So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up (Eph 4:11-12, NIV 2011).

In this translation, the translators–like all translators–have made decisions that smooth over ambiguity in the original. In fact, a reading of the above may leave you wondering where the meat of the discussion is to be found. Well, compare the NIV 2011 above with the KJV below (or with the Greek New Testament).

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (Eph 4:11-12 KJV)

The difference lies in the way the three phrases of v. 12 are handled (and relatedly to the translation of katartismon “equip/perfect,” a NT hapax legomenon). The NIV 2011 (and all contemporary translations that I’m aware of) links “equip” (“perfect” KJV) with what immediately follows, “for works of service” (“for the work of ministry” KJV).

Thus, in the NIV 2011, Christ gave apostles, etc., for two things:

1. to equip his people for works of service and
2. in order to build up the body of Christ

but in the KJV, Christ gave apostles, etc., for three things:

1. for perfecting (equipping) the saints
2. for the work of the ministry
3. for the edifying of the body of Christ

The discussion of the relationship of Eph 4:12 with every member ministry is concerned with whether the first phrase “to equip/perfect” is linked to “works of service.” In other words, are the saints equipped by apostles, etc., for ministry or are the saints simply equipped by apostles, etc., but not for ministry.

Caution in the Use of Ephesians 4:12

I cannot settle the question of the best translation for v. 12 because I see compelling lexical and contextual reasons in favor of both renderings; but I would like to comment on the use of these verses in relation to every member ministry.

First, the Greek original appears ambiguous to me; thus, we get the different renderings of the NIV and the KJV.¹  This is not a matter of textual criticism per se but a question of to which phrase to join another particular phrase, not always an easy choice. Reading v.12 in Greek presents both options to me. I would therefore caution against utilizing Eph 4:12 to decide definitively the question of every member ministry, whether for or against. Read, interpret and apply humbly, and with your brothers and sisters in Christ.

As a result, I’m not sure I can agree when Michael Horton writes, “Reflecting the actual construction of the Greek, the older translation [i.e., KJV] draws three lines of purpose clauses…,” as if the newer translations don’t reflect the “actual” Greek in some way.² Instead, I think it makes more sense to assert that reflecting the “actual construction of the Greek” would entail preserving the ambiguity of the Greek. Nor do I appreciate the uncharitable statement of commentator Andrew Lincoln when he remarks on this verse that it’s “hard to avoid the suspicion that opting for the other view [i.e., NIV 2011] is too often motivated by a zeal to avoid clericalism and to support a ‘democratic’ model of the Church.”³ Why question the motive of every member ministry?

Secondly, I believe Michael Horton, for example, creates a false dichotomy between proper “ministry of the Word” and every member ministry.⁴ He may have us believe that if a congregation is seeking to actively involve its members in the church’s ministries then there will be an undue exaltation of the people of the congregation to the detriment of the ministry of the word. This does not necessarily follow. Surely a local body can both prize the involvement of its members and prize the ministry of the word–unless, of course, there is something unscriptural about involving members, but I do not think this can be determined on the witness of Eph 4:11-12 alone.

Thirdly, what is “every member ministry” anyways?! Is it giving Joe Pew the pulpit on a Sunday? Or, simply allowing Mrs. Pew to bake bread and wash feet? Is every member ministry simply allowing each member to utilize his or her own God-given giftings? If so, has Horton set up a straw man of every member ministry, one which usurps the ministry of the word?

I wonder if we totally grasp the weight of the incarnation of the Son of God, coming as a small Christ child.

Luke 1-2 should serve as a reminder to those of us who are Gentiles that the coming of the Messiah is primarily a Jewish event. Luke, who may have been a gentile, understood this. Keeping with his expressed purpose in Luke 1:1-4, the evangelist writes in the remainder of the first chapter and into the second to inform us of the events surrounding the advent of the Christ child. It is not insignificant that the events he’s preserved for us are entirely and utterly Jewish.

Luke 1:5 further introduces the Jewish Christ story with mention of the King of Judea and a priest whose wife was a daughter of Aaron. They walk “blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord” though without a child. Reminiscent of Hannah? Possibly, though Mary is a far more likely candidate. Next, Zechariah is chosen by lot to enter the temple. Gabriel appears and the forerunner of the Messiah is foretold. It’s all sounding completely Jewish and we could continue to see the explicit and tease out the implicit should we wish, but the Christmas story isn’t simply about the coming of the Jewish Messiah. It’s about a recalling the hints of the expansion of God’s people by the Messiah.

Consider, for example, Isaiah 49. The prophetic word opens entreating the “peoples from afar” to listen up. This includes you and I. Everyone should perk up when YHWH speaks to the nations. The prophet then speaks of the Lord’s servant “Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” Is this a redefinition of Israel? The Messiah as (an) Israel? He continues with a thrilling word:

“Is it too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel [? Yes]; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (Isaiah 49:6).

This salvation is a person and he is the Christmas story. The wonder of the Christmas story is not only that the Jewish Messiah has come to “save his people from their sins” but that Gentiles are included so that this salvation is global in extent.  What a wonderful surprise! The Gentile inclusion opens up a new whole new aspect of the work of the Messiah like one opening a door to an attic which had been shut up for ages. The treasures in that attic were there the whole time–hidden from eternity past?–but only recently (first century AD) brought to light. Paul calls it a “mystery” which has been made known by “holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (Ephesians 3:5). And as if we should start to wonder exactly what that mystery which has been made known is, he spells it out plainly:

“This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (Ephesians 3:6).

Revisiting the attic analogy, Paul writes that “the mystery of Christ…was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed” (Eph 3:4-5). It’s not that the “mystery” wasn’t there but that it was just that, a mystery and it had to be revealed.

Praise be to God! The Christ child whom we celebrate this season makes this mystery possible and known!

With the mystery in mind, we shall look closely at a mystery-laden Christmas hymn commonly sung in churches during Advent, O Come, O Come Emmanuel. Familiarize yourself with the hymn if you’re feeling a little rusty since  last year. I want to draw your attention to the refrain with which you will undoubtedly be familiar:

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

Note that the twice repeated “Rejoice!” is a command. You, rejoice! I’m talking to you. Who’s talking? Everyone singing? Sure, but more specifically, I think the speaker is supposed to be a Gentile. The last verse seems to imply this (“O, Desire of nations”) coupled with the third person references to Israel scattered throughout. So, we’ve got Gentiles singing. What are they singing? Of whom are they singing? Singing of Emmanuel…God with us…the Messiah. To whom are the Gentiles singing of the Messiah? To Israel!

O Come, O Come, Emmanuel employs Gentiles to sing of the Messiah to Israel. It seems kind of backwards doesn’t it? This is the partial hardening (Romans 11:25).  Shouldn’t Israel be singing “Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel shall come even unto you, O nations!” That’s what you would think; but the mystery changes our thinking.

When we Gentiles sing this hymn we should be overwhelmed with grief for unbelieving Israel. We should be overwhelmed by the fact that we are singing to them instead of them singing to us. We shouldn’t be singing at all, but Christ is such a great savior that we can’t help but sing and to all nations and most certainly to unbelieving Israel. Yes, we proclaim their Messiah and their salvation, but by the mystery and the mind-expanding work of Christ, he is also our Messiah and our salvation. We sing. We sing.

When Gentiles sing to Jews about the Messiah, may we be reminded of the Gentile inclusion, meaning that we who were not a people have been brought near by the blood of the final Passover Lamb who has expanded what it means to be the people of God and children of Abraham.

Hallelujah!