Grace Theological
Journal 4.1 (1983) 59-84.
[Copyright © 1983 Grace Theological
Seminary; cited with permission;
digitally
prepared for use at
THE SEMANTIC RANGE
OF
THE ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI'-NOUN
PLURAL
CONSTRUCTION
IN THE NEW
TESTAMENT
DANIEL B.
WALLACE
In this article the author seeks to demonstrate that the
syntax of
the article-noun-kai<-noun plural construction has been largely mis-
understood. It does not fit the Granville Sharp rule because the nouns
are plural. Nor is its semantic range shut up to absolute
distinction or
absolute identity. After an exhaustive treatment of the construction
in
the NT, it is affirmed that there are three other semantic
possibilities.
A proper semantic grid
helps in seeing possibilities in certain passages
which have hitherto gone unnoticed and in omitting certain
options
(e.g., that
'pastors"= "teachers" in Eph
true.
* *
*
IN
Eph
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;
and C. J. Ellicott, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on
the Ephesians [
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 Eph
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
(tw?n
a]posto<lwn kai> profhtw?n in
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 (
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 [
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
two functions but from their connexion
with a congregation" (p. 62). C. Hodge (A
Commentary on the Epistle
to the Ephesians
[
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 Matt 16:1 ("the Pharisees and
Sadducees") and Acts
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 Eph 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 Matt
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.
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.
62 GRACE 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
mega<lou qeou?
kai> swth?roj
h[mw?n Xristou? ]Ihshou?) and
2 Pet 1:1
(tou?
qeou? h[mw?n kai> swth?roj ]Ihsou? Xristou?) are,
to say the least,
rather significant.
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
Eph
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 [
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. [
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.
[
discuss here the problem of Tit 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
Pet 1:1 was used of one person, the emperor (ibid.). Finally, M. Zerwick (Biblical
Greek Illustrated by
Examples
[
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. [
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 (
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 [
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 [
1961])
seem to support the rule in Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 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. [
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 [
the New Testament [
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 Eph 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 (Eph
(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 [
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
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
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,
and Rider believe that Sharp did not exclude
impersonal constructions. Although this
point is ancillary to the subject of this paper, I
believe that
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 Eph
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 Rev 1:9 and
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;
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
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
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.
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: Matt 2:4; 3:7; 5:6,
20;
9:11; 11:28; 12:38; 16:1,6, 11,12,21; 20:18; 21:12, 15; 26:47; 27:3,12,41; Mark
2:16
(twice);
20:46;
22:4, 52; John 1:40; 7:45; 11:31, 45; 20:29; Acts 15:2; 16:4; 17:12; 23:7; Rom
16:7;
I
Cor 5:10; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal
1:7; Eph 1:1; 2:20; 3:5; 4:11; Phil 3:3; I Thess
5:12; I Tim
4:3;
5:8; 2 Tim 3:6; Titus 1:15; Heb 5:2; I Pet 2:18; 2 Pet 2:10; 3:16; 3 John 5;
Rev 1:3;
11:9;
18 See Luke 1:2;
19 The one legitimate
construction, as I see it, is in
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, 32; Rom 8:27; 12:13; I Cor
6:1-2; Eph 2:19; 3:8;
Phil
Rom
1:7; I Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1;
Phil 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
the article but the personal pronoun oi!; (3) Acts
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
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
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) Heb 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 Eph 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 Matt 5:6;
I Thess
21 See Luke 6:35; 14:21 (four adjectives);
Eph 1:1; I Tim 5:8; I Pet 2:18; 2 Pet 3:16.
22 See Matt 2:4; 3:7; 5:20; 12:38; 16:1,6, 11,
12; 20:18; Luke 22:4; John 7:45; Acts
23 These may be divided into two groups:
mixed constructions with participles and
mixed constructions without participles. With
participles: I Tim 4:3 (adjective, parti-
ciple); Titus
noun, noun, noun). Without participles: Matt
(na), 12 (na),
41 (na); Mark
14:3
(an); 15:9 (an); 22:52 (nna); Acts 15:2 (na); 16:4 (na); Rom 16:7 (an); I Cor 5:10
(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
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 Matt 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
Matt
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
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 Matt 2:4; 3:7; 16:1, 6, 11, 12, 21;
20:18; 26:47; 27:3, 12, 41; Mark 15:1; Luke
27 J. Jeremias,
67.
Cf. also
(175 B.C.-A.D. 135), rev. and ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black (
T. & T. Clark, 1979), 2. 409-11.
28 See Matt 16:1, 6, 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,
179-80; Schurer, Jewish People, 2. 212-13; on grammateu<j, see Jeremias,
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 Matt 2:4; 20:18; 26:47; 27:3, 12,41;
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
presbute<rouj); John
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
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
Rev 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
Matt 5:20 (and
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 Matt 5:20;
32 See Jeremias,
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
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. Matt
and Matt
that the scribes in these passages were Pharisees
(due to the selectivity of the
evangelists--cf., e.g., Matt 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
Matt
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
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
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
"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 Cor
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 (
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 Matt 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., Matt 26:45
with Luke
cf.,
e.g., Luke 7:37 with John 12:3; Luke 13:1.
38 See Mark
phrase.
39 Note the parallels: Matt
Matt
Cf.
also the comments by Gutbrod, TDNT, 4. 1088, and Jeremias,
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
I Tim 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 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 I Tim 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 Rev 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
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
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,"
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 Matt 5:6; 11:28; 21:15; Mark 12:40;
Luke 7:32; 8:21; 11:28; 12:4; 18:9; 20:46;
John
1
Thess 5:12; 2 Tim 3:6; Titus 1:15; I Pet 2:18; 2 Pet
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
(Jas
are no doubt repeating their Lord's statements to
the same effect (cf. Luke
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 Rom 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 Eph 1: 1 Paul
addresses his letter "to
the saints who are in
(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 Matt 5:6; 11:28; 21:15; Mark 12:40;
Luke 1:32; 8:21; 11:28; 12:4; 18:9; 20:46;
John
2
Pet
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 Cor
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"
(I Cor 1:2; 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
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
(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 Pet
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 40% 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 constructions
Overlap roughly
3% of both
First sub-set 10%
and 12%
Second sub-set 6%
and 7%
Identical 40%
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
has four substantives and Rev 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 Matt
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 Matt
5:2;
2 Pet
54 See Eph 2:20; 3:5;
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
(Eph
tiology (Heb 5:2), and
ecclesiology (Eph
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)" (
that the 'buyers' were not the pilgrims who came to
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; 15:6.
59 The parallels in 3 Macc
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 Tim 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 Pet 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 Rev
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 Matt
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 can
60 0n the one hand, in Acts 15:4, 6, 22,
and 23 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 I Pet 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 (Eph
In
Eph
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
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 Eph 2:20 and 3:5
to be referring
to the apostles and other NT prophets.66
In Heb 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
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.
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
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 [
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 (
Eerdmans,
1977), 178.
THE
ARTICLE-NOUN-KAI'-NOUN PLURAL CONSTRUCTION 83
these sins were forgivable, the deliberate sins of
being led astray (planw<menoj).68
Finally, we turn to the text which occupied us
initially: Eph 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 Eph
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 Eph
teachers, though not all teachers are to be
pastors.
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
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
www.grace.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu