What does the Bible say about unity?

And for what did He pray? "That they all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us: that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me" (21). Oneness in real fellowship of communion was His desire, and the burden of His petition. The Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father; hence full communion there must be between Them. The thoughts, the wishes, of the Father are the thoughts and wishes of the Son. No divergence of view, no conflict of opinion, can possibly exist between Them. A oneness, then, of communion between all believers, for that He prayed. And remembering that the company to be gathered out by apostolic ministry would embrace men of all ranks, and people of very varied nationalities, the need of the Saviour's prayer is at once made apparent. And the resulting consequence was one concerning the world: "That the world may believe that Thou didst send Me.'' Those formerly Jews, or Gentiles, or Barbarians, or Scythians, or bond or free, all united in one fellowship, owning and serving the same Lord — what short of Divine power could effect this? And if Divine power could accomplish it, what a testimony it would be to the Divine mission of the Son! That effect on the world He desired; and surely in early days, as long as all believers continued in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship (Acts 2:42), there was that testimony. But how soon was the beautiful picture blotted! How sadly has it become marred!

Amongst men we see the tendency for love to degenerate into a kind of soft amiability, which ends with condoning all kinds of things which are far from right. Thus it is not to be amongst saints, inasmuch as a very definite standard is set before us. We are to aim, not merely at agreement, for we might all be of one mind and in the sweetest agreement in favour of something entirely wrong! We are to give all diligence to keeping the unity of the Spirit — not Paul's unity, not Peter's, not yours nor mine, but rather that unity which the Spirit has produced. We did not make the unity, and we cannot break the unity. The Spirit made it and we are to keep it in a practical way in the uniting bond of peace. That is to be our constant endeavour. Our success in that endeavour will depend upon the measure in which we are marked by the beautiful features mentioned in verse 2.

Keeping these things in mind, let us consider Psalm 133. It says, "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" To whom is it good and pleasant? Surely to all those who love what is of God. But not to them only; the Psalm shows us that it is good and pleasant to God Himself. That when He looks down on this world, filled as it is with hatred and strife, and in which there roll waves of blood-lust, there is something that is good and pleasant to Him in the midst of it, and that is unity among brethren. Let us not introduce any of our "buts" into the passage, but let us take it as it stands, and consider it as the word of God to us, then the beauty and power of it will not fail to affect us.

But who are these "brethren"? How wide is the sweep of that good word? We who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity present in this hall are included in it, surely, but it goes out wider. Let us stand in thought and listen to Him, saying, as He did to Mary, "Go to My brethren." We are in such danger of that withering sectarianism that talks about our brethren, and that thinks along narrow lines and in limited circles, that we need constantly to turn back to His words, and to let the love with which they are vibrant thrill and enlarge our souls. He speaks of "My brethren," and when we understand the meaning of that word, and who they are of whom the Lord thus speaks, let us know that God says that it is good and pleasant to Him when they dwell together in unity.

"For He Himself is our peace" (v.14). This is not the question of peace with God but of peace between Jews and Gentiles, who previously were enemies. Christ Himself is the present Bond between the believers of both groups. He has made both one, His blessed work of redemption has broken down the "middle wall" that so separated them. This middle wall involved both the law of God itself which separated Jews from Gentiles and the difference in cultures resulting mainly from that law.

But it is objected that in all God's works there is variety, that men's minds are differently constituted, and that it is impracticable to mould all to the same monotonous pattern. Does the oneness then, so strongly insisted upon in Scripture, imply a lifeless uniformity? The very illustration by which it is constantly described proves the exact opposite. In the human body no two portions are alike, and the endless differences in each of its bones, veins, muscles, and ligaments, all contribute to its healthy action as a whole. Diversity of action does not involve schism and division. Such is the apostle's argument with respect to the setting of the individual members in the body of Christ. "If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased Him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body." (1 Cor. 12:17‑20.) The same fact as to diversity of gifts in one body is presented in the epistle to the Ephesians. The apostle, after dwelling strongly on the manifestation of unity, goes on to say: "But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore He saith, When He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men." (vv. 7, 8.) The second of these verses explains the sense in which the word "grace" is used in the first. It is not that display of grace by which sinners are saved, but that by which believers are endowed with the gifts of an ascended Christ. The grace, of course, is the same in both instances, but exercised in a different manner.

Even though the Holy Spirit took the opportunity created by the false teaching of Hymenaeus and Philetus to give these instructions, it appears that the evil hadn't reached the stage that compelled Timothy to withdraw from the mass of professed believers. Rather, it appears that the evil was met by the energy of the Holy Spirit and that some were recovered "out of the snare of the devil" (2 Tim. 2:26), while the false teachers, repulsed in their efforts, "went out from (them)" (1 John 2:19). However, the God-given instructions remain and the time has long since come when withdrawal has become necessary. In fact, to pursue union at the expense of truth is treason against the Lord because no union which involves complicity with evil is of God. God's unity is found only in separation from evil.

If this be so, it is clear that the present divided condition of the Church is not according to the mind of the Spirit. It may be well, however, to look at some other scriptures bearing on this subject. In John 17 we find that, whether our Lord was praying for the disciples then with Him, or whether He enlarges the sphere to the whole of those who should believe on Him through their word, in both cases the first petition that He presents concerning them is — for their oneness. In verse 21 He prays, "That they all," that is all believers, "may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." Here, then, the special object for which the Lord desires this oneness is that it may be a testimony to the world. No invisible unity can be this. The world can receive no evidence but that presented to it, and unless the oneness of believers is a thing discernible by the world, the testimony here spoken of is not given. The Church indeed was not formed when these words were uttered, but they were uttered in full view of the fact that the Church was soon to be formed; and the formation of the Church could not dissolve, but rather cement and define the oneness here spoken of.

No doubt there is a wide difference between unity and uniformity; for the uniformity which does not spring out of unity is a mere lifeless pretence. No doubt, too, the unity here spoken of is unity of spirit. But how will unity of spirit show itself? In endless divisions? In splitting into innumerable fragments? In presenting to the world the most perfect possible exhibition of want of unity? Granted that the so-called Church which boasts loudest of unity has nothing better than a hollow and soulless uniformity — does it follow, because a counterfeit uniformity, which is not of God, has once existed, that a true uniformity, the fruit of unity of spirit, was not God's purpose? Real unity of spirit would produce uniformity, and in the Church, as set up by God, we find both. The figures used to describe this oneness, show its true character. Believers were to be one even as the Father and Son are one. Could anything be conceived more perfect, both as to its inward character and as to its outward manifestation? Such, then, is the oneness which should bind together believers, and bear testimony, here in the world, to the Father's having sent the Son. Will anybody say that modern Christendom, or the Church, presents such a testimony? But in another figure believers are said to be one body. If the first presents the most perfect picture of oneness to the heart, this presents the most perfect image to the senses. A body cut in pieces may still be one to the mind of the anatomist; but it is not one to the eye of the world. God doubtless discerns amongst the scattered members the oneness of the body of Christ, but to the world they are only disjointed limbs, with no union subsisting among them. Such assuredly was not the thought of God.

In the first chapter we find divisions denounced in the most solemn and energetic way. The apostle beseeches the believers to "speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions [or schisms] among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" (vv. 10‑13.) Now what do we find here? Just the same thing as in modern Christendom. Different sects had already begun to exist in principle, different human teachers or schools of theology to be regarded as rallying‑points. True, they had not yet gone the length of separating from one another, and they still, as to outward form, recognized no centre of gathering but Christ. But what does the apostle say about it? He asks, "Is Christ divided?" These words can have but one meaning. They show that the division of Christians into different schools or sects, even in the mild form which it had then assumed, was a contradiction of the oneness of the Church as the body of Christ. To set up Paul as a rallying‑point was like saying that Paul, rather than Christ, had been crucified for them.

Examine the passage for a moment and see how this is so. We are not to be "unequally yoked together with unbelievers." The word "unequally" might more accurately be translated "diversely." It is an allusion to Deuteronomy 22:10 where it is forbidden to plough with such animals together as an ox and an ass. They are diverse in nature and hence thoroughly different in habits and gait. It would be an utter misfit and entail misery for both animals. Now there is a fundamental diversity of nature between the believer and the unbeliever, which forbids anything like a yoke between them. Of course we move amongst unbelievers and have much contact with them in our daily callings, and oftentimes even in the home. We are called upon to behave with the utmost grace and to let our light shine before them. But we are not to be yoked with them.

The question may be asked — What exactly constitutes a yoke? The following verses, containing a series of questions, help to answer this. "What fellowship … what communion … what concord … what part … what agreement?" These five words show what kind of thing is forbidden. Moreover they are followed by the positive instruction to "come out … be separate … touch not the unclean." — three other words which reinforce the five questions. We are not to involve ourselves in any fellowships or partnerships which would yoke us to unbelievers and commit us to the unclean things with which their world is filled. Without any question marriage is a yoke of that kind, and business partnership is another; and other things too come under the scope of this word. Again and again we have to ask ourselves when commitments are proposed to us — Will this thing involve me in an unequal yoke?