Truth
On
Tough
Texts
ISSUE 31 –
February/2008
The Grace of
Unity (1)
Ephesians 4:1-3
THIS MONTH WE BEGIN EXAMINING A
TEXT THAT addresses
an ever-increasingly important issue in our
day—unity. What is true unity, and upon
what can it be based? Can there
be unity between greatly diverse groups if we simply
agree on some very general “common ground,” or are there
definitive, objective truths in Scripture that define
the basis of unity?
The Epistle to the
Ephesians is a life-long passion of mine. As I have
shared in a full exposition of this letter, which I hope
to publish soon, while Romans is the most thorough and
comprehensive presentation of Gospel doctrine, Ephesians
is the most basic, the most profound, and the most
awe-inspiring. I am convinced (in my humble opinion)
that it is the most basic and foundational New Testament
book for the believer.
As is true of most
of Paul’s letters, the first half (Eph. 1–3) deals
mostly with doctrine, while the second 4–6)
addresses mostly duty. Another way we can say
this it that we first see our riches in Christ
and then responsibilities; first comes our
wealth, and then our walk. On the present
issue, therefore, Paul first states the truth
about unity in Christ in 1:22-23, 2:16, 21-22, and 3:6,
and then applies that truth
in 4:1-16 (for the sake of space, we will not quote the
passage, but please open your Bible and follow
along).
The key word in
chapters 4-6 is walk, and
we find it five times (4:1, 17; 5:2, 8, 15). The Greek
in all five occurrences is peripateo
(peri, “about” or “around,” and pateo, “to
walk”), and so literally means “to walk about, to walk
around, to walk concerning.” In Classical Greek, this
word was used only in the literal sense and meant
strolling and stopping, as someone would walk about in
the market place. It was never used in a figurative
sense as it is in the New
Testament.[i] Used in
such a figurative sense, it speaks of “conduct of life,”
that is, “how we walk about,” how we conduct ourselves
as we walk through life. How, then, are we to conduct
ourselves? Chapters 4-6 reveal seven ways in
which we are to walk, each of which in-turn is based on
related doctrine in chapters 1-3: unity (4:1-16;
cf. 1:22-23; 2:16,21-22; 3:6); purity (4:17-32;
1:4); love (5:1-7; cf. 3:17-19); light
(5:8-14; cf. 1:18); wisdom (5:15-17; cf. 1:8,17;
3:10); submission (5:18-6:9; cf. 3:8);
victory (6:10-20; cf.
1:19-21).
It is extremely
significant, therefore, that the very first practical
reality in which Paul tells the Christian to walk is
unity.
This is not an accident. Paul, in fact, dealt with this
first in another letter, his first letter to the
Corinthians. With all the problems in that Church—and
there were many—he dealt first, and at great
length, with unity (I
Cor. 1:10-3:23). Why? Because without unity, there can
be no growth, joy, or effective witness. So important is
unity in the Body of Christ that our Lord prayed several
times in His high priestly prayer (Jn. 17:11, 21-23)
that His people “may be one.” This was also the
precedent set in the Early Church. All that they
did—their worship, witness, and willingness to serve—was
in unity.
Please read Acts 2:47-48 and note that unity is again
listed first (“continuing daily with one accord”). To
understand this, we will examine two of four principles
in 4:1-16: the grace of unity (1-3) and the
ground of unity (4-6).[ii]
In this two-part
study, we will first examine three principles concerning
the grace of unity: its
meaning, motive, and
maintenance.
I. The Meaning of Unity
Like never before in
history we hear much about unity
today. But much of what we hear is not based on a proper
understanding of what true unity is.
Let us, therefore, consider first what unity is
not and then what it is.
What Unity is
Not
First, unity
is not “compromise,” or another word that is prevalent
today, “tolerance.” Unity does not mean we throw out all
doctrine so that everyone can “get along.” This is
perhaps the most common misconception of our day. It is
argued, “Let’s not have any distinctives or any
doctrinal barriers that might divide us; let’s just
agree on love and unite on moral issues, such as
fighting abortion and gay marriage.”
Second, unity
is not some common brotherhood or mutual camaraderie.
Unity does not necessarily exist just because we are
members of the same company, union, association, or even
church denomination.
Third, unity
is not uniformity. As Webster (11th Edition
Collegiate) defines it, “uniformity” means “having
always the same form, manner, or degree; not varying . .
. of the same form with others . . . unvaried appearance
of surface, pattern, or color.” Unity does not exist
just because everyone is a cookie cutter cutout who
walks, talks, acts, thinks, and even dresses alike. Such
uniformity is not biblical. As once can see in the
gifts for unity in verses 7-11, this violates the
context of the passage. God didn’t makes us alike, and
neither does He give us all the same spiritual gifts.
God gives us unity, but He also gives us
diversity. You can create uniformity from
pressure without, but
unity comes only from power within.
What Unity
Is
The Greek for
unity is
henotes, which basically means “unanimity and
agreement.” One Greek authority, however, provides a
marvelous contrast between how the Greeks, the
Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament),
and the New Testament use this word:
In Greek and Roman philosophy the unity of
God and the world is demanded by educated
reason.
In the Old Testament [the Septuagint],
the unity of God is a confession derived from
experience
of God’s unique reality. The decisive
advance in the New Testament, caused by God Himself, is
the basing of the unity and uniqueness of God on
the
unique revelation through and in the one man Jesus
Christ.[iii]
To simplify, we base
unity either on reason, experience, or
the person and
work of Jesus Christ. Most of today’s so-called
unity is based either on experience
(“We’ve all experienced the same thing, so we’re in this
thing together”) or reason (“To
accomplish more, we’ll get rid of our doctrinal
differences”). While such platitudes sound noble, they
are unscriptural. True, biblical unity is this: the unanimous
agreement concerning the unique revelation of God
through Jesus Christ. Unless we
can agree on the person and work of Jesus Christ, there
can be no unity. It is as simple as
that.
As Paul told the
Galatians, “As we said before, so say I now again, If
any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye
have received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:9). The
words “as we have said before,” indicate that Paul had
said this many times in his ministry. Doctrine,
therefore, must be the ground of unity, as Paul makes clear here
in verses 4–6.
Who, then, produces
this unity? Certainly not man. This is not something we
can produce like we would create “school spirit.”
Rather, as our text says, it is the Holy Spirit who
produces this unity. What we are to do is
keep the unity the Spirit has produced through
Christ.
Notice the
subtlety of the word
keep, which translates the Greek
tereo,
“to keep by guarding, to guard by exercising watchful
care, to guard as with a fortress.” The picture here is
a fortress around which we post armed guards, set
Claymore mines, erect concertina wire, and do all else
that we can to guard this unity. But this is not enough
for Paul, for he adds the word endeavoring,
which is spoudazoµ, “to make haste, to be zealous
or eager, to give diligence.” It speaks of determined
effort and exertion. It is, therefore, the
responsibility of every believer to diligently,
zealously, absorbingly guard the unity that Christ has
provided. We do not produce unity because we
can’t produce it. When we try, we end up with a
false unity. Rather we are to
guard the unity that the Spirit produces in Christ. In
essence, Paul is saying, “Don’t muck it up. Don’t try to
make something you can’t. Just guard what God has
already done.”
As commentator William
Hendrickson observes, the unity in this passage “is not
external and mechanical, but internal and organic. It is
not superimposed, but, by virtue of the power of the
indwelling Christ, proceeds from within the organism of
the church. Those, therefore, who in ecumenical zeal are
anxious to erase all denominational boundaries and to
create a mammoth super-church can find no comfort
here.”[iv]
A graphic
example in recent history of such an attempt to
create unity where there can be no unity
was the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The
Christian Mission in the Third Millennium” (ECT)
document that was written by two evangelicals a few
years ago and signed by several others. It was designed
to bring together Roman Catholics and Evangelicals for
the purpose of evangelism and a “betterment of life in
America.” While it clearly notes certain differences
between Catholics and Protestants, it flatly denies the
most important difference, namely, what it means to
be saved! That fact immediately and fundamentally
violates the true basis of unity we just examined. The
ECT document also states that all Catholics and
Evangelicals hold the same faith and are brothers and
sisters in Christ, when in reality, the two systems
are exact opposites. Roman Catholicism is based solely on a sacramental, works-oriented “salvation,”
not on God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ
alone. All you have to do to prove this is ask anyone
who was saved out of it. There can be no unity between
these diametrically opposed systems.
One of the
authors of the ECT document compounds his error in a
book he wrote on unity. In it he “expounds” on our text
like no one I have ever read or heard before. He
maintains that while doctrinal agreement is essential in
the Local Church (what he calls “the church
particular”), such agreement is not required in “the
church universal.” He further maintains that the reason
it is essential at the local level is that without it
the local church’s ability to worship is destroyed. He
concludes, “The distinction is critical: uniformity
within the church particular, but unity with diversity
in the Body or church universal.”[v]
Lest I be accused of
promoting disunity, I’ll say only one thing in love:
that is appallingly unscriptural. The text simply does
not say that, nor does the Bible anywhere
differentiate between the local assembly and the
universal body in
respect to doctrinal purity. Scripture
repeatedly speaks of right doctrine and
discernment of error. Again, as Paul plainly states in
Galatians 1:9, we anyone who preaches another Gospel,
and Roman Catholicism (like Mormonism, Jehovah’s
Witness, and others) is another Gospel, are cursed.
The author not only
misuses the word “uniformity,” but then makes an even
more serious error by implying that “diversity” refers
to “doctrinal differences,” that we in the Universal
Church can get along even in our diverse doctrinal
positions. Such error is common when we fail to exposit
the Scriptures, which this author fails to do. The
context of 4:1-16 clearly shows that “diversity” refers
to spiritual gifts NOT doctrine.
Paul’s point here is the same one he makes even more
strongly in I Corinthians 12. Each one of us, having our
own unique spiritual gifts, which have been imparted by
the Holy Spirit, is as diverse in function and purpose
as are an arm, a leg, and an eye on the body. But all
those differences work together in harmony to edify the
entire body.
Another even more
appalling development is the more recent “A Common Word
Between Us and You” document, which “identifies some
core common ground between Christianity and Islam” and
seeks unity between them. Unbelievably, this document
has been endorsed by many noted “evangelicals,” such as,
Timothy George, Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Rich Nathan,
David Neff, and, not surprisingly, Robert Schuller. But
we are compelled to ask here: how can there be a
“common word” between two groups with different
Gods?
So we say
again, true biblical unity is this: the unanimous
agreement concerning the unique revelation of God
through Jesus Christ. Where that
cannot be agreed upon, there can be no unity.
Tragically, more and more evangelicals are abandoning
this by redefining the Gospel and preaching Relativism,
as seen in the ministries of those listed above, as well
as the apostate “Emerging Church” movement and other
false teaching.
Having emphasized
that, let us not fail to recognize how truly sweet
unity is
when based on the right doctrine concerning Christ. It
is unity that
transcends denominations. We can agree to disagree on
non-essentials, but we can unify on the one
reality of Christ.
This is no better
illustration than in an incident recorded by Harry
Ironside. Taken ill with typhoid during a series of
meetings in Minneapolis, he was down for six weeks.
After gaining enough strength to return home to
California, friends helped him to the train and the
conductor made up a special berth for him. As he lay in
his berth the first morning out, he took out his Bible
and began to read. As he read, a stout-looking German
woman came walking by, noticed Ironside, and then
stopped and asked, “Vat’s dat? A Bible?” “Yes,” Ironside
replied. “Vell, you haf your morning vorship all by
yourself?” she asked. “Vait, I go get my Bible and ve
haf it together.”
A little later a tall
Norwegian gentleman came and stopped and said, “Reading
ze Bible. Vell, I tank I get mine, too.” After a few
minutes, Ironside was amazed at how many had gathered.
Every day a crowd gathered, one day totaling
twenty-eight. The conductor walked through all the cars
announcing, “The camp meeting is starting in car number
so-in-so. Any wanting to take advantage are invited.”
They would sing, read, pray, and ask questions.
At the end of the trip in
Sacramento, as people came to say goodbye, that dear
German woman asked Ironside, “Vat denomination are you?”
“Well,” Ironside replied, “I belong to the same
denomination that David did.” “Vat vas dat?” she asked.
“I didn’t know David belonged to any.” Ironside replied,
“David said, ‘I am a companion to all them that fear
Thee and keep Thy precepts’ [Ps. 119:63].” “Yah, yah,”
she said, “dat is a gute church to belong to.”[vi]
Ironside went on to
write that no doubt there were many denominations
represented in that group, but what mattered was that
they were one in Christ. Minor points didn’t
matter; the main point did, the unique
revelation of God through Jesus Christ. As we will
see in subsequent installments, Ephesians 4:4-6, in
fact, lists doctrines that form the ground of
unity.
II. The Motive for Unity
The motive for unity is
two-fold in verse 1.
God Brought Unity Through
Christ
The key here is the
word therefore,
and its importance cannot be overemphasized. It stands
as a signpost to announce that there can be no
separating doctrine from duty, that we
simply cannot rightly accomplish the duty
of chapters 4-6 until we assimilate the
doctrine of chapters
1-3.
Space does not allow
us to go into detail, but it is truly amazing how many times the word therefore
appears in Scripture, and it is a worthwhile study in
itself. Of its some 1,237 instances in our Authorized
Version, about 356 are in the New Testament, and every
one is significant. The therefore
of Matthew 3:7-8, for example, demonstrates that true
repentance results in fruit. The therefore
of 28:18-20 shows that without Christ’s power the
commission could have no success. And of special
significance in our day are Paul’s parting words to
Timothy. In light of growing apostasy, what did Paul
challenge Timothy to do? Did he challenge Him to be an
entertainer, or “appeal to seekers,” or be
“user-friendly” or “purpose-driven.” Hardly! He
commanded, “I charge thee therefore before God . . . Preach the word” (II Tim.
4:1-2).
That
great word, then, carries a three-fold significance in
Scripture: First, it reminds us of the wholeness
of scripture. It reminds us always to be looking at the
context, as well as analogia
scripturae, “the
analogy of Scripture” (see TOTT issues 26 & 27 on
“Biblical Interpretation”). Second, the word therefore is a word that
indicates application. I am always struck here by
Galatians 4:16, of which every Christian needs
reminding. What is the application when we tell
rebellious people the Truth? Bewildered, and perhaps
even asking rhetorically, Paul puts writes, “Am I
therefore
become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” Third, and most
important of all, the word therefore shows not
only application but also that application is
always a result of doctrine.
That
third application leads us to the importance of
therefore
is our present text. Since the passage deals with unity,
the word therefore clearly and dramatically demonstrates that we
cannot have unity without the doctrine of chapters 1-3.
Martyn Lloyd-Jones rightly made this a major emphasis in
his exposition of this passage:
Whatever be the unity of which
the Apostle speaks, it is a unity that results directly
from all he has been saying the first three chapters of
the Epistle. You must not start in chapter 4 of the
Epistle to the Ephesians. To do so is to violate the
context and to ignore the word “Therefore.” In other
words, you cannot have Christian unity unless it is
based upon the great doctrines outlined in chapters 1-3.
“Therefore!” So if anyone comes to you and says, “It
does not much matter what you believe; if we call
ourselves Christians, or if we believe in God in any
sense, come let us all work together,” you should say in
reply, “But, my dear sir, what about chapters 1 to 3 of
the Epistle to the Ephesians? I know of no unity except
that which is the outcome of, and the offspring of, all
the great doctrines which the Apostle lays down in those
chapters.” What ever this unity may be, we are compelled
to say that it must be theological, it must be
doctrinal, it must be based upon an understanding of the
truth.[vii]
Biblically,
Lloyd-Jones was correct decades ago, and is still
correct today. With few exceptions, people go right to
Ephesians 4 when talking about unity without even
acknowledging the doctrine that precedes it. The author
we noted earlier is guilty of this; he builds his entire
argument for unity upon his opinion, not on the
doctrine outlined earlier in
the Epistle. This doctrine appears in no less than three
passages (please read 1:22-23; 2:16, 21-22;
3:6).
Both a body
and a building must be unified, and all this has
been accomplished by the true gospel of Christ. Most
unity talk today is based upon one
word—love. But the Bible says
no such thing. Only when we acknowledge the finished
work of Christ, that salvation is only in Him by grace
through faith, can there be unity. As we will see in
verse 5, there is only “one Lord” and “one
faith.”
As Lloyd-Jones also
observes here, and I have verified this in my own
reading, many commentators and expositors miss this
point. While many mention the transition from doctrine
to duty marked by the word therefore,
it is tragic that most fail to drive home the principle
that doctrine matters when it comes to unity and
that the word therefore
underscores this truth. It is essential that we
recognize that if we do not base unity on the truths of
chapters 1-3, we do not have and cannot
have true unity. As we saw earlier, true
Biblical unity is this: the unanimous
agreement concerning the unique revelation of God
through Jesus Christ, and it is this that Paul
details in chapters 1-3. As we’ll see later, Paul makes
this even clearer in 4:4-6, where he gives us the
ground, that is, the basis, for unity.
This leads to a second
principle.
We Are Commanded to Keep
this Unity
Once we recognize
the true basis for our unity, we are then (and only
then) commanded to “keep” (v. 3, tereo,
“to guard as with a fortress”) that unity. To show how
imperative this is, Paul uses the word beseech.
The Greek here is parakaleo,
a compound word made up of para, “beside,” and
kaleo, “to call,”
yielding the meaning “to call alongside.” Originally, it
spoke of summoning someone and at times “to summon to
one’s aid for help.” Its main three meanings in the New
Testament, however, are reflected in our Authorized
Version by three translations: “beseech,” that is, to
plead with or implore (43 times), “comfort” (23 times),
and “exhort” (21 times). In the present context, there
is no doubt as to how Paul uses it; he implores and
pleads with the Ephesians to certain behavior based on
the doctrine of chapters 1-3.
Specifically, Paul
implores us to walk
worthy. As noted earlier, walk is
peripateo, “to walk
about,” and figuratively speaks of how we conduct
ourselves as we walk through life. The Greek behind
worthy is
axios, which in Classical Greek carried the idea
of balancing scales, of one side of the scale
counter-balancing the other side.[viii]
We are therefore
to walk in
balance to something. And to what are we to walk in
balance? What is the “counter-balance” on the scales?
The
vocation wherewith [we] are called. Vocation
translates klesis, “a call
or invitation to a banquet.” With only a few
exceptions,[ix]
Paul uses this word and related words (such as the verb
kaleo for the
word called in
our text) to refer to the Divine calling of the elect to
salvation. So the full thrust of Paul’s statement here
is that we are to walk in
balance to the salvation to which we’ve been called; in
other words, we are to walk as
believers ought to walk. And the first way we are to
walk is in
unity.
Just as a broken
bone in the physical body brings pain and debilitation,
it is a terrible thing to fracture the Body of Christ
through disunity. Once the doctrinal truth of Christ is
settled, there had better be unity, not warring factions
(as in the Corinthian church), not individuals fighting
for whatever reason (as the two women in Philippians
4:2-3), rather true
unity.
It is also
significant that Paul refers to himself for the second
time as the
prisoner of the Lord. Why
a second mention of this (cf. 3:1)? It is a simple
reminder that a worthy walk will be costly, but the
blessings far outweigh the suffering. “For I reckon that
the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be
compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us”
(Rom. 8:18).
Oh, how important
unity is! It is to be the practical result
of a doctrinal reality. Let
us do all we can to keep that unity. This leads us right
to a third principle, which we will, Lord willing,
explore next time.
Dr. J. D.
Watson
Pastor-Teacher
Grace Bible
Church
NOTES
[i]
Colin Brown, The New International Dictionary of New
Testament Theology (Zondervan,
1975), Vol. III, p. 943.
[ii] The other two are:
the gifts for unity (7-11) and the
growth of unity (12-16). This
entire study, and the author’s complete Ephesians
exposition, are on our web site.
[iii] Brown, Vol. II,
p. 722 (emphasis added).
[iv] William
Hendrickson, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of
Ephesians. (Baker Book House),
p. 181-182.p. 181-182.
[v] Charles Colson, The
Body, p.
105.
[vi] Harry Ironside,
In The Heavenlies: Practical Expository Addresses on
the Epistle to the Ephesians
(Loizeaux Brothers, 1977), pp.
173-175.
[vii] Martyn Lloyd-Jones,
Christian Unity: An Exposition of Ephesians
4:1-16 (Baker Book House, 1982),
p. 37.
[viii] Brown, Vol. III, p.
348.
[ix] I Cor. 15:9, 10:27, and
three quotations from the LXX: Rom. 9:7 (Gen 21:12),
Rom. 9:25 (Hos. 2:23(25), Rom. 9:26 (Hos. 1:10). Brown,
Vol. I, p. 275.
