Eph. 4:11

[Notthemama1984]

It seems that some translations lump shepherds and teachers together as if they are two aspects of the same position. Looking at the greek I noticed that the phrase is τουσ ποιμενας και διδασκαλους

διδασκαλους is the only noun without the article in the verse. Would this give warrant to the idea that the two nouns are connected with the και?

The reason why I ask is because would this not shed light on who would be responsible for the education of future pastors? If ποιμενας can be translated as "pastors" (as it is in the KJV, NASB, NRSV, and NET) and this gift is different than that of teacher, then it would seem that the pastor is not automatically in charge of teaching future pastors. The pastor could be this person if he was also gifted with that of teaching, but it could also be one who God blessed with the gift of teaching.

Just thinking out loud. What are your thoughts?

 

[CharlieJ]

The Greek alone won't settle it. The Granville-Sharpe Rule works consistently only on singulars, on plurals it's ambiguous. So, it's going to come down to your theological considerations. For what it's worth, and this doesn't settle it, Calvin accepted the two as being different. He was never ordained, but was nonetheless a teacher in Geneva, even teaching the pastors!

 

[Notthemama1984]

ambiguous=last word one wants to hear when translating.

 

[CharlieJ]

Perhaps, but it's not just ambiguous in translation; it was ambiguous in Greek as well. The original readers couldn't have just looked at the text and known for sure whether the gifts were two or one.

 

[Wannabee]

There are other issues involved as well.

For instance, "to be" is not necessary in the translation. In this case the question arises as to whether the men, who fill the positions, are the gifts or are the positions themselves the gifts to the church?

As Charlie pointed out, while this is a Sharpe's like construction, being plural it does not follow the rule. Our Greek professor was adamant that pastors and teachers indicated separate roles. However, there is also the possibility of a set/subset relationship indicated in how the gifts are laid out, with each successive position necessarily being a subset of the previous position.

Apostles

Prophets

Evangelists

Pastors

Teachers​

In such a case pastors would have to be teachers, but not all teachers have to be pastors. Evangelists have to be pastors, but not all pastors have to be evangelists (in this sense of the word), and so on. In many pericopes (pericopae) there is an unfortunate break between vv 6 and 7, which I think forces a perspective that is not intended. Contextually this understanding harmonizes well with the passage. Furthermore, it shifts the focus from "men who are gifts" more fully to the Giver who provides these gifts/positions for the purpose of equipping the saints and so on.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Thanks Joe,

My next question was going to be if the δε pointed to a subset structure. You beat me to it.

 

[Romans922]

On a side topic, "Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists" are those offices which have ceased, "Pastors and Teachers" are ongoing.

Evangelist obviously not being used as we use it today.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Continuing on the side topic (It is my thread and I will do as I please )....I understand the first two, could you elaborate on the ceasing of Evangelist?

 

[Romans922]

My view is what follows from Matthew Henry:

The apostle next tells us what were Christ's gifts at his ascension: He gave some apostles, c., &lti>v. 11. Indeed he sent forth some of these before his ascension, Matt. x. 1-5. But one was then added, Acts i. 26. And all of them were more solemnly installed, and publicly confirmed, in their office, by his visibly pouring forth the Holy Ghost in an extraordinary manner and measure upon them. Note, The great gift that Christ gave to the church at his ascension was that of the ministry of peace and reconciliation. The gift of the ministry is the fruit of Christ's ascension. And ministers have their various gifts, which are all given them by the Lord Jesus. The officers which Christ gave to his church were of two sorts--extraordinary ones advanced to a higher office in the church: such were apostles, prophets, and evangelists. The apostles were chief. These Christ immediately called, furnished them with extraordinary gifts and the power of working miracles, and with infallibility in delivering his truth; and, they having been the witnesses of his miracles and doctrine, he sent them forth to spread the gospel and to plant and govern churches. The prophets seem to have been such as expounded the writings of the Old Testament, and foretold things to come. The evangelists were ordained persons (2 Tim. i. 6), whom the apostles took for their companions in travel (Gal. ii. 1), and sent them out to settle and establish such churches as the apostles themselves had planted (Acts xix. 22), and, not being fixed to any particular place, they were to continue till recalled, 2 Tim. iv. 9. And then there are ordinary ministers, employed in a lower and narrower sphere; as pastors and teachers.

 

[Notthemama1984]

With all due respect to Matthew Henry, the verses he quotes do not reference an evangelist. They reference the ministry of Timothy to which Henry equates to an evangelist. I also think it is a stretch to think that the position has ceased simply because there are no apostles to point them. I am open to the idea that the position has ceased, but more evidence has to be shown.

Just my two cents.

 

[CharlieJ]

I don't understand how δε points to a subset. I wasn't aware that was a function of δε, and in this case, all of the δε's are clearly construed with the μεν. Where does μεν...δε ever indicate subsets?

 

[Notthemama1984]

δε can be translated "and then" correct? So you would have "apostles, and then prophets, and then evangelists, and then pastors and teachers." This was my thinking of a subset or a hierarchy. Could the geneologies of Matthew 1 be an example of δε being used as a sort of chain of nouns that are closely related?

I do admit though that my knowledge of greek is growing but still minimal.

 

[Wannabee]

I don't understand how δε points to a subset. I wasn't aware that was a function of δε, and in this case, all of the δε's are clearly construed with the μεν. Where does μεν...δε ever indicate subsets?

I'm not aware of the necessity at all Charlie. I offered it as a viable alternative. I would submit it as viable. Furthermore, it seems to fit the context better. For us, as you pointed out earlier, theological considerations easily get in the way. I see the insertion of "to be" too popish actually, though I know many prefer this translation. And it does affect one's understanding of the rest of the passage. For what it's worth, Wallace and Hoehner both see teachers as a subset of pastors in this verse. Hoehner takes the position that the order is from greatest to least. And I know I did read elsewhere that someone at least suggested a set/subset relationship for the other gifts, but I can't recall nor find it right now.

Personally, I do think the early readers of this would understand it clearly. Our problem is that we don't speak the language, think the language nor truly understand it. We can only translate based on the myriad of examples, resources and years of study invested. But this was the language they breathed.