Ephesians 4:12

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


Carl said:
> I really don't want to leave the realm of B-Greek 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.

<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".
>
> 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.

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list