two substantives with one article joined by KAI

Greek Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
1

This question came to me this morning. It’s a very old crux in Eph. 4:11.

Eph. 2:20 ἐποικοδομηθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν, ὄντος ἀκρογωνιαίου αὐτοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ,

Eph. 4:11 Καὶ αὐτὸς ἔδωκεν τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας, τοὺς δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς, > τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους> ,

Compare Wuest with Smyth, Robertson and Cooper. They are not saying the same thing.

Kenneth Samuel Wuest, the former Teacher Emeritus of New Testament Greek, The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois, explains the reason the Greek structure of this phrase, “pastors and teachers,” must be translated as “teaching-pastors” or “pastor-teachers.”

“The rule is as follows: When two nouns in the same case are connected by the Greek word ‘and,’ and the first noun is preceded by the article ‘the,’ and the second noun is not preceded by the article, > the second noun refers to the same person or thing to which the first noun refers> , and is a farther description of it. For instance, the words ‘pastors’ and ‘teachers’ in Ephesians 4:11 are in the same case and are connected by the word ‘and.’ The word ‘pastors,’ is preceded by the article ‘the,’ whereas the word ‘teachers’ is not. This construction requires us to understand that the word ‘pastors’ and ‘teachers’ is a farther description of the individual called a ‘pastor.’ The expression therefore refers to pastors who are also teachers, ‘teaching-pastors.’” (Treasures from the Greek New Testament)



H.W. Smyth
Smyth § 1143 who states:
1143. A single article, used with the first of two or more nouns connected by and, produces the effect of a single notion: οἱ στρατηγοὶ καὶ λοχᾱγοί the generals and captains (the commanding officers) X. A. 2. 2. 8, τὰς μεγίστᾱς καὶ ἐλαχίστᾱς ναῦς the largest and the smallest ships (the whole fleet) T. 1. 10, ἡ τῶν πολλῶν διαβολή τε καὶ φθόνος the calumniations and envy of the multitude P. A. 28 a. Rarely when the substantives are of different genders: περὶ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψῡχὰς καὶ σώματα concerning their own lives and persons X. A. 3. 2. 20.

A. T. Robertson p. 787

  1. Groups Treated as One. Sometimes groups more or less dis-
    tinct are treated as one for the purpose in hand, and hence use
    only one article. Cfτὰς φίλας καὶ γείτονας (Lu. 15:9), τοὺς νομικοὺς
    καὶ Φαρισαίους (14:3), τὰ πλατείας καὶ ῥύμας (14:21), τῶν πρεσβυτέρων
    καὶ γραμματέων (Mk. 15:1), τῶν Ἐπικουρίων καὶ Στωκῶν (Ac. 17:
    18), τῶν Φαρισαίων καὶ Σαδδουκαίων (Ac. 23:7), τῶν ποστόλων καὶ
    προφητῶν (Eph. 2:20), τῇ πολογίᾳ καὶ βεβαιώσει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου
    (Ph. 1:7), τὸ πλάτος καὶ μῆκος καὶ βάθος καὶ ὕψος (Eph. 3:18), τὴν
    κλῆσιν καὶ ἐκλογήν (2 Pet. 1:10). Cf. τήν in Tit. 2:13. So in Mt.
    17:1 (W. H. text) we have τὸν Πέτρον καὶ Ἰάκωβον καὶ Ἰωάνην, where
    the three are one group. This is probably more frequent in ex-
    amples where a genitive occurs also, or some other attribute.2
    So Ph. 1:20 τὴν ποκαραδοκίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα μου, 1:19 τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως
    καὶ ἐπιχορηρίας τοῦ πνεύματος, 2:17 τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτουργίᾳ τῆς
    πίστεως. Cf. also 1 Th. 2:12; 3:7; Mt. 24:3; Ro. 1:20; Col. 2:8; Eph.
    3:5; 2 Cor. 1:6; 1 Pet. 2:25; Ph. 1:25. These are all the simplest
    and clearest illustrations.

Guy Cooper Attic Greek Prose Syntax vol 2, §58.2.1.B (not on the internet)

When substances are held closely parallel by conjunctions they usually have the same relationship to the rest of the sentence. [article used with each substantive] However, such closely parallel substantives may also fuse into an organic whole presenting one organic idea. The article may be used with only the first substantive and this article extends its force over the whole complex.

… οἱ στρατηγοὶ καὶ λοχᾱγοί X. A. 2. 2. 8 (> the generals and captains > They are thus distinguished as the officers’ corps from the private soldiers. In the military technical language in Xe. names of military classes often take on the character of proper names so that they are used freely without articles even when we might rather expect them.)

2

Nice. The example from Xenophon is from a chapter where the distinction between στρατηγοί and λοχαγοί is very clear. In fact, even if you took out all of the English-language interpretation from Smyth and others, the Greek examples seem to clearly go against Wuest.

3

There are lots of exceptions to the so-called TSKS “rule” with plurals or proper names. Granville Sharp himself conceded this , see here http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer’s%20Corner/Doctrines/granville_sharp.htm)-

Rule I.
When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes farther description of the first-named person, as -


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. …

The rules which follow are intended only to illustrate the particularity of the several sentences which fall under the first rule, by showing, in other sentences, the different senses that are occasioned by adding, omitting, or repeating, the article, as well with the copulative as without it.

Unfortunately, even the more restrictive “Granville Sharp rule (I)” has no real predictive value. I am willing to go toe to toe with anyone here who dares to use this “rule” (designed about 300 years ago by an amateur trinitarian grammarian with a theological agenda) to “prove” for Christ’s “Deity.”.

4

Yes and NT examples in ATR seem to support Smyth and Cooper.

τοὺς νομικοὺς καὶ Φαρισαίους (Lk 14:3), τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ γραμματέων (Mk. 15:1), τῶν Ἐπικουρίων καὶ Στωκῶν (Ac. 17:18), τῶν Φαρισαίων καὶ Σαδδουκαίων (Ac. 23:7), Πέτρον καὶ Ἰάκωβον

These join concepts rather than people:
ἐν τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ καὶ βεβαιώσει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (Ph. 1:7), τί τὸ πλάτος καὶ μῆκος καὶ ὕψος καὶ βάθος (Eph. 3:18), τὴν κλῆσιν καὶ ἐκλογήν (2 Pet. 1:10).

Not certain that εἰς τὰς πλατείας καὶ ῥύμας τῆς πόλεως (Lk 14:21) is a strong example. One might argue that this is just a figure of speech like highways and byways with no intention of actually distinguishing between them.

5

The way I see it, you can’t interpret this strictly from a Greek grammar point of view. You have to see how the writer uses the words ποιμήν and διδασκαλός otherwise, if possible. This construction shows that ποιμένας and διδασκάλους have something in common that contrasts them, taken together, from ἀποστόλους, προφήτας, and εὐαγγελιστάς, but there’s no rule, I believe, that tells us for sure whether every ποιμήν is also διδασκαλός and vice versa or not. I see three possible interpretations:

  1. ποιμένας and διδασκάλους are distint and do not overlap; yet they have something in common that make them a meaningful group that contrasts with ἀποστόλους, προφήτας, and εὐαγγελιστάς. This interpretation is similar to Xenophon’s οἱ στρατηγοὶ καὶ λοχᾱγοί = “commanding officers”.

  2. Some but not all ποιμένας are διδασκάλους and/or some but not all διδασκάλους are ποιμένας. There is partial but not total overlap between the two groups, and together they make a meaningful contrast with ἀποστόλους, προφήτας, and εὐαγγελιστάς.

  3. Every ποιμήν is διδασκαλός, and vice versa. This is Wuest’s interpretation, which I think is possible, but by no means the only possibility, and certainly not to the exclusion of others. But if “shepherd and teacher” was a set expression in the writer’s (Paul?) community, a bit similar to ὁ καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός, then by all means “pastor-teacher” is possible.

6

I am not sure about vice versa #3. I suspect διδασκαλός is fairly transparent but I could be wrong. On ποιμήν Louw & Nida have a paragraph dealing with Eph 4:11, here it is:

53.72 ποιμήνb, ένος m: (a figurative extension of meaning of ποιμήνa ‘shepherd,’ 44.4) one who is responsible for the care and guidance of a Christian congregation — ‘pastor, minister.’ αὐτὸς ἔδωκεν τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας, τοὺς δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς, τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους ‘he appointed some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, others to be pastors and teachers’ Eph 4:11. Note that in Eph 4:11 there are four classes of persons, not five, for the last class involves two complementary roles, that of pastor and teacher, in other words, to guide and help a congregation as well as to teach

The ministry of διδασκαλός καὶ ποιμήν takes place within τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ whereas the focus of
ἀποστόλους καὶ προφήτας is both inside and outside τῆς ἐκκλησίας. However, I am not sure this held for the period when the author of Ephesians wrote.

Paul made a big deal about being called an ἀπόστολον. He was also functioning in several other capacities but he was adamant about having the status of an ἀποστόλου. Exactly what he meant by that is not perfectly obvious. Paul as author is of course a matter of dispute.

For what it is worth, the New Living Version

Ephesians 4:11-13 New Living Translation (NLT) (source BibleGateway)

11 Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers.

I cite the NLT because it would be in keeping with the translation goals to make the meaning of “the pastors and teachers” transparent to a contemporary audience.

7

Preface:
This question came up again on b-greek today. I have revised my previous post with citations from Gildersleeve and Attic Tragedy and will put the whole post here since web links tend to have a short and unhappy life.

This is a perennial question. Different grammarians need to be read carefully noting significant subtle differences in the way they frame the question. I read once again Smyth and Cooper today and they appear to agree more or less. But their framing of the question is different from A.T. Robertson who cites Gildersleeve and more so from Dana & Mantey (I didn’t cite them). Compare Wuest with Smyth, Robertson, Gildersleeve and Cooper. They are not saying exactly the same thing.

Kenneth Samuel Wuest, the former Teacher Emeritus of New Testament Greek, The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois, explains the reason the Greek structure of this phrase, “pastors and teachers,” must be translated as “teaching-pastors” or “pastor-teachers.”

“The rule is as follows: When two nouns in the same case are connected by the Greek word ‘and,’ and the first noun is preceded by the article ‘the,’ and the second noun is not preceded by the article, > the second noun refers to the same person or thing to which the first noun refers> , and is a farther description of it. For instance, the words ‘pastors’ and ‘teachers’ in Ephesians 4:11 are in the same case and are connected by the word ‘and.’ The word ‘pastors,’ is preceded by the article ‘the,’ whereas the word ‘teachers’ is not. This construction requires us to understand that the word ‘pastors’ and ‘teachers’ is a farther description of the individual called a ‘pastor.’ The expression therefore refers to pastors who are also teachers, ‘teaching-pastors.’” (Treasures from the Greek New Testament)



H.W. Smyth
Smyth § 1143 who states:
1143. A single article, used with the first of two or more nouns connected by and, produces the effect of a single notion: οἱ στρατηγοὶ καὶ λοχᾱγοί the generals and captains (the commanding officers) X. A. 2. 2. 8, τὰς μεγίστᾱς καὶ ἐλαχίστᾱς ναῦς the largest and the smallest ships (the whole fleet) T. 1. 10, ἡ τῶν πολλῶν διαβολή τε καὶ φθόνος the calumniations and envy of the multitude P. A. 28 a. Rarely when the substantives are of different genders: περὶ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψῡχὰς καὶ σώματα concerning their own lives and persons X. A. 3. 2. 20.

A. T. Robertson p. 787

  1. Groups Treated as One. Sometimes groups more or less dis-
    tinct are treated as one for the purpose in hand, and hence use
    only one article. Cfτὰς φίλας καὶ γείτονας (Lu. 15:9), τοὺς νομικοὺς
    καὶ Φαρισαίους (14:3), τὰ πλατείας καὶ ῥύμας (14:21), τῶν πρεσβυτέρων
    καὶ γραμματέων (Mk. 15:1), τῶν Ἐπικουρίων καὶ Στωκῶν (Ac. 17:
    18), τῶν Φαρισαίων καὶ Σαδδουκαίων (Ac. 23:7), τῶν ποστόλων καὶ
    προφητῶν (Eph. 2:20), τῇ πολογίᾳ καὶ βεβαιώσει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου
    (Ph. 1:7), τὸ πλάτος καὶ μῆκος καὶ βάθος καὶ ὕψος (Eph. 3:18), τὴν
    κλῆσιν καὶ ἐκλογήν (2 Pet. 1:10). Cf. τήν in Tit. 2:13. So in Mt.
    17:1 (W. H. text) we have τὸν Πέτρον καὶ Ἰάκωβον καὶ Ἰωάνην, where
    the three are one group. This is probably more frequent in ex-
    amples where a genitive occurs also, or some other attribute.2
    So Ph. 1:20 τὴν ποκαραδοκίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα μου, 1:19 τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως
    καὶ ἐπιχορηρίας τοῦ πνεύματος, 2:17 τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτουργίᾳ τῆς
    πίστεως. Cf. also 1 Th. 2:12; 3:7; Mt. 24:3; Ro. 1:20; Col. 2:8; Eph.
    3:5; 2 Cor. 1:6; 1 Pet. 2:25; Ph. 1:25. These are all the simplest
    and clearest illustrations.

Guy L. Cooper III, Attic Greek Prose Syntax, v.2, p930 §58.2.1.A

When substances are held closely parallel by conjunctions > they usually have the same relationship to the rest of the sentence> . Consequently, if the attributive article is appropriate with the first substantive, it is appropriate with the others also, and the article is repeated with each substantive.

Euripides Alcestis
Ed. Diggle, J.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984.
Line 290

ἀλλ’ ἄνδρα τε σχεῖν Θεσσαλῶν ὃν ἤθελον
καὶ δῶμα ναίειν ὄλβιον τυραννίδι.
οὐκ ἠθέλησα ζῆν ἀποσπασθεῖσα σοῦ
σὺν παισὶν ὀρφανοῖσιν, οὐδ’ ἐφεισάμην
ἥβης, ἔχουσ’ ἐν οἷς ἐτερπόμην ἐγώ.
καίτοι σ’ > ὁ φύσας χἠ τεκοῦσα προύδοσαν,
καλῶς μὲν αὐτοῖς κατθανεῖν ἧκον βίου,
καλῶς δὲ σῶσαι παῖδα κεὐκλεῶς θανεῖν.
μόνος γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἦσθα, κοὔτις ἐλπὶς ἦν
σοῦ κατθανόντος ἄλλα φιτύσειν τέκνα.

Aristophanes Ach Line 575
{ΛΑΜΑΧΟΣ}
Πόθεν βοῆς ἤκουσα πολεμιστηρίας;
Ποῖ χρὴ βοηθεῖν; Ποῖ κυδοιμὸν ἐμβαλεῖν;
Τίς Γοργόν’ ἐξήγειρεν ἐκ τοῦ σάγματος;
{ΔΙ.} Ὦ Λάμαχ’, ἥρως > τῶν λόφων καὶ τῶν λόχων.
{ΧΟ.} Ὦ Λάμαχ’, οὐ γὰρ οὗτος ἅνθρωπος πάλαι
ἅπασαν ἡμῶν τὴν πόλιν κακορροθεῖ;
{ΛΑ.} Οὗτος, σὺ τολμᾷς πτωχὸς ὢν λέγειν τάδε;
{ΔΙ.} Ὦ Λάμαχ’ ἥρως, ἀλλὰ συγγνώμην ἔχε,
εἰ πτωχὸς ὢν εἶπόν τι κἀστωμυλάμην.

Cooper ) is framing a more general principle than claiming the multiple substantives are coreferential.



Cooper §58.2.1.B
However, such closely parallel substantives may also fuse into an organic whole presenting one organic idea. The article may be used with only the first substantive and this article extends its force over the whole complex.
… οἱ στρατηγοὶ καὶ λοχᾱγοί X. A. 2. 2. 8 (> the generals and captains > They are thus distinguished as the officers’ corps from the private soldiers. In the military technical language in Xe. names of military classes often take on the character of proper names so that they are used freely without articles even when we might rather expect them.)



Gildersleeve cited from Perseus:
http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.4:21:8.NewPerseusMonographs


603
Repetition and non-repetition of the article.
The article may be common to a number of copulated substantives, even when they are of different genders or numbers, or it may be repeated with each member. Theoretically the repetition compels a separate consideration while the omission suggests unity. Practically the Greeks were almost as loose as we are prone to be, and a sharp difference cannot be made.

Theoretically then:
οἱ . . . στρατηγοὶ καὶ οἱ λοχαγοί, XEN. An. 3.5.14, the generals and the captains (as different classes of officers), but οἱ στρατηγοὶ καὶ λοχαγοί (cf. ibid. 1.7.2), the generals and captains (officers as distinguished from the privates).
Practically:
τὸ ὅμοιον καὶ τὸ ἀνόμοιον καὶ τὸ ταὐτὸν καὶ ἕτερον, PLATO, Theaet. 186A; The like and the unlike and the identical and different. οἱ αὐτοὶ ὅρκοι καὶ ξυμμαχία, THUC.1.102.4.

Repetition of the Article:
DEM.1.22: τοὺς λιμένας καὶ τὰς ἀγοράς. 18.2· τῇ τάξει καὶ τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ. 7· τὰς αἰτίας καὶ τὰς διαβολάς. 12· τῶν μέντοι κατηγοριῶν καὶ τῶν αἰτιῶν. 17. 35.
LYS.12.35: πολλοὶ καὶ τῶν ἀστῶν καὶ τῶν ξένων. 43· ἡ ναυμαχία καὶ ἡ συμφορά. 57· τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὴν πόλιν. 75· τὴν παρασκευὴν καὶ τὴν ἀνάγκην. 13.63· ἡ δὲ τύχη καὶ ὁ δαίμων.
PLATO, Rpb. 359C: τῷ τε δικαίῳ καὶ τῷ ἀδίκῳ. 360 E: τόν τε δικαιότατον καὶ τὸν ἀδικώτατον. 363 E: ὁ μὲν οὖν ἔπαινος καὶ ὁ ψόγος οὗτος ἑκατέρων. 370 D. 371 E: ἥ τε δικαιοσύνη καὶ ἡ ἀδικία (cf. 372 E: τήν τε δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἀδικίαν). 410 A: τοὺς . . . εὐφυεῖς τὰ σώματα καὶ τὰς ψυχάς. Theaet. 186 A (603).
XEN. An. 1.4.4: τῆς Κιλικίας καὶ τῆς Συρίας. 3.5.14 (603). Hell. 1.1.31: τὰς ναῦς καὶ τὸ στράτευμα.
THUC.3.3.1: οὐκ ἔπειθον τοὺς Μυτιληναίους τήν τε ξυνοίκισιν καὶ τὴν παρασκευὴν διαλύειν. 15.1· οἱ δὲ Λακεδαιμόνιοι καὶ οἱ ξύμμαχοι. 18.2· πληγέντες ὑπό τε τῶν Ἀντισσαίων καὶ τῶν ἐπικούρων.
HDT.1.17: τά τε δένδρεα καὶ τὸν καρπόν. 52· τήν τε ἀρετὴν καὶ τὴν πάθην.
AR. Ach. 130-2: ἐμοὶ . . . καὶ τοῖσι παιδίοισι καὶ τῇ πλάτιδι. 575· ὦ Λάμαχ’ ἥρως, τῶν λόφων καὶ τῶν λόχων. 816-7. 888. 1074. 1086. Eq. 165: καὶ τῆς ἀγορᾶς καὶ τῶν λιμένων καὶ τῆς πυκνός. 208. 528.
EUR. Alc. 290: ὁ φύσας χἠ τεκοῦσα.
AESCHYL. P.V. 39: τὸ συγγενές τοι δεινὸν ἥ θ’ ὁμιλία. 98-9· τὸ παρὸν τό τ’ ἐπερχόμενον | πῆμα στενάχω. 927· τό τ’ ἄρχειν καὶ τὸ δουλεύειν.

8

Gildersleeve hit the nail on the head:

Practically the Greeks were almost as loose as we are prone to be, and a sharp difference cannot be made.

This example is illustrative:

τὸ ὅμοιον καὶ τὸ ἀνόμοιον καὶ τὸ ταὐτὸν καὶ ἕτερον, PLATO, Theaet. 186A

τὸ ταὐτὸν καὶ ἕτερον are clearly distinct despite sharing a single article.

I think you could find similar examples in Plato, where opposites are listed. Socrates uses this sort of procedure to get his interlocutors to focus on defining abstractions. Eventually, after one or two examples of paired opposites are listed with separate articles he starts grouping them together with a single article instead of repeating the article for both members of the pair.

The example of opposing pairs is particularly on point because, of course, it is obviously not true that the second member of the pair, the opposite of the first, “refers to the same person or thing to which the first noun refers, and is a farther description of it,” as Wuest’s categorical “rule” would have it.

But I don’t think this just applies to lists of opposites. My sense is that the longer the list grows, the more likely the later items are to be lumped together with a single article, especially if it happens to be the same article.

That’s how I would read Eph. 4:11, coming to it without doctrinal preconceptions. The writer starts out the list with μὲν. The following items are then listed with δὲ, but when he comes to the end, he caps off the list with καὶ for finality. He could have written καὶ τοὺς διδασκάλους (but not καὶ τοὺς δὲ διδασκάλους), but by this time he has repeated τοὺς so many times that he doesn’t bother to repeat it.

If he had intended to list a category of individuals who are both ποιμενες and διδασκαλοι, I think he would have had to explain what he was talking about. Are there any other examples of ποιμενες και διδασκαλοι or some discussion elsewhere to the effect that all ποιμενες are also διδασκαλοι, and vice versa? If not, then in my view these should be viewed as separate categories, and lumping them together as a single category amounts to reading into casual usage subtleties that just aren’t there.

The contrast with Eph. 2:20 really drives home the point: there, αποστολοι and προφηται are grouped together with a single article; here, each gets its own article.

This isn’t a crux at all, and Wuest is off-base.

9

Seems pretty simple to me: not all teachers are also pastors, but all pastors are also Bible teachers; so you must say pastors and teachers to distinguish between those teachers who aren’t pastors (i.e., Bible scholars in our day).

10

not all teachers are also pastors, but all pastors are also Bible teachers; so you must say pastors and teachers to distinguish between those teachers who aren’t pastors

If that’s what he meant he would have written something like τοὺς δὲ καὶ ποιμένας καὶ (αμα) διδασκάλους οντας to make the point clear.

Eph. 2.20 shows that the so-called “rule” about this is not a rule at all: ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν. These are two distinct classes of individuals.

And why would ποιμένας who are not διδασκάλους and διδασκάλους who are not ποιμένας be excluded from this list, while those who are both ποιμένας and διδασκάλους are included? It makes no sense without some explanation, and there doesn’t seem to be any.

11

No, not necessarily. If STRESSING the role of pastor as teacher, then he’d use only one article. Notice how he uses the article to stress SEPARATENESS OF PERSON, Trinity, in 2Cor13:14.

James does this sort of thing with the article also, I had to make videos on it in Youtube, some years back. James uses or removes the article to stress Divine versus human quality.

Point is, the article is used to stress a relationship. Here, the UNITY (theme of Eph4) of the office of pastor AS teacher, especially as the point reaches a crescendo in Eph4:16.

12

No subtle doctrine here–just casual language.

13

Well, I’d not call the language casual or the doctrine, subtle. But to each his own.