Ephesians 4:12

Ephesians 4:12 Jay Anthony Adkins Jadkins26438 at cs.com
Thu Jul 11 08:43:27 EDT 2002

 

ERCESQAI, 1 Ephesians 4:12 Dear ‘s,While my efforts to use the Lyris search engine failed, I seem to vaguelyremember a discussion a few years ago on Ephesians 4:12 and the placementor removal of a comma, which could in turn alter the meaning of the verse.Ephe 4:12 (ASV) for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work ofministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ:Ephe 4:12 (NASU) for the equipping of the saints for the work of service,to the building up of the body of Christ;Ephe 4:12 (GNT) PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN AGIWN EIS ERGON DIAKONIAS, EISOIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS TOU XRISTOU,Should a comma be placed after AGIWN, making a list 3 reasons for God’sgift of Apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors and teachers? Or shouldthe comma be omitted as it is in my Greek text and the NASU making theAGIWN the one’s who do works of service to build up the body.In other words, is there some grammatical rule that would help decide theproper use or non-use of a comma in this verse after AGIWN.Sola Gratia, Jay AdkinsAlways Under Grace!

 

ERCESQAI, 1Ephesians 4:12

Ephesians 4:12 Roe d.roe at t-online.de
Thu Jul 11 09:11:32 EDT 2002

 

Ephesians 4:12 Ephesians 4:12 Jay Anthony Adkins schrieb: [snip]> Ephe 4:12 (GNT) PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN AGIWN EIS ERGON DIAKONIAS, EIS> OIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS TOU XRISTOU,> > Should a comma be placed after AGIWN, making a list 3 reasons for God’s> gift of Apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors and teachers? Or should> the comma be omitted as it is in my Greek text and the NASU making the> AGIWN the one’s who do works of service to build up the body.Hi Jay,I know of no *rule* which would establish one reading over the other. Itis my understanding, however, that the change of prepositions from PROS toEIS indicates a “more natural or expected” reading close to that of theoft-loosely translated NIV: “to prepare God’s people for works ofservice…” Of course I’m looking at the EIS clauses as subordinate. My question wouldbe, is the second EIS clause (EIS OIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS…) subordinate tothe first (EIS ERGON DIAKONIAS), or is it subordinate to TON KATARTISMONTWN AGIWN? That is, is the building up of the body a result of the ERGONDIAKONIAS of the saints, or is it parallel to the ERGON DIAKONIAS and aresult of TON KATARTISMON TWN AGIWN?DavidD.W. RoeRheinland-Pfalz, Germany

 

Ephesians 4:12Ephesians 4:12

Ephesians 4:12 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jul 11 09:41:50 EDT 2002

 

Ephesians 4:12 EUANGGELION At 3:11 PM +0200 7/11/02, Roe wrote:>Jay Anthony Adkins schrieb:> [snip]> >> Ephe 4:12 (GNT) PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN AGIWN EIS ERGON DIAKONIAS, EIS>> OIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS TOU XRISTOU,>> >> Should a comma be placed after AGIWN, making a list 3 reasons for God’s>> gift of Apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors and teachers? Or should>> the comma be omitted as it is in my Greek text and the NASU making the>> AGIWN the one’s who do works of service to build up the body.> > >Hi Jay,> >I know of no *rule* which would establish one reading over the other. It>is my understanding, however, that the change of prepositions from PROS to>EIS indicates a “more natural or expected” reading close to that of the>oft-loosely translated NIV: “to prepare God’s people for works of>service…”> >Of course I’m looking at the EIS clauses as subordinate. My question would>be, is the second EIS clause (EIS OIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS…) subordinate to>the first (EIS ERGON DIAKONIAS), or is it subordinate to TON KATARTISMON>TWN AGIWN? That is, is the building up of the body a result of the ERGON>DIAKONIAS of the saints, or is it parallel to the ERGON DIAKONIAS and a>result of TON KATARTISMON TWN AGIWN?I’d agree with this comment, both in what it asserts and in what it saysabout ambiguity. The two phrases with EIS and verbal nouns are prettystandard in Hellenistic Greek to signal BOTH purpose and result, and it’soften difficult to decide whether the phrase was intended by its author toexpress purpose or result. The same is true of hWSTE with either infinitiveor indicative–such a clause may signal either purpose or result, and it’snot always crystal clear which the author intended.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Ephesians 4:12EUANGGELION

Ephesians 4:12 Jay Anthony Adkins Jadkins26438 at cs.com
Thu Jul 11 18:22:58 EDT 2002

 

A greek defintion of ERCOMAI A greek defintion of ERCOMAI I Asked :(Snipped sections)Ephe 4:12 (GNT) PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN AGIWN EIS ERGON DIAKONIAS, EISOIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS TOU XRISTOU,Should a comma be placed after AGIWN, making a list 3 reasons for God’sgift of Apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors and teachers? Or shouldthe comma be omitted as it is in my Greek text and the NASU making theAGIWN the one’s who do works of service to build up the body.D.W. Roe (David) wrote:I know of no *rule* which would establish one reading over the other. Itis my understanding, however, that the change of prepositions from PROS toEIS indicates a “more natural or expected” reading close to that of theoft-loosely translated NIV: “to prepare God’s people for works ofservice…” Then Carl W. Conrad wrote:I’d agree with this comment, both in what it asserts and in what it saysabout ambiguity. The two phrases with EIS and verbal nouns are prettystandard in Hellenistic Greek to signal BOTH purpose and result, and it’soften difficult to decide whether the phrase was intended by its author toexpress purpose or result. The same is true of hWSTE with eitherinfinitiveor indicative–such a clause may signal either purpose or result, and it’snot always crystal clear which the author intended.First let me thank both people that responded to my query. It makes senseto me as well that the change in prepositions may hold the key, but itwould be most difficult to be dogmatic due to the ambiguity involved. Does anyone know of another verse we can look at to possibly resolve theconflict, either from the Bible or early church fathers? And since this isnow outside of , please respond off list unless your answer bearson the Greek text. Thank you very much.Sola Gratia,Jay AdkinsAlways Under Grace!

 

A greek defintion of ERCOMAIA greek defintion of ERCOMAI

Ephesians 4:12 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jul 12 08:06:25 EDT 2002

 

Revelry (kwmos) 1 Thess 4:4 TO hEAUTOU SKEUOS KTASQAI … At 6:22 PM -0400 7/11/02, Jay Anthony Adkins wrote:>I Asked :(Snipped sections)> >Ephe 4:12 (GNT) PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN AGIWN EIS ERGON DIAKONIAS, EIS>OIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS TOU XRISTOU,> >Should a comma be placed after AGIWN, making a list 3 reasons for God’s>gift of Apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors and teachers? Or should>the comma be omitted as it is in my Greek text and the NASU making the>AGIWN the one’s who do works of service to build up the body.> >D.W. Roe (David) wrote:> >I know of no *rule* which would establish one reading over the other. It>is my understanding, however, that the change of prepositions from PROS to>EIS indicates a “more natural or expected” reading close to that of the>oft-loosely translated NIV: “to prepare God’s people for works of>service…”> >Then Carl W. Conrad wrote:> >I’d agree with this comment, both in what it asserts and in what it says>about ambiguity. The two phrases with EIS and verbal nouns are pretty>standard in Hellenistic Greek to signal BOTH purpose and result, and it’s>often difficult to decide whether the phrase was intended by its author to>express purpose or result. The same is true of hWSTE with either>infinitive>or indicative–such a clause may signal either purpose or result, and it’s>not always crystal clear which the author intended.> >First let me thank both people that responded to my query. It makes sense>to me as well that the change in prepositions may hold the key, but it>would be most difficult to be dogmatic due to the ambiguity involved.>Does anyone know of another verse we can look at to possibly resolve the>conflict, either from the Bible or early church fathers? And since this is>now outside of , please respond off list unless your answer bears>on the Greek text. Thank you very much.I really don’t want to leave the realm of at all, and I do hopethat my answer bears on the Greek text fundamentally. Nor do I want in anyway to discourage others with opinions on this text from having a say on it(after all, I’m going to confess that I can’t analyze it to my ownsatisfaction).I’ve changed my mind since yesterday with respect to this verse, and Ireally must thank Jay for not letting the questions here rest. One of thealmost notorious features of the Letter to the Ephesians which some othersand I find particularly unsettling is the “looseness” of the syntax–thedifficulty the reader has in discerning clear connections between phrasesand relating each phrase to a central controlling verb (or even finding, insome instances, a central controlling verb). We have had several threads onthe problems of sorting out phrase relationships in Eph 1:3-10. Thispassage too has a certain looseness to it; it does to me to befundamentally intelligible in terms of its content, and yet, preciselybecause one must settle upon choices of how to link the phrases where thetext itself provides no clear guidance, it is problematic as a text toconvert to a target language, as may quickly be recognized by an overviewof several English versions. Certainly one has to view Eph 4:7-16 as atextual unit, and one must relate EDWKEN in vs. 11 to EDWKEN DOMATA TOISANQRWPOIS, while vs. 12 pretty clearly indicates the intention underlyingthe giving of the gifts and vss. 13ff. indicate the length and breadth ofthe maturation process through which those gifts are intended to assist”the saints.” So: one can without a whole lot of difficulty discern theessential flow of the content of this passage,but when we start dissectingthe passage and analyzing the syntactic flow, I think we do get bogged downpretty badly. I must confess quite honestly that I am far less confidentthis morning about what I wrote yesterday (cited above by Jay in hisreformulation of his original question) than I thought I was yesterday.Perhaps there is no clear differentiation between the usage of PROS and EISin vs. 12–and I almost think that it would be more “honest” to representthe looseness of the Greek in a loose English (for English substitute anyother target language) rather than to attempt a more precise articulation,the effect of which is to tip the scales in favor of one interpretation ofwhat’s ambiguous rather than another. So I’d suggest:”for the equipping of the saints for servanthood-work, for construction ofChrist’s body” The comma following “servanthood-work” reflects thepunctuation of UBS4/NA27, but quite frankly, I think that this constructionis so loose that there’s no way of being sure that EIS OIKODOMHN TOUSWMATOS TOU CRISTOU is intended other than as a parallel to PROS TONKATARTISMON TWN hAGIWN.While I have personally been very impressed by the NET as a whole–and whatI like best about it is that it explains and defends its translators’conception of “how the text means”–, I am inclined to think that NET errsin its attempt to articulate this text in English far more precisely thanit is articulated in the original:”4:12 to equip12 the saints for the work of ministry, that is,13 to buildup the body of Christ, “The translator notes then explain this reading thus:”12tn On the translation of PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN hAGIWN (pros tonkatartismon ton hagion) as “to equip the saints” see BAGD 418 s.v.KATARTISMOS. In this case the genitive is taken as objective and the directobject of the verbal idea implied in KATARTISMOS (katartismo”).”13tn The EIS (eis) clause is taken as epexegetical to the previous EISclause, namely, EIS ERGON DIAKONIAS).”Now I do think this is one perfectly reasonable articulation of theelements of vs. 12, but (a) I don’t find the explanation so cogent that Icannot just as likely conceive EIS OIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS TOU CRISTOU to beparallel to PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN hAGIWN.So I ask myself: do we really understand this particular passage betterthrough our efforts at detailed syntactic analysis. As a “grammarian” Iwant to say: “Certainly we do.” But my common-sense and skeptical bentcomes in from the other side and tells me: “You know very well that youunderstand what the whole sequence is saying and that in this instance theold Aristotelian strategy of ‘divide and conquer’ doesn’t work: the moreyou attempt to fine-tune the analysis of this passage, the more puzzlingyou’re likely to find it, and you may even persuade yourself of what youreally know is not true, that you don’t understand the passage at all. Butyou DO understand it; you just can’t ANALYZE it.” Thus my inner dialogue.So, if we/I DO understand this text without being able to analyze it to ourtechnical satisfaction, what does it say? It says that “the risen Christgave human beings gifts, distributing roles among them with a view toturning believers into more adequately functional servants; those roleswhich he gave part of his overall intention to make the body of Christbecome a fully-functional organism.” Now obviously that’s not atranslation, but I think that within its larger context of Eph 4:7-16 thisis what the original audience/readers were meant to understand from theseverses. In this instance, it seems to me, the whole is not only greaterthan the sum of its parts; the whole really cannot be articulatedconvincingly into its parts.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Revelry (kwmos)1 Thess 4:4 TO hEAUTOU SKEUOS KTASQAI …

Ephesians 4:12 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Jul 13 11:10:43 EDT 2002

 

1 Thess 4:4 TO hEAUTOU SKEUOS KTASQAI … ERCESQAI, 1 Carl said:> I really don’t want to leave the realm of at all, and I do hope> that my answer bears on the Greek text fundamentally. Nor do I want in any> way to discourage others with opinions on this text from having a> say on it (after all, I’m going to confess that I can’t analyze it to myown> satisfaction).Let me have a go since you do not discourage it. In the following I am onlykeeping what I’d like to comment on.<snip>> Certainly one has to view Eph 4:7-16 as a> textual unit, and one must relate EDWKEN in vs. 11 to EDWKEN DOMATA TOIS> ANQRWPOIS, while vs. 12 pretty clearly indicates the intention underlying> the giving of the gifts and vss. 13ff. indicate the length and breadth of> the maturation process through which those gifts are intended to assist> “the saints.”<snip>> Perhaps there is no clear differentiation between the usage of> PROS and EIS> in vs. 12–and I almost think that it would be more “honest” to represent> the looseness of the Greek in a loose English (for English substitute any> other target language) rather than to attempt a more precise articulation,> the effect of which is to tip the scales in favor of one interpretation of> what’s ambiguous rather than another. So I’d suggest:> > “for the equipping of the saints for servanthood-work, for construction of> Christ’s body” The comma following “servanthood-work” reflects the> punctuation of UBS4/NA27, but quite frankly, I think that this> construction is so loose that there’s no way of being sure that EISOIKODOMHN TOU> SWMATOS TOU CRISTOU is intended other than as a parallel to PROS TON> KATARTISMON TWN hAGIWN.You are here moving into translation theory and what is most “honest”. I cansee why a literal translation would appear more “honest” to one’sunderstanding of the structure, but I don’t think it is “honest” in terms ofcommunicating the originally intended meaning. I am pretty sure that theabove suggested rendering is much more obscure in English than the originalwas in Greek, partly because English is poor in prepositions compared toGreek, partly because “construction” does not have the metaphorical sensethat OIKODOMH has. And of course, it is not normal English, but what wesometimes call “translationese”.> > While I have personally been very impressed by the NET as a> whole–and what I like best about it is that it explains and defends itstranslators’> conception of “how the text means”–, I am inclined to think that NET errs> in its attempt to articulate this text in English far more precisely than> it is articulated in the original:> > “4:12 to equip12 the saints for the work of ministry, that is,13 to build> up the body of Christ, “> > The translator notes then explain this reading thus:> > “12tn On the translation of PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN hAGIWN (pros ton> katartismon ton hagion) as “to equip the saints” see BAGD 418 s.v.> KATARTISMOS. In this case the genitive is taken as objective and> the direct object of the verbal idea implied in KATARTISMOS (katartismo”).> “13tn The EIS (eis) clause is taken as epexegetical to the previous EIS> clause, namely, EIS ERGON DIAKONIAS).”> > Now I do think this is one perfectly reasonable articulation of the> elements of vs. 12, but (a) I don’t find the explanation so cogent that I> cannot just as likely conceive EIS OIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS TOU CRISTOU to be> parallel to PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN hAGIWN.I would say that NET did a good job here in terms of its modified-literaltranslation philosophy, and I agree that the second EIS clause isepexegetical and parallel to the first. As you said, one needs to interpretv. 12 in the context of 7-16, and it is significant that the word OIKODOMHresurfaces in v. 16.V. 16 says EX hOU PAN TO SWMA … KAT’ ENERGEIAN EN METRWi hENOS hEKASTOUMEROUS THN AUXHSIN TOU SWMATOS POIEITAI EIS OIKODOMHN hEAUTOU EN AGAPHiHere it seems that it is the body that produces its own growth in accordancewith the measure of work that each member of the body is able to do towardsthe strengthening/building-up in actions governed by love.Because both v. 12 and v. 16 include word parallels like ERGON-ENERGEIA, EISOIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS-EIS OIKODOMHN hEAUTOU (i.e. TOU SWMATOS) it seemsreasonable to conclude from v. 16 that in both verses it is the individualmembers of the body that are to do the servant ministry of building up thewhole body.In v. 12 the PROS can without problem be taken as purpose or goal for Godgiving the five special ministries, namely that they should train/equip allthe saints for something. That “something” is expressed through the firstgeneric EIS clause: a work of service, and further explained through thesecond parallel EIS clause: building up the body of Christ.So, it seems that Paul expects each member of the body to have its share inbuilding up the other members (which fits with 1 Cor 12-14 where OIKODOMHoccurs frequently). In addition, the five ministries mentioned have theadded responsibility of training the other members (and one another) for thebuilding up of the whole body. Each of the five ministries has three levels:basic level for all, intermediate level in the local church ministry andadvanced level in regional or international ministry. The upper two levelsinclude a training aspect. But now I am moving away from the Greek to thewider context.Iver Larsen

 

1 Thess 4:4 TO hEAUTOU SKEUOS KTASQAI …ERCESQAI, 1

Ephesians 4:12 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Jul 14 10:57:17 EDT 2002

 

Beginning Grammar Beginning Grammar At 5:10 PM +0200 7/13/02, Iver Larsen wrote:>Carl said:>> I really don’t want to leave the realm of at all, and I do hope>> that my answer bears on the Greek text fundamentally. Nor do I want in any>> way to discourage others with opinions on this text from having a>> say on it (after all, I’m going to confess that I can’t analyze it to my>> own satisfaction).> >Let me have a go since you do not discourage it. In the following I am only>keeping what I’d like to comment on.Iver, I’ve never discouraged an alternative opinion, provided it isexpressed within the appropriate parameters of discussion. I wouldnote, however, that in the discussion that follows it seems to me that youhave misunderstood my intention; certainly you may dispute my view that theGreek text of this passage is, as I have asserted, “syntactically loose,”and you may go on to assert that it is in fact quite clearly articulatedand that the author’s intent is fully intelligible. But I think in some ofyour comments below you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting (surelyunintentionally) my own intention. My comments below are intended only toclarify my own position regarding this passage.><snip>>> Certainly one has to view Eph 4:7-16 as a>> textual unit, and one must relate EDWKEN in vs. 11 to EDWKEN DOMATA TOIS>> ANQRWPOIS, while vs. 12 pretty clearly indicates the intention underlying>> the giving of the gifts and vss. 13ff. indicate the length and breadth of>> the maturation process through which those gifts are intended to assist>> “the saints.”><snip>>> Perhaps there is no clear differentiation between the usage of>> PROS and EIS>> in vs. 12–and I almost think that it would be more “honest” to represent>> the looseness of the Greek in a loose English (for English substitute any>> other target language) rather than to attempt a more precise articulation,>> the effect of which is to tip the scales in favor of one interpretation of>> what’s ambiguous rather than another. So I’d suggest:>> >> “for the equipping of the saints for servanthood-work, for construction of>> Christ’s body” The comma following “servanthood-work” reflects the>> punctuation of UBS4/NA27, but quite frankly, I think that this>> construction is so loose that there’s no way of being sure that EIS>OIKODOMHN TOU>> SWMATOS TOU CRISTOU is intended other than as a parallel to PROS TON>> KATARTISMON TWN hAGIWN.> >You are here moving into translation theory and what is most “honest”. I can>see why a literal translation would appear more “honest” to one’s>understanding of the structure, but I don’t think it is “honest” in terms of>communicating the originally intended meaning. I am pretty sure that the>above suggested rendering is much more obscure in English than the original>was in Greek, partly because English is poor in prepositions compared to>Greek, partly because “construction” does not have the metaphorical sense>that OIKODOMH has. And of course, it is not normal English, but what we>sometimes call “translationese”.I had no intention of discussing translation theory nor did I intend theEnglish version I offered to be “a literal translation.” Indeed, I putquotation-marks around “honest” and characterized my English version as “aloose English.” I am sorry if I made it appear that my “loose English” wasintended to be “a literal translation.” It does seem to me that you’refaulting me for not doing what it was not my intention to do. Although inmy previous message I didn’t characterize the literary style of this writeras “impressionistic” (and hesitate even now to do so for fear the adjectivemay be misleading), it does seem to me that the phrasing of severalword-groups within the Greek text has a vagueness or imprecisioncontributing to a difficulty in any attempt at precise syntactic andsemantic analysis of details, while at the same time the reader does nothesitate to recognize an intelligibility in the broader textual constructas a totality. My loose English was intended to convey an “impression” ofhow the Greek text works, and if one or more of the words I used wereclearly not “normal English,” then perhaps I was successful in conveying mysense that the phraseology of the Greek of this passage is not quite”normal Greek” either. My sense regarding the prepositions PROS and EIS inthis passage is that they don’t really convey any distinctive normal senseof PROS and EIS with accusative such that one could characterize by saying,”PROS + acc. = ‘toward’ + object”; rather PROS and EIS might either oneconvey what a colloquial user of English means by “with regard to,” or “inrespect of,” or “as to,” or “at,” or even, as an American teen-ager ofrecent era might put it, “like–you know–” (when, more often than not, weby no means do/did know). I suppose I could have used “edification” forOIKODOMH (it’s a not-unuseful equivalent for the way Paul uses the word in1 Cor), but it seems to me that the phraseology of the passage we arediscussing involves a rather strange mixed metaphor of mechanicalengineering and biological growth–one might compare the images Paul usesin 1 Cor 3:6ff for the work of “church-builders.” In 1 Cor 3 the images aredistinct, but here it seems to me that they are blurred so that at onepoint those “given” by the risen Christ are house-builders while at anotherpoint, ALL of us are in a process of growth into an organic whole or anadult that is a corporate “body of Christ.” I can only repeat what I saidbefore: I think the reader can readily envision the activity in the bees’hive that is becoming the body of Christ, but I don’t think one can workout a detailed analysis of the phraseology and syntax.>> While I have personally been very impressed by the NET as a>> whole–and what I like best about it is that it explains and defends its>translators’>> conception of “how the text means”–, I am inclined to think that NET errs>> in its attempt to articulate this text in English far more precisely than>> it is articulated in the original:>> >> “4:12 to equip12 the saints for the work of ministry, that is,13 to build>> up the body of Christ, “>> >> The translator notes then explain this reading thus:>> >> “12tn On the translation of PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN hAGIWN (pros ton>> katartismon ton hagion) as “to equip the saints” see BAGD 418 s.v.>> KATARTISMOS. In this case the genitive is taken as objective and>> the direct object of the verbal idea implied in KATARTISMOS (katartismo”).>> “13tn The EIS (eis) clause is taken as epexegetical to the previous EIS>> clause, namely, EIS ERGON DIAKONIAS).”>> >> Now I do think this is one perfectly reasonable articulation of the>> elements of vs. 12, but (a) I don’t find the explanation so cogent that I>> cannot just as likely conceive EIS OIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS TOU CRISTOU to be>> parallel to PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN hAGIWN.> >I would say that NET did a good job here in terms of its modified-literal>translation philosophy, and I agree that the second EIS clause is>epexegetical and parallel to the first. As you said, one needs to interpret>v. 12 in the context of 7-16, and it is significant that the word OIKODOMH>resurfaces in v. 16.>V. 16 says EX hOU PAN TO SWMA … KAT’ ENERGEIAN EN METRWi hENOS hEKASTOU>MEROUS THN AUXHSIN TOU SWMATOS POIEITAI EIS OIKODOMHN hEAUTOU EN AGAPHi> >Here it seems that it is the body that produces its own growth in accordance>with the measure of work that each member of the body is able to do towards>the strengthening/building-up in actions governed by love.> >Because both v. 12 and v. 16 include word parallels like ERGON-ENERGEIA, EIS>OIKODOMHN TOU SWMATOS-EIS OIKODOMHN hEAUTOU (i.e. TOU SWMATOS) it seems>reasonable to conclude from v. 16 that in both verses it is the individual>members of the body that are to do the servant ministry of building up the>whole body.> >In v. 12 the PROS can without problem be taken as purpose or goal for God>giving the five special ministries, namely that they should train/equip all>the saints for something. That “something” is expressed through the first>generic EIS clause: a work of service, and further explained through the>second parallel EIS clause: building up the body of Christ.> >So, it seems that Paul expects each member of the body to have its share in>building up the other members (which fits with 1 Cor 12-14 where OIKODOMH>occurs frequently). In addition, the five ministries mentioned have the>added responsibility of training the other members (and one another) for the>building up of the whole body. Each of the five ministries has three levels:>basic level for all, intermediate level in the local church ministry and>advanced level in regional or international ministry. The upper two levels>include a training aspect. But now I am moving away from the Greek to the>wider context.Well, Iver, it is quite clear that you find the NET version satisfactoryfor much the same reason that I do not: you are convinced by its accountingfor the details of the Greek construction, while I am not thus convinced.And that means nothing more than that we understand this text in differentways.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Beginning GrammarBeginning Grammar

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]