27
The Ground
of Unity
Eph. 4:4-6
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
The first observation we should make here is that we are entering perhaps the most important section of the second half of Ephesians. I say that because this sections forms the very foundation of unity. What exactly unites us? Some today answer “love,” others answer “our shared experience,” and still others answer “a common goal.” Many today, even evangelicals, insist, “Doctrine divides, love unites.”
Many years ago while preaching a week of meetings in a certain church, the pastor came to me with a burden about how his denomination was drifting towards Liberalism. Asking me what he should do, I answered immediately, “Get out. You must separate yourself from those who deny the Truth.” Appalled at that, he responded, “Oh, I could never do that. Our denomination views love and unity as supreme, so I could never pull out.” But that is serious error. Love is never spoken of in Scripture as being superior to Truth. Not even I Corinthians 13, that great “Love Chapter,” implies such an idea. Yes, it says that without “love” certain things, such as knowledge, faith, and giving are empty and meaningless, but neither does it say that love is meant to stand by itself or is meant to replace all those things.
May we ask a simple question: How can love unite people who deny Christ with those who embrace Him? As we saw in our previous study, how can there possibly be unity apart from the unique revelation of God through Christ? If you remove the very essence of Christianity, the very foundation of the faith, you have nothing. As we’ve also mentioned before, with few exceptions, people go right to Ephesians 4 when speaking of unity without consider the doctrine of chapters 1-3. Only when we understand the doctrine of unity there can we understand the duty of unity here. May we say it clearly and with no ambiguity: doctrine must be the ground for unity. Of course, that principle is frowned upon in our day and is ironically considered “divisive,” but it’s still true.
To put this another way: doctrine makes up the building block of unity, while love provides the energy to build. One without the other is useless. If all we have is doctrine, the building materials will lay around and accomplish nothing. What good is Truth if you don’t use it? What good is right Theology if there is no energy? On the other hand, if all you have is love, you’ll have everyone running around looking for materials with which to build, but they will find nothing lasting. It is really here that most of Christianity is today. Everyone is looking for something around which to unify, but the last thing they consider is doctrine. We must, therefore, have both: Truth and love. This is why Paul says later in Ephesians, “Speaking the truth in love” (4:15).
Once we accept the fact that doctrine is the ground for unity, a question immediately arises: WHAT doctrine is the ground for unity? This is vitally important. Some base their unity on what translation of the Bible another uses, or where someone went to Bible College or Seminary, or what position another takes on a particular minor doctrine or practice, or what view someone takes of the Second Coming of Christ, and on it goes. But such divisions are not taught in Scripture.
What then is the basis? What doctrine is the ground of unity? What doctrine forms the foundation of our faith? The answer is in our text. These verses list seven spiritual realities that unite all true believers. Contained in these seven principles is the very essence of Christianity, that is, its foundational truths. If we could boil down Christianity to its bare elements, here they are. Our unity and fellowship must be based on these. If someone accepts these, there can be unity, even when there is disagreement on minor points of doctrine or practice. But if one or more of these is rejected, there can be no unity and fellowship. May we again recall our definition of unity: the unanimous agreement concerning the unique revelation of God through and in Jesus Christ. And these seven spiritual realities are rooted in Christ and His Word. Let’s examine each of these and note two things about each one: its meaning and its application.
I. One Body (v.
4a)
There is one body,
The Meaning
There can be no doubt that one body refers to the Universal Church, the Body of Christ, the Church as an organism, to which Paul has referred several times in this letter.
There are many other references to this in Scripture. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said He would build His Church” (singular), not “churches’ (plural). While before his conversion Paul no doubt persecuted individual churches, he recounts in I Corinthians 15:9 how he persecuted “the church,” that is, the entire Body of Christ. That is why the Lord Jesus asked, “Why persecutest thou Me?” (Acts 9:4), that is, My Body, all believers. Later in Ephesians 5:25, Paul also declares that Christ gave Himself for “the church,” that is, the entire Body. That Body was formed on the Day of Pentecost and includes every true believer. He emphasized the same truth to the Romans: “For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another” (Rom. 12:4-5).
So there is one body, not many. There is not one church that is for Jews, another for Gentiles, another for men, another for women, another for Caucasians, another for Negroes, and another for Asians. There is one, a single unified Body of Jesus Christ, of which all believers are part. As we studied carefully back in 2:14-18, God has made us all one. Shame on us if we build back any walls that He has broken down.
What a joy it is to meet someone and find out they are a Believer! I recently had to fly back from vacation for an emergency in our Local Church. On the last leg of the trip, between Denver and Grand Junction, Colorado, I got to talking with the man sitting next to me. As we chatted, it came out that he was a believer. What a marvelous time we had in the next few minutes! Regardless of race, denomination, or any other factor, to meet a true Believer is a joy. There is an immediate connection, an instant fellowship that is incomprehensible to an unbeliever. The reason is that we both belong to the same body and therefore our fellowship is instantaneous.
One word of caution is in order here. A common teaching in today’s pragmatic atmosphere is that only the Universal Church is important. This emphasis tears down and de-emphasizes the Local Church, which is, in fact, actually more important in some ways. The Local Church is the Church as an organization. More precisely, it is the local assembly of believers, organized according to Scriptural guidelines, that carries out all outward ministry. The Local Church is God’s instrument for working in the world today, and each is to carry out all ministry. That is why Paul founded Local Churches. As one writer very aptly puts it:
The one body is the model for the many local bodies that God has established across the world. The fact that a person is a member of the one body does not excuse him from belonging to a local body, for it is there that he exercises his spiritual gifts and helps others to grow.[1]
That is precisely what the Local Church is for. It is for God’s people to gather for worship, exercise their gifts, and equip them for service. As Paul makes clear later in Ephesians 4:11-16, God has given certain men “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,” and this obviously takes place in the local church, as is also made plain in the book of Acts. Paul likewise wrote to Timothy, the pastor of a Local Church, “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (I Tim. 2:15 with context). So as we will see, the Local Church is the training ground for ministry.
The Application
Simply stated, acceptance of the one Body, the Universal Church, is a basis of unity and fellowship. One example of those who don’t accept this principle are certain denominations (or some groups who refuse to be even called a denomination) who maintain that their local assembly, along with other local assemblies who agree with them, are “The Church.” No one else is part of the Church, no matter what they believe. That is, of course, and arrogance that is hard to fathom.
The most graphic example of false teaching concerning the Body of Christ is Roman Catholicism, which teaches that only it is “The True Church.” If you are not Roman Catholic, you not a part of “The Church” and are, therefore, “accursed.” But Biblically, no earthly denomination or group can be called “The Church.” Every true believer who is in agreement concerning the unique revelation of God through and in Jesus Christ is part of Christ’s Body. Any other attitude destroys unity and any possibility of fellowship.
II. One Spirit (v.
4b)
and one spirit,
The Meaning
One spirit can refer only to the Holy Spirit of God, the third member of the Trinity, who regenerates the sinner and then indwells, enlightens, equips, and empowers the believer. So vital is the Holy Spirit in living the Christian life that Paul mentions Him a dozen times in Ephesians.[2] While we could add several to the list, let’s briefly note seven major ministries of the Holy Spirit to the Believer. What is the Holy Spirit doing in your life?
First, the Holy Spirit regenerates the sinner. As our Lord declared to Nicodemus, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God . . . Except a man be born of water [physical birth] and of the Spirit [spiritual birth], he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:3-6). And as Paul reminded Titus, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5). The new birth is the imparting of the Divine nature (II Pet. 1:4), and it is the Holy Spirit Who transmits that nature.
Second, the Holy Spirit gives the Believer assurance of salvation. Romans 8:15 and 16 declare, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God . . . The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” The Spirit gives the needed peace and rest that we are indeed in Christ and thereby a child of God. As we saw back in 1:13, we have been “sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,” which denotes absolute ownership and assurance. No other picture in Scripture gives a stronger affirmation of assurance than sealing of the Holy Spirit.
Third, the Holy Spirit indwells the Believer. Regardless of how imperfect or immature we might be, I Corinthians 6:15-19 declares “that [our] bodies are the members of Christ” and “the temple of the Holy Ghost.” Paul was writing to the most carnal bunch of Christians recorded in the New Testament, but they were still indwelt by the Holy Spirit. His presence within motivates us to holiness and purity and gives us a realization of His power in our lives. That leads to the next principle.
Fourth, the Holy Spirit strengthens the Believer. As we saw back in 3:16, “That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man.” Through the Holy Spirit, God gives us the power and ability to perform anything that He desires of us.
Fifth, the Holy Spirit illumines and teaches the Believer. As Paul again wrote to the Corinthians, “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God . . . But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (I Cor. 2:12, 14). Man’s mind must first be illumined by the Holy Spirit before he can rightly understand the Word of God. As Jesus told His disciples:
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you (Jn. 14:26).
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you (16:13-14).
There are no new revelations being given today, as many people claim. The Holy Spirit illumines the Believer concerning Christ, and brings to our remembrance what Christ has said and done. As we hear truth preached and read it in Scripture, the Holy Spirit gives us understanding.
Sixth, the Holy Spirit infills the Believer
and empowers him for service. As Paul later instructs, “Be not drunk with wine,
wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18). As we will study
there, the Greek behind “filled” is
pleroō, which means “to influence fully,
to control.” The chief idea in this is that we are to be permeated by the
Spirit, to be influenced by Him and nothing else, or, to put it simply, to be
filled with the Spirit is to have our thoughts, desires, values, motives,
goals, priorities, and all else set on spiritual things and spiritual growth.
The purpose for this infilling is for an empowering for service, more
specifically, an empowering to be a witness of Jesus Christ. As Acts 1:8
confirms the words of our Lord, “But ye shall receive power, after that the
Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in
Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of
the earth.”
Seventh, the Holy Spirit produces the fruit of Christ-like character in the Believer. We mention again the “fruit of the Spirit” in Galatians 5:22-23: “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance.” As we studied in verses 1-3, the Holy Spirit is producing the fruit of the Spirit, not fruits. Paul put it in the singular to show that they are a unified whole in the Believer’s life, and only the Holy Spirit can produce it.
The Application
The pointed application of this spiritual reality is that this one spirit is the energy of unity and fellowship. In thirty years of ministry I have seen some tragic examples of a lack of unity. I am convinced that the reason for this is a failure to allow the Spirit of God to rule. I am not doubting anyone’s salvation, but I am doubting that we are allowing the Holy Spirit to work in us. If we divide over some silly thing, we have just denied the “unity of the Spirit” (v. 3) and have fractured the body of Christ.
On the other, a rejection of this truth makes unity impossible. If one examines any cult or false religion, he finds the total absence of the idea of the personal indwelling and empowering presence of God through the Holy Spirit. Jehovah’s Witness, for example, teaches that the Holy Spirit is not a part of the Godhead. Both the personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit (which is defined as “the invisible active force of Almighty God which moves His servants to do His will”) are denied.[3] So, as Romans 8:9 declares, “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” A rejection of the one spirit of God who indwells every believer and Who produces unity in the first place destroys any possibility of unity. Again, as we examined back in verse 3, “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” It is the Holy Spirit Who produces unity. If we, therefore, do not possess the Holy Spirit, how can there be unity in the Body?
Tragically, there are Evangelicals today who advocate unity with political bodies as well as liberal denominations and even false religious groups for the sake of social ends. But this blatantly contracts the doctrine of one Spirit. There can be no unity, and therefore no glory to God, when we join with those who do not possess the Holy Spirit of God.
III. One Hope (v.
4c)
even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
The Meaning
As we studied back in 1:18, the Greek behind hope does not picture uncertainty, such as a wish or want, as it does in English. Rather it speaks of absolute assurance and rest in that assurance. There is, therefore, one hope, one certainty to which the believer looks: the return of Jesus Christ for His Church. Our calling refers to our calling to salvation, and the final hope, the final certainty of that salvation is the return of our Savior.
As we saw back in our study of 3:2, there are differing
views of the Second Coming of Christ: Amillennialism,
Post-Millennialism, and Premillennialism. While there are very important
differences in these views, they all do have one thing in common: all of
them hold that Jesus Christ WILL return. That is really what matters
most. Why? Because that is what Scripture says. As Revelation 19:11-16 record:
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
Then, in the last chapter of the Bible, we read twice our Lord’s promise: “Behold, I come quickly” (Rev. 22:7, 12), and then read it again intensified in verse 20, “Surely I come quickly.”
That is our one hope, our certainty. As Paul wrote to the Colossians, “To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col. 1:27). Christ is, indeed, the only glory we should ever seek and the one hope to which we look..
The Application
Applying this truth we should see that unity exists with a proper view of Christ’s return, that is, that He will return to the Earth as the Scripture says. Jehovah’s Witness, for example, teaches that Christ returned invisibly in 1914 and set up His kingdom in Heaven, but this is in direct contradiction to Scripture. At Christ’s ascension, two angels in the form of men announced, “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). The Lord’s coming, then, will be a visible kingdom on Earth, not an invisible Kingdom in Heaven.
This brings up the question, “What about those who don’t agree on their view of Christ’s return? Can a Premillennialist, for example, possibly fellowship with an Amillennialist?” There is today much unnecessary division here. Some who believe one view would not even consider fellowshipping with someone who holds another. But can this possibly honor the Lord? Is that “[keeping] the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace?” (v. 3). I, for example, am convinced that Premillenialism is correct. I believe without question that the reference in Revelation 20:4 and 6 to those who will “[live] and [reign] with Christ a thousand years” refers to a literal earthly Kingdom that will last 1,000 years. But at the same time, I can still fellowship with a brother in Christ who believes that the Kingdom is spiritual not literal. While I certainly think he is wrong and is missing a great blessing, what matters most is that we both know that our Lord is coming back to take us to glory. That is what matters.
IV. One Lord (v.
5a)
One Lord
The Meaning
Without question, this is the most pointed and the most important of all seven of these spiritual realities. It appears in the middle of Paul’s list and does seem to be the very heart of our unity. There truly is only one Lord—the Lord Jesus Christ Who is Savior, Master, and God incarnate.
How vividly this is demonstrated in Mark 12:28-34. A certain scribe came to Jesus and asked, “Which is the first commandment of all?” Jesus answered:
The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
The scribe responded with his own profound statement:
Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
Seeing the scribe’s understanding, our Lord then said, “Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.” While the man was not yet in the kingdom, he was close. Notice that he repeated everything Christ said except one Lord. He understood the importance of loving God; all that was left was to recognize Jesus Himself as Lord and believe and obey Him. As we’ll see in our application later, it’s amazing that the principle of Lordship in salvation is a big issue. Here is a vivid example of its importance.
After being arrested, Peter proclaimed to the Jewish rulers that the same Jesus that they had crucified was in reality the “corner stone” that they had rejected (as we studied back in 2:20). He then declared, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:1-12). The world says there are many lords, but God says there is only one Lord.
This serves to remind us of an often overlooked truth, that our salvation lies not in our experience but in Christ’s energy. In other words, there’s a tendency to judge someone’s salvation because their experience was different than yours or mine. In a particular sermon, John Macneil, an early 20th Century Scottish preacher wonderfully illustrated this. He imagined a conversation between the two blind men healed by our Lord: the one in John 9 and the other in Mark 8. As we recall, the one in John 9 was healed when Jesus took some clay, spat on it, placed it on the man’s eyes, and then told him to go was in the Pool of Siloam. In the case of man in Mark 8, however, He did none of this. Macneil imagined these two meeting one day a comparing their conversion experience. The man in John 9 asked the man in Mark 8, “What did you feel like when He put that mixture of clay and spittle on your eyes?” “Clay and spittle?” answered the man in Mark 8, “I don’t know anything about clay and spittle.” “What,” said the man in John 9, “don’t you remember how He spit on the ground and made the mixture and put it on your eyes? I am asking, What did you feel?” But the man in Mark 8 just answered, “There was nothing put on my eyes.” The conversation continued until finally the man in John 9 said, “Look here, I do not believe you’ve been healed at all; you must still be blind. If He did not put the clay on your eyes, you are still blind.” “In other words,” said Macneil, two religious denominations came into being at once: the Mud-ites and the Anti-mudites.”[4]
That is precisely what happens when we are looking at our own experiences instead of the one Lord Who saved us. Some people had a dramatic conversion out of the depths of wickedness, others were saved when they were young and untouched by heinous sin. I’ve heard former gangsters and gang members give their testimony, almost to the point of glorifying sin, and thereby giving the impression that their conversion was “better” than someone else’s. Others tend to think that being saved as a result of a particular preacher’s ministry is in some way special.
But none of these things matter. It’s interesting, in fact, that the Bible nowhere says that we have to cite that “moment in time” when we were saved. Of course, many people can do this, but that doesn’t mean they have to. Neither is it required that we remember the name of the preacher we were listening to, or the verse he preached, or an illustration that he used. What matters is the one Lord Who saved us.
The key to understanding this doctrinal reality is, of course, the term one lord. This is the pivotal term. The Greek behind lord is kurios. In early Classical Greek, while the word was applied to the gods, there was no general belief of a creator God. The word, therefore, was used in a broad way of someone who had power or authority. It was different in Eastern thought, however. To the Oriental mind, the gods were “the lords of reality.” By Jesus’ day, Eastern kings, such as Herod the Great (c. 73-74 B.C.), Agrippa I (10 BC.-44A.D), and Agrippa II (27 A.D.-c 100) came to be called lord. Most Roman emperors resisted such temptation, but others, such as Caligula (37-41 A.D.) and Nero (54-48) found it appealing. It was this very attitude of implied divinity that caused both Jews and Christians to refuse to use the term lord of the emperor.
Turning to the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), kurios appears over 9,000 times, some 6,156 of which translate the Hebrew YHWH (Yahweh, Jehovah), thus reemphasizing the meaning of divinity.
In the New Testament, then, kurios appears 717 times, the majority of which occur in Luke’s Gospel and Acts (210) and Paul’s Epistles (275). The reason for this, of course, was that they both wrote for readers who were dominated by Greek culture and language and who, therefore, understood the deep significance of this word in implying deity.
Finally, while lord is sometimes used as simply a title of honor, such as Rabbi, Teacher, Master (Matt. 10:24; cf. Lk. 16:3), or even a husband (I Peter 3:6), when used of Jesus in a confessional way, it without question refers to His divinity. The confession Kurios Iēsous (Lord Jesus) is rooted in the pre-Pauline Greek Christian community and is probably the oldest of all Christian creeds.[5]
Early Christians unarguable recognized Jesus as God, as Paul wrote to the Philippians: “And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (2:11, emphasis added). Even more significance, when Thomas saw the risen Jesus, he called Him, “My Lord and my God” (Jn. 20:28, emphasis added). As we’ll see in a moment, even salvation is based on a confession of Jesus as Lord, as Divine (Rom. 10:9-10).
The Deity of Christ is an absolute cardinal doctrine of Christianity; without it, Christianity collapses of its own weight. But it’s also a doctrine that is clearly taught in Scripture without any ambiguity. I once heard a pastor say, “It’s too bad the Bible just doesn’t say, ‘Jesus was God’ and therefore clear up all the confusion.” I can’t express how that saddened me because it was based upon not only an ignorance of what we’ve just seen in the term one lord, but also of other statements in Scripture.
For example, one must always begin with John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Charles Ryrie well sums up the deep significance of this verse:
Before time began, Christ was already in existence with God. That is what is meant by the term “the pre-existent Christ.” See Gen. 1:1 and 1 John 1:1. Logos [Word] means “word, thought, concept, and the expressions thereof.” In the OT the concept conveyed activity and revelation, and the word or wisdom of God is often personified (Ps. 33:6; Prov. 8). In the Targums (Aramaic paraphrases of the OT) it was a designation of God. To the Greek mind it expressed the ideas of reason and creative control. Revelation is the keynote idea in the logos concept. Here it is applied to Jesus, who is all that God is and the expression of Him (1:1, 14). In this verse the Word (Christ) is said to be with God (i.e., in communion with and yet distinct from God) and to be God (i.e., identical in essence with God).[6]
As we read earlier in Revelation 19:14, the one on the white horse is “The Word of God,” the Lord Jesus Christ. John 1:14 goes on to declare, “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” Only the most dishonest or foolish “interpreter” would deny what these verses declare concerning Jesus Christ.
Besides the many confessions of Jesus as God by his followers—Peter (Matt.16:16-17), Martha (Jn. 11:27), Nathaniel (1:49), Stephen (Acts 7:59), and Paul (Acts 20:28; Heb. 1:8)—more importantly Jesus Himself claimed He was God. This silences those who argue, “Well, Jesus’ followers were deluded; they thought He was God, but He didn’t really claim deity.” One key passage is John 5:16-18, where Jesus had just healed a lame man on the Sabbath:
And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
While our culture might understand these words to mean, “Big deal. My father is working and I’m working. So what?” the Jews heard something far different. Based on their culture and traditions, what those religious leaders heard was this: “By using the term my Father instead of our Father, this man is claiming equality with God. This man is, in fact, claiming to be God.” And that is what enraged them.
The same thing happened on another occasion:
I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God (John 10:30-33).
The Jews knew exactly what Jesus was claiming to be. His statement, in fact, becomes all the more offensive to the Jewish ear because the Greek for “one” is neuter not masculine, which therefore means not one in person but one in essence or nature. Jesus was clearly saying that He was the same as God, and the Jews went berserk.
That is why we can only come to one of three conclusions about Jesus. He was either a liar, the biggest fraud who ever lived, or He was a lunatic because He ultimately died for His false claim, or He was exactly what He said He was—Lord. Time and again He spoke of His equality with the Father:
All men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him (Jn. 5:23).
Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also (8:19).
And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me (12:45).
He that hateth me hateth my Father also (15:23).
To this we should also add that according to Jewish law, only God could forgive sins, but this is precisely what Jesus did in Mark 2:5: “When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.” Once again the religious leaders were horrified and asked, “Doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?” (v. 7), to which the Lord Jesus asked, “Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?” (v. 9).
So, to answer that pastor’s statement, “It’s too bad the Bible just doesn’t say, ‘Jesus was God,’” that’s precisely what does say. To the Jews’ ears, Jesus’ statements were just a clear as the words “Jesus was God” are to ours. They knew exactly what He was claiming, and they went berserk; likewise many are still doing so today because they refuse to admit Jesus was God. Paul well summed it up when he wrote to another pastor: “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13). Truly we have unity in one Lord.
The Application
The application here is obvious: unity can only exist with a proper view of Christ. Christianity is Christ, so how we view Him is absolutely essential. As noted earlier, when used of Jesus in a confessional way, Lord clearly refers to His divinity. To argue that point is utter folly and blatant apostasy.
Countless cults and false religions, for example, deny the Deity of Christ. To the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus was not equal to Jehovah and was not God in human flesh but was rather a created being and was actually Michael the Archangel in his preexistent state, having a brother named Lucifer who rebelled against God.[7] Likewise, to the Mormon, Jesus—like all men, in fact—was a preexistent spirit who took his body at birth in this world; He is set apart from the rest of us only by the fact that He was the first-born of God’s spirit-children.[8] Other cults, such as Christian Science, the Unity School of Christianity, The Way International, and others illustrate why they are all called “a cult,” namely, because they deny the deity of Christ or in some way pervert that doctrine.
But all this is nothing new in Church history, but is simply a revival of the ancient heresy called Arianism. Arius, a 4th Century parish priest in Alexandria, taught that Jesus was not coequal with God and was, in fact, a created being.
A popular book called The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown (Doubleday, 2003) is another graphic illustration. While seemingly just another thriller novel set in the present-day, it has a hidden agenda that makes it far more. Starting with the murdered curator of a Paris museum, the hero and heroin of the story must decipher the clues left behind by the murdered man and thereby uncover an ancient and sinister plot. And what is this ancient secret? The supposed “true” story that Christianity has been trying to hide for 1,600 years, namely, that Jesus was just another man who actually ended up marrying Mary Magdalene. Not only is it Arianism and Gnosticism in a new wrapper, but it’s also full of countless historical errors that reveal the author to be either incredibly ignorant or just a blatant liar. For example, Referring to the Council of Nicea in 325, Brown claims that “until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet . . . a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless.” But that simply is not so. History proves beyond doubt that early Christians overwhelmingly worshipped Jesus Christ as their risen Savior and Lord. Before the appearance of complete doctrinal statements, early Christian leaders wrote summaries of doctrine called the “Rule” or “Canon” of Faith that stated this fact. The canon of well-known second-century bishop Irenaeus, for example, was prompted by I Corinthians 8:6: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” There is no doubt that those early Christians viewed our Lord as God.
This serves to illustrate a consistent practice of unbelievers, namely, they must distort history to deny truth. Why? Because history, as the old expression goes, is “His Story.” It is what God is doing in the world, what He is accomplishing. So to escape the plain truths of God’s Word, men must revise the facts, reinterpret events, and rewrite the history books. Another example in our day is the rewriting of American history. To escape the fact of America being founded on Biblical and moral principles, revisionist historians totally ignore the godliness of many of our Founding Fathers.
As mentioned earlier, the “lordship salvation” debate again comes into view here. There is something seriously wrong with a theology that teaches that there is a difference between “accepting Jesus” as Savior and then at some later day accepting Him as Lord when there is absolutely no such dichotomy or distinction in Scripture. It is, in fact, a denial of one Lord to say that all one must do is “believe in Jesus” to be saved. After all, the “the devils also believe, and tremble” (Jas. 2:19). They believe in the facts concerning Christ, and that is exactly what many today view salvation to be, just some vague belief, where no repentance is necessary, no change of life is expected, and no responsibility is demanded. As mentioned earlier, Romans 10:9-10 makes it clear that salvation is based not only on a recognition of Christ as Savior but a confession of Him as Lord. How could it be plainer than this?
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
What one Lord, and therefore so-called “Lordship Salvation” means, is that true salvation results in an automatic change in the person who believes. True “conversion” (Latin convertere, “to turn around, transform”) fundamentally speaks of a “new lordship.” No longer are we Lord, no longer is Satan Lord, but Christ is Lord. This is very essence of salvation, as Paul wrote to the carnal Corinthians, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (II Cor. 5:17).
So we say again, unity can only exist with a proper view of Christ and His salvation. Tolerating false doctrine and trying to create unity where none can possibly exist is an abomination. But when this principle is met, what sweet fellowship and unity it brings. As commentator Albert Barnes writes:
There is no better way of promoting unity among Christians than by reminding them that they have the same Saviour. And when jealousies and heart-burnings arise; or when they are disposed to contend about trifles; when they magnify un important matters until they are in danger of rending the church asunder, let them feel that they have one Lord and Saviour, and they will lay aside their contentions, and be one again. Let two men, who have never seen each other before, meet in a distant land, and feel that they have the same Redeemer, and their hearts will mingle into one. They are not aliens, but friends. A cord of sympathy is struck more tender than that which binds them to country or home; and though of different nations, complexions, or habits, they will feel that they are one. Why should contentions ever arise between those who have the same Redeemer?
Paul’s point about one Lord leads right to another spiritual reality.
V. One Faith (v. 5b)
one faith
The Meaning
There has been some debate as to whether one faith refers to the act of believing or the doctrines that one believes, that is, a system of truth. But as we have noted several times in our study (1:1-2, 15-17; 2:8), what matters most is the object of faith. One commentator and theologian astutely makes this point when he writes:
Many commentators understand faith as the subjective act of believing. But such acts are one only as they have the same object. Jews, Moslems, Hindus all believe; but they do not have the same faith. The faith here mentioned must be the doctrines believed. [French historian and agnostic Joseph] Renan believed that Jesus was just a moral teacher; [German philosopher and liberal theologian Albert] Schweitzer believed that Jesus was insane; [German existential theologian Rudolf] Bultman believed that we could not believe anything that Jesus is reported to have said or done. It is not the psychology of the act, but the doctrines believed that constitute the unity of the many Christians’ many acts of believing.[9]
It seems obvious, then, that Paul is saying that true unity is based on common doctrine, that is, the system of truth that we all have in common. Why introduce something totally subjective into a list of objective truths? Paul’s emphasis in this list is to present absolutes, not what we might feel, think, or even believe about it, but specific, unchanging realities. He wants to prove what is the basis for unity, so the last thing he would do is interject something subject. Mark it down: subjectivity never proves anything. The evolutionist believes that the entire universe came from one big bang billions of years ago. Does that make it so? No, for it’s not our belief that makes anything true. It’s what God says that makes something true.
This is exactly the point Jude makes in his short but powerful letter, that believers “should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). One faith, then, refers to “the body of revealed truth that constitutes Historical, Evangelical Christianity.” This doesn’t mean an entire system of theology on which we all can agree; that would be impossible. Rather it refers again to the unique revelation of God through Christ. Paul has, of course, dealt with this often here in Ephesians. Specifically, this body of truth is the very essence of the Gospel, the redemption by blood and salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. This one faith is clearly stated in Romans 1:16-17:
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
This was the one faith that was virtually lost for centuries and restored to prominence in the Protestant Reformation. This is the one faith for which John Huss and countless others died for. This is the sola fide (faith alone) that Martin Luther stood for, against that dark power of Rome.
Also implicit in one faith is where this body of revealed truth is located, namely, the Scriptures. In other words, it is obviously the completed Scriptures that contain the record of “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” In fact, a basic acknowledgment of Scripture as the Word of God is automatic in salvation. Why? Because the person is saying, “I believe what the Bible says about sin, salvation, and the Savior.” Here is an acknowledgment of the Scripture being true in its revelation of Christ. As Paul also declared to Timothy, “The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (II Tim. 2:2). Those early Christians had a body of basic doctrine (the Apostles’ doctrine; cf. Acts 2:42) that they believed and committed to others.
So important is right doctrine, that Paul spoke of those who “resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith” (II Tim. 3:8) and instructed Titus to “rebuke [false teachers] sharply, that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13). We do not tolerate false doctrine or embrace false teachers; rather we rebuke them. Why? Because they have violated “the faith.” Among Paul’s last words, in fact, was that confidence that, “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith” (II Tim. 4:7). May that be our testimony as well.
The Application
One application is again obvious: unity can only exist with a proper view of salvation. The hallmark of all cults and false religions is works, that a person attains salvation either in whole in or at least in part by his own efforts.
To the Jehovah’s Witness, for example, as its founder Charles Russell wrote, “they must be recovered from blindness as well as from death, that they, each for himself, may have a full chance to prove, by obedience or disobedience, their worthiness of eternal life.”[10] Likewise, according to Article 2 of the Mormon Articles of Faith, “All mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.”[11] According to Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God, “Salvation, then is a process! But how the God of this world would blind your eyes to that!!! He tries to deceive you into thinking all there is to it is just ‘accepting Christ’ with ‘no works’—and presto-change, you are pronounced ‘saved.’ But the Bible reveals that none is yet ‘saved’”[12] And on it goes from religion to religion. Of course, the question arises, “But how many works are needed?” No one knows.
Two world religions, however, stand out as leading more people into error than all others. One is Islam, which in our day is more in the spotlight than ever before and is enjoying unprecedented tolerance. But it, too, is just another religion of works. It is a legalistic system where a person must earn his salvation by holding to its five main doctrines, called the “Five Articles of Faith” (God, Angels, Scripture, Prophets, and Last Days), and especially following its “Five Pillars of Faith” (The Creed, Prayer, Almsgiving, Fasting, and the Pilgrimage to Mecca). This, of course, flatly denies Jesus’ own words, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (Jn. 14:6). You might call Him “Allah” or anything else you wish, but the issue is the Lord Jesus Christ—one Lord and one faith. It’s not your works, not what you might do, not how many heretics you might blow up, but in Jesus Christ alone.
But the most shocking tolerance of all among evangelicals is that of Roman Catholicism. Many persist in ignoring that it, too, is just another works system. As is made clear in its own Baltimore Catechism, Catholicism teaches “that among the chief means provided by Christ for our sanctification are the sacraments. They are outward signs instituted by Christ to give grace . . . When the sign is applied to the one who receives the sacrament, it signifies inward grace and has the power of producing it in the soul.”
Particularly troubling is Catholicism’s teachings concerning Mary. She is considered to be the “Co-Redemptrix” with Christ, that is, she cooperates with Christ in the work of saving sinners. While the Vatican II council (1963-65) brought certain reforms, it changed nothing of Catholicism’s underlying theology. In that council it was stated that Mary was “used by God not merely in a passive way, but as cooperating in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience . . . She conceived, brought forth, and nourished Christ. She presented Him to the Father in the temple, and was united with Him in suffering as He died on the cross.”[13] In other words, while the Church does not teach that Mary literally died for our sins, it does teach that giving birth to Christ and nurturing Him through life, she indirectly contributed to the work of salvation.
Further still, Mary is also considered “Mediatrix,” that is, she now dispenses God’s grace and blessings to the spiritually needy. Again, Vatican II reaffirmed:
This maternity of Mary in the order of grace began with the consent which she gave in faith as the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross. This maternity will last without interruption until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. For, taken up to heaven, she did not lay aside this saving role, but by her manifold acts of intercession continues to win for us gifts of eternal salvation.
By her maternal charity, Mary cares for the brethren of her Son who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led to their happy fatherland. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix.[14]
But none of this is the Gospel; it is neither one faith nor “one Lord.” It is an abominable perversion of the Gospel. It is “another gospel,” as Paul said, which is actually not another gospel (good news) at all. He goes on to make it clear that any Gospel other than what he delivered (salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone) is to be “accursed” (Gal. 1:6-9). Salvation is apart from any outward works that we can do (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5; etc.).
Another application is equally obvious: unity can only exist with a proper view of Scripture. Another hallmark of cults is their rejection of the Scriptures as the sole, absolute, and sufficient authority . Mormonism, for example, says, “We believe the Bible to be the Word of God in so far as it is translated correctly.”[15] But it also teaches that a correct translation is impossible because the Roman Catholic Church has subtracted from it. Orson Pratt, an early Mormon Church apostle, wrote, “Who knows that even one verse of the Bible has escaped pollution, so as to convey the same sense not that it did in the original.”[16] The real authority in Mormonism, therefore, resides in three “sacred books:” The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. Additionally, contemporary living prophets also contribute to authoritative pronouncements of the Mormon Church.
Likewise, while the founder of Christian Science, Mary Baker Eddy, claimed she got her teachings from the Bible, she also claimed in no uncertain terms that her revelations were higher than the Bible. Similarly, the writings of Ellen G. White are considered by Seventh Day Adventists to be inspired revelations. Likewise, some charismatics claim to receive new revelations in visions and dreams. And again, while many today insist on unity between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, that is impossible. While Catholicism does teach that the Bible is inspired, it denies that It is sufficient. That was, in fact, the very battleground of the Reformation. Added to the Bible are the teachings and traditions of the church. It is, in fact, quite open in this view. Its Catechism of the Catholic Church boldly states that the Church “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” Further, added to that is the infallibility of the Pope when he makes “absolutely authoritative” pronouncements ex cathedra (from the chair).
Mark it down: The common thread through all false teaching is adherence to a second authority that supercedes the Bible when the Bible says something that men don’t like. Even evangelicals, though they say the Bible is their authority, actually replace Scripture with their own ideas and opinions. The modern “ministries” of Pragmatism, Relativism, seeker-sensitivity, user-friendliness, seeking the unchurched, and so on are man’s philosophy not God’s revelation. This issue is imbedded deep in my soul, because compromise of the Truth is common place, because the Bible is replaced with what men think not what God says.
The Bible in no uncertain terms speaks of It being the sole
and sufficient authority of God. A key verse here is II Peter 1:19: “We have
also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as
unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star
arise in your hearts.” In verses 15-18 Peter
writes about his witnessing of Christ’s transfiguration, but now he declares
that there is something much surer than “personal experience.” How important
this is in light of how many people today speak of their “experience,” that
they saw Jesus at the foot of their bed, or they saw a statue weeping or
bleeding. Peter declares here that he, too, had an experience but that it
cannot compare with the “more sure word of prophecy,” that is, the written Word of God. In essence Peter says, “Yes, my experience
was exciting, but what makes it true is not that I saw it but that it coincides
with the written Truth of God’s Word.”
The word “sure” is the Greek bebaios, which means “fit to tread on, having a firm foundation, durable, unshakeable, sure, reliable, and certain.” Further, used in a legal sense, it meant “valid and legal.” As one Greek authority writes, “Thus the hope and confidence of man is firmly secured as by an anchor, when the object of the trust is the Word of God, which He has legally confirmed with an oath (Heb. 6:16, 19).”[17] As another points out, this word “in the New Testament is not used of persons but objects (Heb. 6:19), that which does not fail or waver, immovable, and on which one may rely.”[18] So, as long as we cling to the Word, we will be firm, unshakable, sure, and certain. The reason for this “surer proof” is because the Word of God came by inspiration, as Peter goes on to write in verse 20-21: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved [literally, carried along] by the Holy Ghost.”[19]
So, the application of one faith is very clear: unity can only exist with a proper view of salvation and Scripture. The doctrine of salvation today has been reconsidered, redefined, and even rejected. Likewise, the Word of God has been mocked, maligned, and mutilated. But one of the very foundations stones of unity is that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, apart from any merit or works and the acceptance of the Bible as the only inspired, infallible, authoritative, and sufficient revelation to man. Opinions vary, experiences change, methods will adjust, but God’s Word lasts forever.
VI. One Baptism (v. 5c)
one baptism
The Meaning
Paul now says something quite fascinating—we have unity because of one baptism. As with “one faith,” there has been debate as to what one baptism refers. Some commentators insist that it refers to water baptism. Some maintain this because they view “one Spirit” back in verse 4 as implying Spirit baptism, but as we saw earlier, “one Spirit” goes much deeper. We must lean toward Spirit baptism for three reasons.
First, consider the Greek behind baptism and the context. One baptism (en baptisma) is literally “one placing into.” The verb baptō originally referred to dipping clothes into dye or drawing water, hence the idea of submerging, placing something into. So a placing into what? Water seems totally unlikely since the context speaks of “one body” and “one spirit.” Here is a single, definitive baptism that really does something, that accomplishes something. It isn’t symbolic; it’s actual. This is precisely the point of I Corinthians 12:13: “For by one Spirit are we all baptized [placed, submerged] into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” Greek born scholar Spiros Zodhiates writes this authoritative statement:
The whole paragraph, Eph. 4:1-5, is indicative of Paul’s desire that there should be unity of the Spirit in the body of Christ. No reference is made to water baptism at all. The verse says, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” This baptism must be, therefore, be the spiritual baptism, the baptism in the Spirit that was promised by John the Baptist that the One coming after him would accomplish (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33) and Jesus Christ Himself promised in Acts 1:5. This took place in Acts 2 . . . The purpose of this Spirit baptism is shown in 1 Cor. 12:13 as the incorporation of all believers into the body of Christ, the Church (Eph. 1:22, 23).[20]
It seems clear from the language and context that Spirit Baptism is Paul’s emphasis. He is dealing with a single, definitive placing into, not something that has to do with our experience, but with what God has accomplished.
One expositor argues for water baptism by writing that this view “is preferred because of the way Paul has spoken specifically of each member of the Trinity in succession. This is the Lord Jesus Christ’s verse, as it were.” We’ll come back to this in a moment, but by this he means that since the Holy Spirit is in view in verse 4, the Son in verse 5, and the Father in verse 6, then it follows that one baptism speaks of water baptism because it is “the common New Testament means of a believer’s publicly confessing Jesus as Savior and Lord.” While that is true, it doesn’t require water baptism here. Spirit Baptism fits just as well because it is what places us into Christ, thereby indicating that Christ is still in view in verse 5.
Second, the entire context (vs. 4-6) is supernatural. As one Greek expositor writes, why “[interpret] the Greek word as referring to the rite of water baptism when the entire context is supernatural?”[21] In other words, everything here is Divinely produced, not what we do, not some rite that we observe, but the work of God alone. Why would Paul just throw in an earthly rite such as water baptism when that is not the point he is making in the passage? Further, if he’s going to do that, why not also mention the Lord’s Supper (“one communion,” for example), since that is for the fellowship and oneness of God’s people?
If we may interject here that while many Baptists take the view of water in this passage, John Bradbury, editor of the Watchman Examiner, the leading Baptist journal of the mid 20th Century, rightly observed:
. . . in this passage, where ordinances are not before us but the truth concerning the organism called “the body of Christ,” we have baptism mentioned on equal terms with “hope,” “Lord,” “faith,” “God.” This signifies that the baptism referred to is that of I Corinthians 12:13.[22]
Indeed, water baptism is not a Divine or supernatural act, but Spirit Baptism most certainly is.
We should also interject that this verse has been used by countless false teachers through the centuries to teach baptismal regeneration. Such teaching reads Paul’s statement this way: “One Lord, one faith in that Lord, and one regeneration into that Lord by way of, or through the instrumentality of, baptism.” Roman Catholicism for example, teaches that baptism works ex opere operato, that is, it operates in and of itself, that it “infuses into the soul the new life of sanctifying grace.”[23] While other groups don’t go that far, they still believe that baptism is part of salvation. No, this one baptism is not something outward that man does; it is something inward that God does.
Third, water baptism could not possibly produce or maintain unity. Indeed, how could all believers possibly unify around water baptism? How many denominations disagree on the mode of baptism (immersion, sprinkling, pouring) and are anything but unified on the issue? Theologian Lewis Sperry Chafer addresses this very point in his classic Systematic Theology:
It is easily discerned that the baptism of the Holy Spirit into one Body engenders the most vital and perfect union that could be formed among men; on the other hand, if the history of the Church on earth bears a testimony to the course of events at all, it is to the effect that ritual baptism has served more than any other one issue to shatter that manifestation of organic union which Christian fellowship is intended to exhibit.[24]
We must, therefore, view one baptism as referring to Spirit Baptism. Only the Holy Spirit can supernaturally place us into the Body of Christ and bring unity to that Body, as Paul has already stated back in verse 3 (“the unity of the Spirit”). Even though we might disagree on the mode of water baptism, we can all agree that we have been placed into Christ’s Body and are, therefore, unified.
The Application
As with “one spirit,” the application of one baptism is the right view of the nature and ministry of the Holy Spirit. The most serious departure from Biblical teaching concerning the Holy spirit is that Spirit Baptism, or as it is called by some, “the Baptism of the Holy Spirit,” is a subsequent event in the Christian’s life, which is then characterized by “speaking in tongues.” This teaching results in a “spiritual elite,” thereby actually dividing God’s people into two classes: those who have “received the baptism” and those who have not.
I still recall riding next to a very sweet Christian gentleman on a plane trip from Denver to Indianapolis while I was still a Bible college student back in 1971. We got to talking and he finally asked me, “Have you been baptized by the Holy Spirit?” I answered, “Yes, Sir, I have. I’ve been placed into the Body of Christ.” “Oh, no,” he replied, “there is more and I will pray that you will experience it soon.” I’ve never forgotten that because it immediately put us into separate categories. What is so tragic about this is that it is the exact opposite of what Paul is emphasizing, namely, the unity of ALL believers in Christ. Paul’s intent is not to divide but to show unity. The cause of this error is a three-fold misreading of I Corinthians 12:13.
First, “baptized” is Aorist Tense in the Greek, which speaks of punctilliar action in the past and can literally be translated “were baptized.” So when did it occur? On the Day of Pentecost. It was on that day that believers were placed into the Body of Christ. Each of us then takes part in the benefits of that day when we receive Christ as Savior and Lord. Neither here nor anywhere else in Scripture are we commanded to seek this baptism because it is something God has already done. Nowhere does the bible say, “Seek the baptism of the Holy Spirit.” Why? Because it’s already been done. God alone has already done it.
Of course, it is argued that people spoke in “tongues” on that day and we should, therefore, do so today. But the so-called “ecstatic speech” that is taught today is another departure from language and history. The Greek behind “tongues” is glossa, which in Classical Greek originally meant three things: “the tongue of humans and animals in the physiological sense,” and then figuratively either as “the faculty of speech, utterance, and also language [and] dialect,” or “an obscure linguistic expression which requires explanation.”[25]
While the first two are obvious enough, that third meaning might need clarification. To illustrate, do you know what a “bubbler” is? I certainly didn’t until my wife and I visited a church in Wisconsin during our years in a traveling ministry. Someone in the church referred to a “bubbler,” which turned out to be a drinking fountain. There is an example of either dialect or perhaps even an obscure linguistic expression that requires explanation.
Which one of these, then, is meant in a discussion of the spiritual gift of tongues? The physical organ is obviously not what is referred to since Paul points out that there are “different kinds of tongues” (I Cor. 12:10). Neither can this refer to some “unintelligible sound” because Paul clearly and sharply criticizes the Corinthians for using “unknown languages,” that is, ecstatic utterances, because no one could understand them (14:2, 9, 11, 26). All gifts are for edification, so how can anyone be edified if they can’t understand what is being said?
Therefore, there can be no valid argument against “tongues” being known, earthly languages. The “tongues” of Acts 2:4-8 were clearly not some ecstatic speech rather earthly language, for “every man heard them speak in his own language.” Verses 9-11 go on to list many of the regions from which these languages came. Since thousands of people from different areas gathered for the Feast of Pentecost, this was clearly the Holy Spirit supernaturally enabling certain men to speak in a language they did not already know so that every person there could hear the Gospel in his own language. This was a necessary gift in those early days but was no longer needed after the completion of God’s authoritative Word.
Today’s so-called practice of tongues, therefore, could not be further from that precedent, and there is no linguistic or Scriptural indication that they should have been anything different. In fact, in the modern practice, every regulation listed in I Corinthians 14:27-34 for this practice is violated at one time or another: (1) no more than three, and preferable only two, were to speak; (2) they were not to speak simultaneously; (3) everything said had to be interpreted by a single interpreter; (4) if no interpreter was present, the would-be speaker was to not even to speak; (5) everything was to be done without confusion or disorder; and (6) women were to keep silent, that is, were not to exercise speaking gifts within the public forum of worship. While the last two are specifically in the context of prophecy, they obviously are universal principles in Church order.
Second, another misreading of I Corinthians 12:13 simply misses the word “all.” Paul simply does not say that only a certain elite class of Christian receives the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit.” We repeat: the text does not say that. It is, therefore, poor exegesis and bad theology to say or even imply that it does. Paul very clearly says that all Christians, even that unbelievably carnal bunch in Corinth, whether Jew or Gentile, were placed into the Body of Christ and “have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” Again, Paul’s whole point is oneness of all believers in Christ’s Body, not two divided classes, one of which has “experience” something the others have not.
Third, one other misreading of I Corinthians 12:13 overlooks a subtlety in the Greek. Regardless of what someone today might teach, the common phrase “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is actually not a correct translation of this verse (or any other verse in the New Testament for that matter). It is a term without Biblical support whatsoever. The words “by one Spirit” translate the Greek en heni pneumati. The word en is a common word that can be translated not only as “by,” but also “with” and most commonly “in.” Young’s Literal Translation reads, “For also in one Spirit we all to one body were baptized.” Similarly, Tyndale’s 1534 New Testament reads, “For in one spirit are we all baptized to make one body.”
We make this point for a very important reason. What did John the Baptist say as to those he baptized? He declared, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me . . . he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire” (Matt. 3:11). As the next verse makes clear, the baptism of “fire” speaks of the judgment of hell. So what John is saying is that every living person is in one way or the other baptized by Christ: believers are baptized with the Spirit into Christ’s body, and unbelievers will be baptized with fire into judgment. The point, therefore, is that it’s not that we are baptized by the Holy Spirit, but actually by Christ “with” or “in” the Holy Spirit. And it is this that places us into Christ’s Body. Our Lord has done all the work through His Spirit.
How we should rejoice in this one baptism! It is this that truly makes us one in Christ. It is in this doctrine that we have unity.
VII. One God (v. 6)
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
The Meaning
Here is the capstone of the passage. As mentioned earlier, the entire Trinity is now in view:
· One Spirit (God the Holy Spirit, v. 4)
· One Lord (God the Son, v.5)
· One God (God the Father, v. 6)
We see this reemphasized in the present verse by three prepositions:
· Above all (God the Father)
· Through all (God the Son)
· In you all (God the Holy Spirit)
Those prepositions also encapsulate the very nature of God. Those glorious words above all speak of God’s omnipotence, omniscience, and sovereignty. As the Psalmist proclaims, “Be thou exalted, O God, above the heavens: let thy glory be above all the earth” (57:11), “For the LORD is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods” (96:4), and “The LORD is great in Zion; and he is high above all the people” (99:2). “Who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?” Paul asks (Rom. 11:34).
Flowing from that are the words through all, which demonstrate His providence, as He sustains, guides, and controls all things “according to the good pleasure of his will” (Eph. 1:5).
In you all, then, pictures God’s omnipresence. As David exulted,
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it. Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. (Ps. 139:6-10).
There is a small textual issue here. The Critical Text and, therefore, most modern translations omit you, but the majority of manuscripts include it.[26] We submit that it should remain because it more clearly specifies those who are unified. As John gill writes, this should be “understood, not of his being in his creatures, by his powerful presence, which is everywhere supporting them; but of the gracious union there is between him and his people, and of his gracious inhabitation in them by his Spirit.” In other words, the point of the passage is unity of God’s people and God in them creating that unity, not that He is in all His creation.
At any rate, one expositor expresses these prepositions beautifully when he writes, Our Father is absolute in His power, absorbed in His purpose, and abiding in His presence.[27] And it is because of this unity of the Godhead that all believers have unity.
The emphasis in this verse, then, is God the Father. The word all further emphasizes, as it is masculine in the Greek. Paul is, therefore, not writing about God being “all things” as the pantheist would suggest, but that He is all persons, all members of the Godhead. As we detailed back in 3:14-15, such a reference doesn’t refer the “Universal Fatherhood of God,” for Christ is again in view in the context and any relationship with the Father depends upon the relationship with the Son.
So the point here in our text is a proper view of God as the capstone of our doctrine. As we saw in our study of five principles concerning to Whom we pray back in 3:14-15 (“unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of Whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named”), the Jews of the Old Testament saw five basic principles concerning God’s Fatherhood: in terms of (1) His begetting, (2) His nearness to them, (3) His loving grace, (4) His guidance, and (5) their obedience to Him. Here is a true summary of the Biblical doctrine of God. Any good theologian could write an entire work on the doctrine of God using these five views as an outline.
More importantly, Paul further emphasizes that there is only one God. We find this word combination seven times in Scripture. Besides here, for example, God declared through Malachi, “Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?” (2:10). Malachi indicts the spiritual leaders of Israel as they lead the rest of the nation into intermarriage with foreign women (vs. 11-12) and divorcing the wives of their youth (vs. 13-16). By speaking of God as “one father,” he reminds them of that five-fold view mentioned earlier, especially of their requirement to obey Him.
As mentioned earlier under “one Lord,” Jesus’ answer to the scribe who asked, “Which is the first commandment of all?” prompted the scribe to answer, “Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he.” And it was that confession that demonstrated that the scribe was close to kingdom (Mk. 12:28-34). While that belief is not enough—as James writes, “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble” (Jas. 2:19)—it is certainly the beginning.
Romans 3:30 also declares, “Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.” There is, indeed, only one God Who can justify men, that is, declare them righteous through the finished work of Jesus Christ.
Likewise, as also mentioned earlier, countless cults and false religions ignore the truth that Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him” (I Cor. 8:6).
The Application
Once again, the application is obvious: unity is possible only with a proper view of God. The true God of the Bible is not the polytheistic god of Mormonism, the pantheistic god of Christian Science, the strict, harsh, emotionless god of Islam,