Truth on Tough
Texts
ISSUE #35 - June
2008
The Ground of Unity (3)
Ephesians
4:4–6
VI. One Baptism
(v.
5c)
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 because they view “one Spirit”
back in verse 4 as implying Spirit baptism. As we saw,
however, “one Spirit” goes much deeper. We must,
therefore, 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 bapto 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. That 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, 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).[i]
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 Greek
expositor Kenneth Wuest writes, why “[interpret] the
Greek word as referring to the rite of water baptism
when the entire context is supernatural?” 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 might also
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,
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.”[ii] Indeed, water baptism is
not a divine or supernatural act, but Spirit Baptism
most certainly is.
We should also add
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.”[iii] 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.[iv]
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 not
unifying God’s people at all, rather actually
dividing them 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 has already been
done by God alone.
Of course, it is
argued that people spoke in “tongues” (Greek
glossa) 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.
(We dealt with this
in depth in Issue 4 of TOTT, Temporary Spiritual
Gifts (2), so we will not repeat
it here. Please request that issue if you do not have
it.)
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 incredibly 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.” That is what the text says. Again, Paul’s whole point is oneness of all
believers in Christ’s Body, not two divided classes, one
of which has “experienced” 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 any 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 of 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)
The
Meaning
Here is the capstone of
the passage. This is the culmination, the climax to
which Paul has been building. Paul has built each of
these spiritual realities on the other until he now
reaches the summit in one God. 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. Please read the
following verse heres: Psalm 57:11; 96:4; 99:2; and
Romans 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. Here please
read David’s exultation in Psalm
139:6–10.
There is a small textual
issue here. While the Critical Text and, therefore, most
modern translations omit you, the majority of
manuscripts include it.[v] 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 that our Father is absolute in His
power, absorbed in His purpose, and
abiding in His presence.[vi] 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 this, 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 also see in
3:14–15, such a reference doesn’t refer to 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. Interestingly, Old Testament Jews 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 those 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, in Malachi 2:10–16, Malachi
indicts the spiritual leaders of Israel as they lead the
rest of the nation into intermarriage with foreign women
and divorcing the wives of their youth. 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 under “one
Lord,” Jesus’ answer to the scribe who asked, “Which is
the first commandment of all?” prompted the scribe to
add later, “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 the kingdom (Mk. 12:28–34). While that kind of
belief (mental assent) 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)—the
belief in one God is certainly the beginning.
Read also Romans 3:30,
which declares there is, indeed, only one God who can
justify men, that is, declare them righteous through the
finished work of Jesus Christ. Also, countless cults and
false religions ignore the truth that Paul wrote to the
Corinthians (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,
or the god of any other cult
or false religion. The true God of the Bible is a
father, with all that that entails.
Another of the
countless false views of God is the view of The Masonic
Lodge, of which many Christians today need to be made
aware. While most Masons adamantly deny that Masonry is
a religion, its foremost authorities quite readily admit
that it is precisely that. In his Masonic
Encyclopedia, the leading authority of Masonry,
Henry Wilson Coil, not only admits that Masonry is a
religion according to the definition of religion given
in Funk and Wagnall’s New Standard
Dictionary (1941), but goes on
to say that it functions in the same way as does a
church.[vii] In his Revised
Encyclopedia of Freemasonry,
another authority, Albert Mackey, states, “Freemasonry
may rightfully claim to be called a religious
institution.”[viii]
Most Masons also deny that
Masonry teaches a way of salvation, but again, its
authorities say otherwise. Any manual that outlines the
Ritual of the Blue Lodge, that is, the first three
degrees of Masonry, clearly teaches a way of salvation.
One, for example, reads, “The All-Seeing Eye [God] . . .
beholds the inmost recesses of the human heart, and will
reward us according to our works.”[ix] And what is the coming
reward? Concerning the wearing of the linen apron, or
lambskin, Masonry teaches, “He who wears the lambskin as
a badge of a Mason is thereby continually reminded of
purity of life and conduct which is essentially
necessary to his gaining admission into that celestial
Lodge above, where the Supreme Architect of the universe
presides.”[x] What is that if not a
salvation by works just like any other
religion?
So what does the Lodge
teach about God? Is He the one God of the Bible? Far
from it. The God of Masonry, “The Great Architect of the
Universe,” is very loosely defined. While Masonry
insists that its members be monotheistic, each Mason can
decide for himself whether he wants “a God like the
ancient Hebrew Jahweh, a partisan tribal god, with whom
they can talk and argue and from whom they can hide if
necessary, or a boundless, eternal, universal,
undenominational, and international Divine Spirit, so
vastly removed from the speck called man, that He cannot
be known, named, or approached.”[xi] Another authority is even
clearer: “[The Mason] may name Him [i.e., God] as he
will, think of Him as he pleases; make Him impersonal
law or personal and anthropomorphic; Freemasontry cares
not. . . . God, Great Architect of the Universe, Grand
Artificer, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge above,
Jehovah, Allah, Buddha, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, or Great
Geometer . . .”[xii]
Such vagueness makes
Masonry seem tolerant and open to all faiths. But
this is actually a very subtle deception. In one of
the later degrees (Royal Arch), the candidate is told
that the real name of God is Jahbulon.
This is a combination of Jehovah (Jah), the God
of the Old Testament, Baal (Bul or Bel), the
infamous Canaanite fertility god, and
On, a probable reference to
the Egyptian god Osirus, the brother and husband of
Isis. The purpose of such a composite “God” is to show
unity between all god-ideas, that all religions are
essentially the same in their ideas of the divine. So,
while claiming to tolerate all religions and views of
God, Masonry in reality views its own idea as
supreme.
But if we are to
“speak the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15), we are compelled
to say that to join the one true God of the Bible with
pagan deities is beyond blasphemy, beyond sacrilege.
Some of God’s severest judgments were upon those who
worshiped pagan deities. Please read Judges 2:13–14 and
Jeremiah 32:29, 35–36. God simply will not tolerate
paganism, especially when it is
mixed in and blended with His name and
worship.
In light of the
other spiritual unities we’ve examined, Masonry also
denies the very foundations of Christianity. In his
1879 book, The Master’s Carpet: Masonry and
Baal-Worship Identical, Edmond
Ronayne, former Master of a Masonic Lodge in Chicago
prior to his conversion to Christianity, writes (please
read closely):
Freemasonry “carefully
excludes” the Lord Jesus Christ from the Lodge and
chapter, repudiates his mediatorship, rejects his
atonement, denies and disowns his gospel, frowns upon
his religion and his church, ignores the Holy Spirit,
and sets up for itself a spiritual empire, a religious
theocracy, at the head of which it places the
G.A.O.T.U.—the God of Nature—and from which the only
living and true God is expelled by resolution . .
.”[xiii]
The words “expelled by
resolution” are especially significant. The true one God
of the Bible doesn’t fit into the concept of God taught
in Freemasonry, so He must be done away with by official
ruling. The book goes on to show that Masonry is the
equivalent of the “Ancient Mysteries,” that its
ceremonies and symbols are identical in every detail
with the initiatory rites that were practiced thousands
of years ago in the worship of the pagan gods of Egypt,
Babylon, and Canaan. It also reveals some shocking
comparisons between Masonry and Roman Catholicism,
demonstrating that both rest upon the same
anti-Christian foundation.
Does there appear to be
any doubt that Masonry is diametrically opposed to the
one God of the Bible, not to mention “one faith” and
“one Lord”? While various pastors, elders, Sunday School
teachers, and other Christian leaders are Masons, should
not all this challenge each of us to take a discerning
look (cf. Eph. 4:14) and act accordingly? Is it possible
to have unity with something so foreign, so opposed to
the one God of Scripture?
Indeed, unity can
come only from a right view of the one God. To
illustrate, ponder a moment a symphony orchestra. As the
musicians are tuning up, they each are doing something
different, and it sounds awful. But when they are done,
the Conductor appears and leads them in a beautiful
piece of music. Even though the instruments are tuned
and the musicians could go ahead and play the music, the
Conductor is still absolutely essential. Likewise,
countless people today are playing their own tune, or as
Thoreau put it, marching to their own drummer. We so
desperately need a Conductor, and we have Him in one
God. He is “above all,
through all, and in [us] all.”
Conclusion:
Paul’s Doctrinal Statement
To bring these seven
unities together, here we read the very essence of
the Christian faith. Down
through the ages there have been creeds, doctrinal
statements, statements of faith, catechisms, and other
forms of stating doctrinal positions. But here we find a
Biblical statement of faith on which we base unity and
fellowship. What is the doctrine to which we
hold?
·
One Body — Christ’s Body,
of which we are all members.
·
One Spirit — the Holy
Spirit Who indwells, enlightens, equips, and empowers
the believer.
·
One Hope — the certainty
of Christ’s return to the Earth for His
own.
·
One Lord — the Lord Jesus
Christ Who is Savior, Master, and God
incarnate.
·
One Faith — 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.
·
One Baptism — the Baptism
of the Holy Spirit that places us into the Body of
Christ.
·
One God — the one and only
True God Who is the Father of all who receive the Son
through the Spirit.
There is a truly Biblical
doctrinal statement, and it is the basis on which we can
have true unity. Martyn Lloyd-Jones closes his
exposition of this passage with these words:
The end of all doctrine is
to lead to the knowledge of God, and the worship of God;
any knowledge we may have is useless if it does not
bring us to that point. If your spirit is not humble, if
you are not loving, if you are not concerned about this
unity of God’s people, you have nothing better than
intellectual knowledge that is barren and may indeed be
even of the Devil. Our Lord said, “If ye know these
things, happy are ye if ye do them” (Jn. 13:17). Are you
striving to realize that 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?”[xiv]
Indeed, until Christianity
today rids itself of artificiality and realizes that
true unity can be based only upon doctrine, it will
continue its downward spiral into Relativism and finally
oblivion.
Dr. J. D.
Watson
Pastor-Teacher
Grace Bible
Church
NOTES
[i]
The Complete Word Study Dictionary, p.
314.
[ii] Cited in Lewis Sperry Chafer,
Systematic Theology, Vol. VI, p.
148.
[iii] Baltimore
Catechism.
[iv] Chafer, Vol. VI, p. 147. Chafer
also includes an excellent quotation of Merrill F. Unger
from Biblitheca Sacra (CI, 244–247), which is too
lengthy to include here (pp. 148-150).
[v] The Majority Text reads
hemin
(dative plural of ego), and the
Textus Receptus (Traditional Text) reads
humin (dative plural of su). In
either case, the translation is “you” or perhaps
“us.”
[vi] John Phillips, Exploring
Ephesians.
[vii] Coil’s Masonic
Encyclopedia (New York: Macoy Publishing and Masonic
Supply, 1961), p. 512. This work is recognized as the
leading authority according to a poll taken of all 50
Grand Lodges in the US, as cited in John Ankerberg and
John Weldon, The Facts on the Masonic Lodge
(Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1989), pp.
8–9.
[viii] Mackey’s Revised
Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Revised and Enlarged by
Robert I. Clegg (Richmond, VA: Macoy Publishing and
Masonic Supply, 1966), Vol. II, p. 847. This is
considered the third leading authority of Masonry
according to the poll cited above.
[ix] Malcolm C. Duncan, Masonic
Ritual and Monitor (New York: David Mckay Co., nd.),
p. 129.
[xii] Carl H. Claudy, Introduction
to Freemasonry, 3 Volumes (Washington, DC: The
Temple Publishers, 1984), Vol. II, p.
110.
[xiii] The Master’s Carpet; or
Masonry and Baal Worship—Identical (Chicago: Ezra
Cook Company, 1879), p. 87. This work has also been
reprinted.
[xiv] Christian Unity, pp.
142–143.
