APOSTOLOI KAI PROFHTAI Eph 2:20, 3:5

CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Fri Jun 30 19:00:54 EDT 2000



In a message dated 6/30/00 4:25:00 PM, MMccoy7872 at cs.com writes:

<<        I have been thinking on this reply for many months now.  Thank you 
for the explanation from Mr. Wallace, it has provoked much thought.  I 
would like to give a quote from Granville Sharp's work on the Uses of the 
Definitive Article (under Rule I, pg.13) and I ask help from all on the 
list who would like to respond.  Note:  Rule I is what is commonly known as 
"Granville Sharp's Rule".

Pg. 13 Paragraph 1:  "And there are at least a dozen other places, (viz. 
Rom.15:6, 1 Cor. 15:24, Gal.1:4, Ephes. 5:20, col. 1:3, and 12 and 3:17, 1 
Thes.1:3, 1 Thes. 3:13, 2 Thes. 2:16, James 3:9, [and] Rev.1:6) wherein 
"the God and Father" is mentioned exactly according to this rule; and 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; though there are not wanting examples, 
even of plural nouns, which are expressed exactly agreeable to this rule"  
(Sharp 13).

I call your attention to the last clause of the paragraph.  Does the last 
clause not seem to indicate that Granville Sharp thought his Rule I would 
also apply to plural nouns?  That is, that plural nouns in the Greek NT are 
"expressed exactly agreeable to this rule."  This being the case the 
Granville Sharp rule could apply to hO APOSTOLOS KAI PROFHTHS in 
Ephesians.


Sincerely,
Michael McCoy
Pastor, Little Elm Baptist Church
Farmington, AR
MMccoy7872 at cs.com
 >>

Dan Wallace did his dissertation on multiple substantives separated by KAI 
(Sharp constructions or TSKS). He spent 20 pages on Eph 2:20. Following is 
the excerpt from his grammar which was written and published after his 
dissertation.

having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets

    This text has become something of a theological lightning rod in 
conservative circles in America in the past several years, largely due to the 
work of Wayne Grudem.80 Grudem argues that the apostles and prophets are 
identical here. This is essential to his view of NT prophecy: on the one 
hand, he holds to a high view of scripture, viz., that the autographs are 
inerrant; on the other hand, he believes that non-apostolic prophets both in 
the early church and today mixed error with truth. If in Eph 2:20 the Church 
is built on the foundation of apostles and other prophets, then it would seem 
that Grudem either has to deny inerrancy or affirm that non-apostolic 
prophets only spoke truth (and were thus on par with OT prophets). Hence, he 
spends much ink arguing that in this text the prophets are identical with the 
apostles, while elsewhere in the NT the prophets are a separate class of 
individuals. This distinction allows him the luxury of embracing an inerrant 
NT while admitting that today’s prophets (as well as first century 
non-apostolic prophets) can commit error in their predictions.

    We must refrain from entering into the larger issues of charismata and 
fallible prophecy in our treatment of this text.81 Our point is simply that 
the syntactical evidence is very much against the “identical” view, even 
though syntax has been the primary grounds used in behalf of it. As we have 
seen, there are no clear examples of plural nouns in TSKS fitting the 
“identical” group in the NT, rendering such a possibility here less likely 
on grammatical grounds.82

    The strongest possibilities are either that two distinct groups are in 
view or the apostles are seen as a subset of the prophets. If the OT prophets 
are in view, then obviously two distinct groups are meant. But if NT prophets 
are in view, this would favor the apostles as being a subset of the prophets. 
In favor of this second view: (1) If OT prophets were in view, it seems 
unnatural that they would be mentioned second. (2) Whenever apostles are in a 
TSKS plural construction they always come first and the semantic value of the 
construction involves the first group as a subset of the second. (3) Since 
the picture of a building which apparently consists of the true Church is 
what is being described here, and since the apostles and prophets are viewed 
as foundational to this building, it seems hardly conceivable that OT 
prophets would be in the author’s mind here. (4) The same construction occurs 
in 3:5 in which it is declared that the mystery has now been revealed “to his 
holy apostles and prophets”; thus, the NT prophets are clearly in view there. 
Since the context is still about the foundation and beginning of the Church, 
it would be consistent for the reference to be about the same group of 
prophets in both 2:20 and 3:5. Our conclusion, then, is that Eph 2:20 speaks 
of “the apostles and [other] prophets.”

Charles Powell
DTS
cep7 at aol.com



More information about the B-Greek mailing list