bring only those who met all four
"qualifications"! Rather, the obvious implication is that the new guest list was
neither restricted on the one hand to those who fit only one category, nor on
the other hand to those who fit all four. Thus an overlap of categories is
obviously the nuance intended by the author. In Revelation 21:8, the most
complex article-noun-kai<-noun construction in the NT (involving seven
substantives: toi?j . . . deiloi?j kai> a[pi<stoij kai> e]bdelugme<noij kai>
foneu?sin kai> po<rnoij kai> farma<koij kai> ei]selola<traij), we have a similar
situation. Obviously, one would be committing exe- getical and theological
suicide to insist that the lake of fire is reserved only for those who meet all
of the "qualifications," or for those who meet only one requirement. These two
texts, though comprising less than 3% of all the plural constructions,
demonstrate the inadequacy of distinguishing only the entirely distinct and the
entirely identical nuances for this structural phenomenon.

First Group Sub-Set of Second. I have found seven clear in- stances of this
semantic group.31 In Matthew 5:20 (and 12:38) we read tw?n grammate<wn kai>
Farisaai<wn. Although not all scribes were Pharisees,32 when the two groups are
mentioned together the author is almost certainly indicating "the scribes and
other Pharisees.”33 31 See Matthew 5:20; Matthew 9:11; Matthew 12:38; Mark 2:16;
Luke 5:30; Luke 6:35; Luke 14:3.

32 See Jeremias, Jerusalem, 233-45, for an excellent argument against the
notions that scribes = Pharisees (i.e., identical) and that all scribes were
Pharisees (i.e., sub- set).

33 This point can be established in some measure by a comparison of the synoptic
gospels. For example, Mark 2:16 has "the scribes of the Pharisees" (oi[
grammatei?j tw?n Farisai<wn) while the parallel passage in Luke 5:30 reads "the
Pharisees and their scribes" (oi[ Farisai?oi kai> oi[ grammatei?j au]tw?n).
Although the article is used with both nouns in the Lucan account, one could
hardly argue that such indicates unity more strongly than the
article-noun-kai<-noun construction would. As well, there are three parallels in
which the Pharisees alone are mentioned in one gospel and the scribes and
Pharisees in another (cf. Matthew 12:38 with Mark 8:11; Matthew 15:1 with Luke
11:37; and Matthew 9:11 with Mark 2:16 and Luke 5:30). Although such evidence
does not prove that the scribes in these passages were Pharisees (due to the
selectivity of the evangelists--cf., e.g., Matthew 16:6 with Luke 12:2), it is
rather suggestive. Further- more, even though Jeremias insists that not all
scribes were Pharisees and that not all 74 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL Matthew
9:11 speaks of "the tax-collectors and sinners" (tw?n telwnw?n kai>
a[martwlw?n).34 Although some have argued that two distinct groups are in view
(the one Jewish, the other Gentile),35 it is far better to understand the
telw<nhj as a Jew36 and a[martwlo<j as any sinner, Jew or Gentile.37 The
impossibility of maintaining an absolute dis- tinction between the two is
demonstrated in Luke 18:13 in which a tax-collector (telw<nhj) prays, "0 God, be
merciful to me, the sinner"

(o[ qeo<j, i[la<sqhti< moi t&? a[martwl&?). In Luke 14:3 we see tou>j nomikou>j
kai> Farisai<ouj.38 The substantival adjective nomiko<j is clearly synonymous
with grammateu<j;39 thus the construction has the same semantic value as tou>j
grammatei?j kai> Farisai<ouj. Finally, note the substantival adjectives in Luke
6:35 (tou>j a]xari<stouj kai> ponhrou<j). Quite obviously, ingratitude is a kind
of evil; thus the ungrateful ones are a part of the larger group of evil ones.
In summary, although the clear examples of this semantic category comprise only
10% of all plural constructions, it is a legitimate and well-attested category
which will demand consideration in at least five exegetically significant and/or
ambiguous passages.

Second Group Sub-Set of First. I have discovered four clear examples of this
semantic category. In Mark 2:16 we read of both "the tax-collectors and sinners"
(first sub-set of second) and "the sinners and tax-collectors" (tw?n a[martwlw?n
kai> telwnw?n). However, there is some substantial textual deviation from the
word order of this phrase, with x, A, C, families 1 and 13, and the Byzantine
cursives, et al., reading tw?n telwnw?n kai> a[martwlw?n. In 1 Corinthians 5:10
we see toi?j pleone<ktaij kai> a!rpacin. Although one could be greedy
(pleone<kthj) without being branded as a swindler (a!rpac), it is doubtful that
the reverse could be true. What alters the picture, Pharisees were scribes
(Jerusalem, 233-45), he nevertheless recognizes that most scribes were Pharisees
(p. 243) and that "This expression [’the scribes and Pharisees’] shows that
besides the leaders who were scribes, the great majority of members had not had
a scribal education" (p. 258). The joining of the two nouns, then (whether with
one article or two), is clearly used to indicate Pharisaic scribes and other
Pharisees.

34 Cf. Mark 2:16 and Luke 5:30 for parallel accounts, both of which have the
same construction as is found in Matthew 9:11.

35 See, e.g., G. W. Rider, "The Granville Sharp Phenomenon and Plurals," 42-44.

36 See BAGD, S.v. "’telw<nhj."

37 See BAGD, S.v. "a[martwlo<j" 2. That a[martwlo<j was applied both to Jew and
Gentile can be easily substantiated. With reference to Gentiles, cf., e.g.,
Matthew 26:45 with Luke 18:32. With reference to both, cf., e.g., Matthew 9:13.
With reference to Jews, cf., e.g., Luke 7:37 with John 12:3; Luke 13:1.

38 See Mark 2:16 and Luke 5:30 for the other two examples of this particular
phrase.

39 Note the parallels: Matthew 22:35 (nomiko<j) with Mark 12:28 (ei$j tw?n
grammate<wn);

Matthew 23:13 (grammatei?j) with Luke 11:52 (nomikoi?j) and 11:53 (oi[
grammatei?j).

Cf. also the comments by Gutbrod, TDNT, 4. 1088, and Jeremias, Jerusalem,
254-55. THE ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI’-NOUN PLURAL CONSTRUCTION 75 however, is that h@ is
found instead of kai< in P46, x2, D2, Y, and the Byzantine minuscules, et al.,
nullifying the construction in a large portion of the Greek witnesses to this
text. In 1 Timothy 5:8 Paul adds an adverb to clarify the relation between the
two substantives (tw?n i]di<wn kai> ma<lista oi]kei<wn), though again the MSS
are divided with C, D1, and the Byzantine cursives containing a second article
(thus, tw?n i]di<wn kai> ma<lista tw?n oi]kei<wn. Finally, in 3 John 1:5 we read
ei]j tw?n a]delfou>j kai> tou?to ce<nouj. Here kai> tou?to functions
adverbially, having a similar force to kai> ma<lista in 1 Timothy 5:8.40 But the
construction (as we might have expected!) is altered in some of the witnesses
(in particular, P and the Byzantine cursives which have ei]j tou>j instead of
tou?to). Thus, although there are four clear passages in this semantic group
(comprising almost 6% of all the plural constructions), their testimony in each
instance is rendered somewhat less certain due to the textual variants. One
might wonder, with some justification, whether the "preferred" readings have
created an idiom which is foreign to the NT while these variae lectiones have
preserved the true text.41 Two Groups Identical. I have discovered 28 clear
examples of this semantic group.42 In Revelation 1:3 we read that "those who
hear and who keep" (oi[ a]kou<ontej . . . kai> throu?ntej) the words of the
prophecy are blessed. It would seem obvious that the one who only hears the
Scripture read and does not obey it would fall short of the blessing.43 The
two-fold response of hearing and keeping is necessary if one is to be counted
among the maka<rioi. In John 1:40 we read of Andrew who was one of the two men
who heard John and who began to follow the Lord (tw?n a]kousa<ntwn . . . kai>
a]kolouqhsa<ntwn). If only two men are mentioned (du<o) and the participles are
in the plural, then both must have heard and followed. In John 20:29 the Lord
promises a particular blessing to "those who do not see and [yet] believe" (oi[
mh> i]do<ntej kai> pisteu<santej). The negative qualifi- cation of not seeing
the risen Lord is, of course, insufficient of itself 40 See BAGD, s.v. "ou$toj,"
I. b. y. Romans 13:11; l Cor 6:6,8; and Ephesians 2:8 are cited as illustrative
references.

41 It might be significant that the Byzantine minuscules were the only MSS to
deviate in all instances. The possible significance is certainly worth pursuing,
though it is beyond the scope of this paper.

42 See Matthew 5:6; Matthew 11:28; Matthew 21:15; Mark 12:40 Luke 7:32; Luke
8:21; Luke 11:28; Luke 12:4; Luke 18:9; Luke 20:46;

John 1:40 John 11:31; John 11:45; John 20:29 20:29; Romans 16:7; 2 Corinthians
12:21; Galatians 1:7; Ephesians 1:1; Php 3:3; Col l:2;

1 Thessalonians 5:12; 2 Timothy 3:6; Titus 1:15; 1 Peter 2:18; 2 Peter 2:10;
Revelation 1:3; Revelation 12:17; Revelation 18:9.

43 Such a conclusion is so obvious in fact that most commentaries on the Apoca-
lypse assume it to be true without any grammatical defense. Furthermore, if John
were to pronounce a blessing on mere hearers, he would be contradicting James’
pointed remark that the man who simply hears is self-deluded (James 1:22). Both
James and John are no doubt repeating their Lord’s statements to the same effect
(cf. Luke 8:21; Luke 11:28).

76 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL to procure such a blessing. What we have seen thus
far are a few examples of this semantic group which involve only participles.

Altogether, 23 of the 28 constructions belonging to this category involve only
participles.44 The participial constructions are in fact so transparent in their
semantic force that Rider believes that every exclusively participial
construction belongs to this semantic group,45 even though he does not see any
clear examples of identity in non- participial constructions.46 Although some
adjustment should be made to Rider’s view, it is an indisputed and rather
significant fact that most (if not all) of the wholly participial constructions
do follow the semantics of the Granville Sharp rule and that this final semantic
category is comprised of an overwhelming majority of participial constructions.

However, although the participles hold a clear majority in this group, they are
not the only grammatical forms an author could have selected to indicate
identity between the two substantives. I have discovered five clear instances of
non-participial or partially par- ticipial constructions which belong here as
well. In Romans 16:7 Paul greets Andronicus and Junius, "my kinsmen and my
fellow-prisoners"

(tou>j suggenei?j mou kai> sunaixmalw<touj mou). Here the substantival adjective
suggenei?j and noun sunaixmalw<touj must, of course, both refer to the two men.
Two Alexandrian MSS (P46 and B) add an article to the noun, however. In
Ephesians 1:1 Paul addresses his letter "to the saints who are in Ephesus and
[who are] faithful in Christ Jesus"

(toi?j a[gi<oij toi?j ou#sin e]n ]Efe<s& kai> pistoi?j e]n Xrist&? ]Ihsou?).

Although there are textual variants from this text, none affects the
article-noun-kai<-noun construction. In light of Pauline theology, it is rather
doubtful that he would be specifying two groups which could be distinguished in
any way. If one were either to see the two groups as entirely distinct, as
overlapping, or the first as a sub-set of the second, the resultant idea would
be that at least some of the faithful in Christ Jesus were not saints!47 And the
second group could hardly be viewed as a sub-set of the first because (1)
syntactically and textually, this would be the lone NT instance which did not
have a

44 See Matthew 5:6; Matthew 11:28; Matthew 21:15; Mark 12:40 Luke 1:32; Luke
8:21; Luke 11:28; Luke 12:4; Luke 18:9; Luke 20:46;

John 1:40 John 11:31; John 11:45; John 20:29 20:29; 2 Corinthians 12:21;
Galatians 1:1; Php 3:3; 1 Thessalonians 5:12; 2 Timothy 3:6;

2 Peter 2:10; Revelation 1:3; Revelation 12:11; Revelation 18:9.

45 G. W. Rider, "The Granville Sharp Phenomenon and Plurals," 66.

46 Ibid., 11-18.

47 Though such a concept might fit the Roman doctrine of sainthood, it is not
Pauline, for even the licentious Corinthians were called saints (1 Corinthians
1:2). The term can obviously be used of positional truth, which, if it speaks of
merit, speaks only of the merit of Christ. THE ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI’-NOUN PLURAL
CONSTRUCTION 77 textual variant;48 (2) theologically, such a view would seem to
restrict the Pauline doctrine of perseverance to less than all the elect; and
(3) lexically, the route normally taken by those who deny a perseverance of all
the elect is to read pistoi?j actively as "believing" and still to see identity
of the two substantives.49 Thus, barring exegetical factors which may have been
overlooked, there seems to be no good reason not to take the two adjectives as
referring to the same group. Since this is so, with reasonable confidence we can
say with Barth that It is unlikely that Paul wanted to distinguish two classes
among the Christians, i.e. a "faithful" group from another larger or smaller
group that is "holy." Such a distinction would be unparalleled in the Pauline
letters. Even the wild Corinthians are called "sanctified" and "perfect"

(1 Corinthians 1:2; 1 Corinthians 2:6). While occasionally Paul presupposes a
sharp division between "those outside" and "those inside," between "the
unbelieving" and "the faithful," he has no room for half- or three-quarter
Christians.

It is probable that here the Greek conjunction "and" has the meaning of
"namely." It serves the purpose of explication and may therefore occasionally be
omitted in translation if its intent is preserved.50 In Colossians 1:2 we see
almost the same wording as in Ephesians 1:1 (toi?j e]n Kolossai?j a[gi<oij kai>
pistoi?j a]delfoi?j e]n Xrist&?).51 Thus the arguments which were brought forth
for the Ephesian text would be equally applicable to the construction in this
sister epistle. In Titus 1:15 the apostle speaks of “those who are defiled and
unbelieving"

(toi?j de> memiamme<noij kai> a]pi<stoij--a mixed construction of parti- ciple
and adjective). He seems to be clarifying just who the defiled are with the
adjective a]pi<stoij, thus identifying them, in a sense, as "filthy
non-Christians." Paul continues to describe this group in v 16 with epithets
which could hardly describe believers (bdeluktoi<, a]peiqei?j, a]do<kimoi,
ktl.).52 Finally, Peter declares in his first epistle that servants should
submit themselves to their masters, not only "to the good and gentle" (toi?j
a]gaqoi?j kai> e]pieike<sin) but also to the harsh (1 Peter 2:18). There is an
obvious contrast here between two 48 Admittedly, this is not the strongest
argument against such a view, though it does bear some weight. Furthermore, even
ignoring the variae lectiones, this category is not as well attested as all but
one of the other groups, rendering it less likely as the correct view without a
strong helping hand from non-grammatical factors.

49 See, e.g., W. Hendriksen, Exposition of Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1967),

70.

50 M. Barth, Ephesians (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1974), 1. 68.

51 See n. 19 for a discussion of the legitimacy of this construction.

52 Even if one were to argue that the persons identified in v 15 were believers
(taking a]pistoij in the sense of ’unfaithful’), he would still see one group
being specified in the construction.

78 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL classes of masters (note ou] mo<non . . . a]lla>
kai>), with the result being that to posit any semantic nuance other than
identity for the article- noun-kai<-noun construction would destroy the clearly
intended antithetic parallel. To sum up, the identical category has captured
almost % of all the plural constructions in the NT. Over 82% of the
constructions in this group involve participles exclusively. And although the
identical category is the largest semantic group, it is weakly attested by non-
participial constructions (only four belonging to this category, none of which
is composed only of nouns).

Summary. Overall, 60 of the 71 article-noun-kai<-noun construc- tions could be
clearly tagged as to their semantic nuance (thus almost 85% percent were
identifiable). With reference to these clear con- structions, the breakdown is
as follows:

Distinct 27% of total; 32% of clearly marked constructionsOverlap roughly 3% of
both First sub-set 10% and 12% Second sub-set 6% and 7% Identical Matthew% and
47% Although all five semantic groups were represented, certain patterns emerged
which will certainly color our approach to the remaining eleven texts. We will
break these down first by semantic groups and then by types of substantives.
With reference to the "distinct" category, we noted that although this is the
second largest category, all but one of the instances occurred in a particular
set phrase. As well, not one of the construc- tions involved participles.
Concerning the "overlap" group, we saw that this is the smallest category (two
examples). Furthermore, both examples were the most complex constructions in the
NT (Luke 14:21 has four substantives and Revelation 21:8 has seven). With
reference to the "first sub-set of second" category, we found that this was well
attested among adjective and noun constructions, though not at all found in
participial constructions. With respect to the "second sub-set of first" group,
we discovered four clear examples, though each one had fairly substantial
textual deviations, making this nuance of the construction non-existent among
the Byzantine MSS with various other witnesses departing from the "text" reading
on each occasion as well. Finally, regarding the "identical" group, we observed
that this, the largest of the semantic categories, captured all 23 of the wholly
participial constructions (which could be clearly identified), five
constructions involving at least one adjective, and no constructions made up
exclusively of nouns. THE ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI’-NOUN PLURAL CONSTRUCTION 79 The
types of substantives involved are laid out in Chart 6:

Chart 6 Distinct Overlap 1st Sub- 2nd Sub- Identical Totals set of 2nd set of
1st

Noun +

Noun 11 2 13

Adjective +

Adjective 1 1 1 2 5

Participle +

Participle 23 23

Mixed: Non-

Participial 8 4 3 2 17

Mixed: With

Participle 1 1 2

Totals 19 2 7 4 28 60 In conclusion, such dead statistics as these, when
properly used, can themselves impart life to the interpretive possibilities one
might see for a given text. The very fact that all five semantic categories have
at least some clear examples clarifies and expands our syntac- tical options for
the ambiguous passages. A word of caution is in order, however. We have no
desire to put the Scriptures into a straitjacket by telling an author what he
must mean by a particular construction. Dead statistics, unfortunately, are too
often employed this way by well-meaning expositors. We must keep in mind that as
interpreters of Holy Writ, the apostles are teaching us--not vice versa! But in
seeking to understand these authors, we attempt to discover the boundaries of
what they can mean by investigating the idioms of their language. (Grammar,
then, used correctly, is descrip- tive rather than prescriptive.) Therefore,
with reference to the article- noun-kai<-noun construction, the patterns we have
seen certainly give us initial direction as to the proper interpretation of a
passage; but such leanings can be swayed by other exegetical factors. After all,
we are speaking about probabilities and tendencies, not certainties, and about
grammar alone, not the whole of exegesis.

80 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL Ambiguous and Exegetically Significant Texts
Altogether, there are eleven passages which fit the "ambiguous" category,53 four
of which also have some particular significance exegetically.54 We will briefly
examine the seven ambiguous examples whose exegetical significance is minimal,
then the four more signifi- cant passages.55 Ambiguous Passages. In seven
instances I could not make a positive identification of the semantics involved
in the article-noun- kai<-noun plural construction. In Matthew 21:12 we read of
our Lord entering the temple precincts and driving out "those buying and selling
in the temple" (tou>j pwlou?ntaj kai> a]gora<zontaj e]n t&? i[er&?). On the
surface, we have two distinct groups united by one article.

However, in light of the heretofore unanimous grouping of wholly participial
constructions in the "identical" category, a hearing at least ought to be given
to such a possibility in this text.56 In Luke 15:9 we read of "friends and
neighbors" (ta>j fi<laj kai> gei<tonaj). There is some question as to whether
gei<tonaj is feminine or masculine in form (if the latter, it would still
include the female ’neighbors’). More than likely, it is to be taken as
feminine. Nevertheless, due to the field of meaning of fi<loj57 as well as
contextual58 and other factors,59 it is difficult to come down from the fence
for any view dogmatically.

Acts 15:2 (= 16:4) speaks of the apostles and elders (tou>j a]posto<louj kai>
presbute<rouj). Although a]posto<louj here seems to be used in its technical
sense, it could be argued that all the apostles were elders,

53 See Matthew 21:12; Luke 15:9; Acts 15:2; Acts 16:4; Ephesians 2:20; Ephesians
3:5; Ephesians 4:11; 1 Timothy 4:3; Hebrews 5:2; 2 Peter 3:16; Revelation 11:9.

54 See Ephesians 2:20; Ephesians 3:5; Ephesians 4:11; Hebrews 5:2.

55 Obviously, to decide what is and what is not significant is a most subjective
endeavor. The basic criterion I have followed in this selection is in two
directions- theological and practical. Thus the four passages chosen for the
"exegetically signifi- cant" category deal with dispensationalism (Ephesians
2:20; Ephesians 3:5), soteriology and hamar- tiology (Hebrews 5:2), and
ecclesiology (Ephesians 4:11). All of these texts make a significant
contribution to our understanding of such doctrines and each one, therefore, has
practical ramifications as well.

56 Jeremias suggests that this phrase ("those who bought and those who sold ")
"may well have meant cattle dealers (John 2:14)" (Jerusalem, 49). It is quite
possible that the ’buyers’ were not the pilgrims who came to Jerusalem, but were
the same as the sellers; the tenor of the passage certainly does not seem to
indicate that the common people were among those booted out of the temple area.

57 See Stahlin, "fi<loj," TDNT, 9. 154.

58 Cf. Luke 14:12; Luke 15:6.

59 The parallels in 3 Macc 3:10 and Josephus, Ant 18.376, suggest a set phrase,
the semantics of which are still elusive. As well, the addition of a second
article (ta>j) by A, W, Y, families 1 and 13, and the Byzantine MSS casts doubt
on the authenticity of the construction. THE ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI’-NOUN PLURAL
CONSTRUCTION 81 though not all the elders were apostles.60 Such a suggestion,
however, is based partially on certain ecclesiological beliefs which are beyond
the scope of this paper. In 1 Timothy 4:3 the apostle Paul speaks of "those who
believe61 and know the truth" (toi?j pistoi?j kai> e]pegnwko<si th>n
a]lh<qeian). Whatever the truth is here, it would seem impossible to believe it
unless one knows it. Questions concerning whether this text is speaking about
salvation or a specific situation, and the type of knowledge in view here leave
us with two viable options: (1) the first group is a part of the second, or (2)
the two are identical. Without further investigation into these questions, we
cannot be dogmatic for either position. In 2 Peter 3:16, the apostle gives us
his assessment of those who distort Paul’s letters: they are ignorant/untaught
and unstable (oi[ a]maqei?j kai> a]sth<riktoi). Apparently both terms refer to
unbelievers,62 though the relation of the two groups is ambiguous due to
insufficient lexical and contextual data in the NT. Finally, in Revelation 11:9
John describes those who observe the corpses of the two witnesses as "from the
peoples and tribes and tongues and nations"

(e]k tw?n law?n kai> fulw?n kai> glwssw?n kai> e]qnw?n). Although it is apparent
that "The multitude is composed of those who are con- nected racially, those who
are connected linguistically and those who are connected by customs and laws",63
this does not entirely solve the problem of identification. If lao<j could be
construed to be lexically a part of fulh<, then we might have each term being a
sub-set of the term which follows it. But since this is doubtful, it may be best
to view each category as overlapping somewhat with the others, resulting in one
grand hendiadys for ’the world.’ In comparing the plausible semantics of these
seven ambiguous passages with the clearly tagged passages, certain observations
can be made. First, in both clear and ambiguous texts, there were no noun + noun
constructions belonging to the "identical" category. Second, only in Matthew
21:12 did we see a wholly participial construction as possibly fitting other
than the "identical" category. Third, among the ambiguous texts the "first
sub-set of second" category was plausible in all but two instances. These
ambiguous passages, then, tend to confirm the patterns discovered for the
clearly tagged texts and Song of Solomon 60 0 n the one hand, in Acts 15:4; Acts
15:6; Acts 15:22; Acts 23:1-35 the nouns are separated by an additional article
before ’elders,’ suggesting that an exact equation is probably not in view. On
the other hand, John calls himself o[ presbu<teroj in 2 John I and 3 John I,
though the precise connotation remains in doubt (see BAGD, S.v. "presbu<teroj,"

2. b. b.). Cf. also 1 Peter 5:1.

61 BAGD, S.v. "pisto<j," 2.

62 This seems evident from the results predicated of them later in the verse:
a]pw<leian.

63 Rider, "The Granville Sharp Phenomenon and Plurals," 52-53.

82 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL help us in determining, at least antecedently, the
meaning of the remaining four texts.

Exegetically Significant Passages. Four ambiguous passages car- ried particular
exegetical significance (Ephesians 2:20; Ephesians 3:5; Ephesians 4:11; Hebrews
5:2). In Ephesians 2:20 Paul declares that the church is built upon the founda-
tion of the apostles and prophets (tw?n a]posto<lwn kai> profhtw?n). If these
prophets are OT prophets, as some have affirmed,64 Paul may be saying that the
church was prophesied in the OT. Since the construction is noun + noun, such a
possibility has some syntactical support. However, Paul uses the same
construction just a few verses later, in 3:5 (toi?j a[gi<oij a]posto<loij
au]tou? kai> profh<taij), indi- cating that the same men are in mind. There he
clearly puts the prophets in the present dispensation.65 On the other hand, to
see the apostles and prophets as identical should also be suspect: (1) this
would be the only noun + noun construction which fits the identical category,
and (2) in 4:11 Paul separates the two groups (notice especially the me>n . . .
de> construction). What is the relation of apostles to prophets, then? In all
probability, the first is a part of the second; that is, we should understand
Ephesians 2:20; Ephesians 3:5 to be referring to the apostles and other NT
prophets.66 In Hebrews 5:2 we are told that the high priest was able to deal
gently with those who were ignorant and were going astray (toi?j a]gnou?sin kai>
planwme<noij). Since two participles are used in the construction, the
antecedent probability is that one group is in mind. Hughes writes that "The
perversity of the human heart is such that, even if it should be possible for a
person to be free from sins of waywardness, yet no man can claim to be free from
sins of ignorance or inadvertency [italics added].”67 Although the terms are not
identical, they may be referring to different attributes of the same group. In
the least, since 64 See in particular I. J. Habeck, "Who Are the Prophets of
Ephesians 2:20?"

Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 71 (1974) 121-25.

65 This assertion does not have to rest on the view that roc; in 3:5 makes a
comparison of kind rather than of degree (though I believe this to be the case;
cf. Colossians 1:26), for the prophets are recipients of the revelation made
’now’ (nu?n a]pekalu<fqh).

66 There are solid grounds for this view biblico-theologically as well as
semanti- cally. Habeck dismisses this view because the term prophet is not used
of any of the apostles (Habeck, "Ephesians 2:20," 121), but he errs in making a
conceptual-lexical equation. As David Hill ably points out, our concept of NT
prophecy must not be restricted to the profht- word-group (David Hill, New
Testament Prophecy [Atlanta:

John Knox, 1979], 2-3). Certainly we cannot deny that Paul or John or Peter
prophesied!

67 P. E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1977), 178. THE ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI’-NOUN PLURAL CONSTRUCTION 83 these
sins were forgivable, the deliberate sins of 10:26 do not include being led
astray (planw<menoj).68 Finally, we turn to the text which occupied us
initially: Ephesians 4:11.

There the apostle enumerates the gifted leadership of the church, concluding his
list with "the pastors and teachers" (tou>j de> poime<naj kai> didaska<louj).
Although most commentaries consider the two terms to refer to one group,69 we
must emphatically insist that such a view has no grammatical basis, even though
the writers who maintain this view almost unanimously rest their case on the
supposed semantics of the article-noun-kai<-noun construction.70 Yet, as we have
seen, there are no other examples in the NT of this construction with nouns in
the plural, either clearly tagged or ambiguous, which allow for such a
possibility. One would, therefore, be on rather shaky ground to insist on such a
nuance here--especially if the main weapon in his arsenal is syntax! On the
other hand, the insistence of some that the two are entirely distinct is usually
based on the same narrow view of the semantic range of this construction (i.e.,
only the two categories of absolute identity and absolute distinction are
normally considered).

What is the relation of pastors to teachers, then? It must be readily admitted
that the uniting of these two groups by one article sets them apart from the
other gifted men. Absolute distinction, then, is probably not in view. In light
of the fact that elders and pastors had similar functions in the NT,71 since
elders were to be teachers,72 the pastors were also to be teachers. Conversely,
not all teachers were said to be pastors.73 This evidence seems to suggest that
the poime<naj were a part of the didaska<louj in Ephesians 4:11. This
possibility is in keeping with the semantics of the construction, for the "first
sub-set of the second" category is well attested in both the clear and ambiguous
texts in the NT. Although one cannot be dogmatic, there is a high probability
that, according to Ephesians 4:11, all pastors are to be teachers, though not
all teachers are to be pastors.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: 1.7 CONCLUSION
========================================================================

CONCLUSION I have sought to demonstrate that the syntax of the article-noun-
kai<-noun plural construction has been largely misunderstood. It does 68 The
ramifications of 5:2 and 10:26 for the doctrines of salvation and sanctifi-
cation are manifold. Not only has God forgiven our waywardness, but he forgives
it still.

69 See n. I.

70 See n. I.

71 See Malphurs, "Pastors and Teachers," 46-53.

72 Ibid., 52-53. Of course, that an elder should be able to teach does not
necessarily indicate that he had the gift of teaching.

73 Ibid., 41-46.

84 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL not fit the Granville Sharp rule since the nouns
are plural. Nor is its semantic range shut up to absolute distinction or
absolute identity. By an exhaustive treatment of the construction in the NT, we
discovered that there are three other semantic possibilities, in par- ticular
the first noun could be a part of the second. A proper semantic grid has helped
us in seeing possibilities in certain texts which have hitherto gone unnoticed
and in omitting certain options on the basis of syntax which have been assumed
true. Further exegetical work still needs to be done in many passages which have
this construction, but it cannot proceed unless the starting point is a proper
understanding of the semantic range of this construction in the NT. This
material is cited with gracious permission from:

Grace Theological Seminary 200 Seminary Dr. Winona Lake, IN 46590
<www.grace.edu>

Please report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: thildebrandt@gordon.edu


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/wallace-daniel-b-article-noun-gtj/
========================================================================