Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer  I note the ESV is at least careful not to use the noun "priest," but settles on the adjective as descriptive of the kind of service given by the apostle as a minister of the gospel. A "minister" or "leitourgon" itself possesses sacerdotal associations; the apostle was only filling out this overtone of the word when he spoke of the service of the minister in terms of priestly language. There is no basis in the words for suggesting the apostle taught that the minister of the gospel serves as a priest who mediates between God and men.
Examining the way the ESV has translated the verse itself, I fail to see why one would render a participle in this manner. The translators have filled out the figure of speech for the reader, and thus illustrated rather than translated the original. Though the apostle uses a different word for "ministering," it is clear from the syntax that the verb was intended to show the action of the minister; by rendering it "ministering" the reader is provided the basic sense of what the apostle intended to say, and allows further study to bring to light the exact nature of the figure of speech. |
I think that the reason for them translating 'leitourgon' as minister w/o the priestly overtones has more to do with the fact that that term if more often associated with general servanthood/service than it is with the priestly function. 'Hierous' and its cognates all have exclusively to do with the priesthood, however, which is what made it stand out to me, and appearantly also to the translators of the ESV.
I fail to see how their translation does anything other than clarify the meaning of the participle. BDAG fills out it's meaning as "to act in some cultic or sacred capacity; perform holy service, act as a priest". I think that both BDAG and the ESV translators here are doing us a service by bringing out that which would also have also stood out to a Greek reader. It is not just that the participle is showing the action of the minster, which is obvious, but that the action of the one serving in a priestly role is defining what it means in this context for Paul to have been a minister.
I agree that this does not mean that he was a special mediator, as Christ was by then serving as the Great High Priest, but it is still a significant statement. I do think that more attention should be given this passage and its implications. Paul's role was unique in certain aspects, but one of continuity in others also. I am interested in studying how this priestly role may or may not have ceased as applied to ministers in the church, or possibly even more fittingly here, to evangelists and those who are being brought the Gospel for the first time.