Paul instructs, which means he requires, unity in Ephesians 4, writing in verse 3:
Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
The Context of the Church
To obey this teaching, the church at Ephesus to whom Paul writes must understand unity, keeping it, and then the bond of peace. Foundational to understanding what Paul, and thus God, expects here is the audience of the instruction, a particular church. A church keeps unity. In the New Testament, ekklesia always refers to a local, visible, organized assembly. There is no “heavenly” version of the church that exists apart from the local bodies. Therefore, biblical unity is not a mystical feeling between all “believers” globally, but a concrete reality within a specific congregation.
The term “churches” (plural) is used 37 times (e.g., “the churches of Galatia,” 1 Corinthians 16:1), indicating distinct, autonomous units rather than branches of a global organization. “The Church” in a generic sense is an abstract concept (like “The Family”), but it only exists in reality as a specific, local body. Biblical unity is not a mystical, invisible bond between all “professing” Christians, but a practical, doctrinal, and visible reality within a local assembly. A church, an individual church, is the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). Biblical unity cannot be and so won’t be kept “universal” — it must be local.
“Endeavoring to Keep”
The Greek language translated “endeavoring to keep” suggests a diligent, strenuous effort. Unity is not something created through compromise. It is something God has already given in the truth, which an individual church, like the one at Ephesus, must guard. “Keep” itself has the meaning of guarding.
“Unity of the Spirit”
“Unity of the Spirit” is not a “spirit of unity” (an emotion), but the unity produced by the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth (John 16:13), there can be no unity of the Spirit where there is a denial of the Spirit’s words. This is not a unity that man creates; it is the “unity of the Spirit.” It doesn’t come through human strategies, deciding that of what God said is less or more important. It is based on the “whole truth” of Scripture. Actual unity is impossible where truth is compromised. That is in fact, disunity.
In Ephesians 4:4-6, Paul immediately lists the “seven ones” (one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God). “One faith” refers to the entire body of Christian doctrine, and “one baptism” refers to the unifying water baptism of the church. Unity requires agreement on all these “ones.” In the local only context that Paul writes, this means the members of a specific congregation must work to maintain doctrinal purity and relational harmony. Unlike modern views that seek the “lowest common denominator,” unity is found in the “one faith,” which is the entire body of New Testament doctrine.
Unbiblical Alternatives to Unity
Someone might say, “But that can’t be done!” It is the unity of the Spirit, so it can be done. He is God. With God, all things are possible. The reality is found in what God said to do, not in adjusting what He said to what men settle for having instead. This creates actual disunity. Unity is not in essence choosing not to conflict over doctrinal diversity. Unity is found in a congregation where everyone is “perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Corinthians 1:10), as Paul defines there to the Corinthian church what is unity.
Biblical unity rejects the major and minor issue or truth hierarchy or doctrinal triage position. If God revealed it in His Word, it is “first level” in terms of obedience. Matthew 28:20 commands the church to teach them “to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” To label baptism or church order as “secondary” is a failure to “keep” the unity of the Spirit, which is built upon the “one faith.” “Agreeing to disagree” on “secondary” matters is not biblical unity but a managed truce that eventually leads to the erosion of the “whole truth.”
First or Second Level
By labeling something “second level,” you imply it is okay to disagree on it. This codifies uncertainty. If God spoke it, it is essential. To maintain “unity” by agreeing to disagree on “minor” points is to sacrifice the “unity of the Spirit” for a “unity of human opinion.”
The Bible never categorizes commands as optional for the sake of fellowship. By labeling some truths as “second level,” men give themselves permission to ignore or minimize what God has revealed. This system creates a “partial unity” that allows for fellowship despite disobedience to “secondary” commands.
Ecumenicalism seeks to unite different denominations or religious groups based on a “lowest common denominator” of faith. The ecumenical logic is that “love is more important than doctrine; let us find what we have in common.” Ecumenicalism does not produce the “unity of the Spirit”; it produces a “union of the flesh,” built on human compromise rather than divine revelation.
A critical distinction must be made between biblical unity and religious union. Union brings two or more things together (like tying two cats’ tails together; you have union, but certainly not unity). Unity is an internal oneness of mind, soul, and spirit centered on the truth of scripture. Ecumenicalism achieves union through the dilution of truth. The local church achieves unity through the magnification of truth.
“Bond of Peace”
In Ephesians 4:3, the “bond of peace” is the result of walking in the “whole truth.” Peace is not silence. It is not the absence of conflict achieved by never talking about “divisive” doctrines. Peace is order, which is the result of a local body where everyone is submitted to the same authority (the Bible) and the same rule (the Local Church). Peace comes from the certainty that members of a church are following all scripture as the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
Since there is no universal or catholic church, then the responsibility to uphold the truth falls entirely on the local assembly. When a local church adopts “levels of doctrine,” it weakens the “pillar.” When a local church joins ecumenical movements, they abandon the “ground.” True unity is only possible when the “whole truth” is the foundation. To “endeavour to keep the unity” is to faithfully stand on every word of God within the context of His divinely ordained institution: the local, visible church.
Good words! Thank you for writing.
You are welcome, Bro. Barger!
I’ve thought a good amount on this topic, but I still have some questions on the implementation and practicality of this based on some other things we see in the Bible.
There must be room for Christians in the church to grow into greater understanding, which would mean there may be disagreements while those things are ironed out, possibly taking years to do so. Most of the church epistles make it clear that there were issues, doctrinal and practical in which church members were in error. The offered fix was not immediate dismissal but patience and teaching. Certainly this takes time. Also, pastors are sometimes in error; therefore, how is the final arbitration brought about when there are disagreements?
What is the proper approach to, for instance, differences in doctrine with regard to the types of things you mentioned? What happens when both parties claim to love God’s Word but there is a true disagreement on a certain doctrine. Should a church pray for God to settle the matter according to His will and trust God to do so? Is there a time to leave a matter for a while without necessarily compromising and allowing God to use His Word and Spirt to bring about sanctification without an overemphasis on certain disputed items?
Thanks for your thoughts.
Thanks Bro,
It’s the most likely question, I would think, and we answer it in our book on unity and separation, A Pure Church. The answer, you can’t cause division on the doctrine. Never is there a moment where every single person even knows everything, let alone believes it, but unity is still based on every doctrine, not on a select portion.
Good article, Bro. Kent.
I’m interested in your count of the plural form of ekklesia. When I was in seminary, I remembered the professor said 35 plural occurrences out of 115 total (this is using TR). Now you count 37. I fired up Accordance Bible, and got 36. I wonder what is the reason behind these small differences. How do you count yours, Bro. Kent?
Tenrin,
I’m pretty sure I did a search on the English, “churches.” I didn’t check to see if that was the plural of ekklesia, ekklesiai, every time. When I count the nominative, genitive, dative, and accusative plural, it’s 36, like you got. However, when I looked at the search on “churches” it says, 36 verses, 37 hits, perhaps saying that one verse has two uses of the plural. The double usage is Revelation 1:20.
Kent,
I think I’ve found it. When searching for “churches”, the engine also includes Acts 19:37, which actually is not from the word ekklesia. Instead it’s hierosulos (temple/church robber).
So, for ekklesia, I believe the correct plural count would be 36. The old 35 that I remembered, must have been a Critical Text count, because in the CT, Acts 9:31 is in the singular instead of the correct plural.
Great!