Fralick on Ephesians 5:25-27

Reference : http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2012/03/ephesians-525-27-sons-or-disciples.html

Brother Fralick stated:

"In my last posting I argued that sanctification via the gospel was an end which Christ had in view in his redeeming work at the cross, according to Eph. 5:25-27."

There really should be no argument about this idea in it's application to the elect of the gospel era to whom Paul writes, as it is clearly proved by 2 Cor. 3:18, Romans 8:30 and the temporal, progressive sanctification of Romans 8:8-14.

The logical difficulty is represented by the manner that this text and the ones I mentioned are applicable to the elect of the Old Testament and those unable to hear the outward word preached. There is also the matter of how this sanctification is to be understood.

These factors are clearly ones with which one must deal. It is a simplistic and unsystematic approach to Biblical hermeneutics to fail to deal with or ignore the logical implications of an interpretation of Scripture. Brother Fralick wants these considerations to be ignored as "vain philosophizing", as he goes on to state:

"Since the whole of the church is what “Christ loved” and “gave himself” for, it is this same group which He intended to "sanctify and cleanse". This is so obvious to the average Bible reader that it seems silly to me that I must even defend the point. The text, taken solely as it is written, makes a strong argument in favor of those (myself included) that God in His sovereignty will ensure that the gospel reaches His people. Unless one resorts to unwarranted philosophizing (what about this, and what about that?) this is what the text seems to suggest."


What is "unwarranted" is to ignore basic inferences that one's interpretation of Scripture implies. Should Gill have been scolded when he considered the case of elect infants in his Body of Divinity, and what that case would imply for the doctrine of justification? Should the many systematic works be committed to the flames as sophistry and illusion because they go cross-grain to Brother Fralick's standard of a "foolish and unlearned question"?


Can faithful Biblical students embrace a standard of interpretation that insists on embracing "what the text seems to suggest"? To whom does it suggest, is often more key than claims of obviousness. What is "clear" in the Bible to some is often simply a revelation of their pre-commitments and unquestioned assumptions.


The context does indeed imply as Brother Fralick argues for the NT audience (that is the context in which it was written) to the elect under the sound of it, but the sense in which it applies to the elect previous to the gospel era or, similarly, the elect deprived of outward revelation by either means of mental competence or geography, is less than clear.

Ephesians 5:25-27 can only imply purification and sanctification by the word to the elect under the sound of it, as the audience. The Old Testament saints and those deprived of gospel revelation are obviously precluded from being exposed to the gospel as Paul preached it.

Another issue that is less than clear from Brother Fralick's heedless application of this text is the lack of uniformity among professing Christians in terms of understanding of the gospel. This ties into Brother Fralick's understanding of the sanctification and cleansing of this text. I am sure we have all known dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ who manifested the fruit of the spirit, but had very little gospel knowledge. If the Spirit sanctifies and purifies the truly regenerate by the word irresistibly, why is it that so many have a great deal of Biblical ignorance? Would not a lack of purification in the word signify an unregenerate state, therefore? The more erudite one is in the word would seem to imply a higher degree of purification, and the more Biblically ignorant the more likely one is to be a false professor.

What a scheme of "back door" legalism can be erected upon the inferences of Brother Fralick's interpretation. One is reminded of the historical conflict between the early American covenant of works and covenant of grace groups. Such a view logically terminates in an "us four and no more" theology, and invites a climate of judgment among the imperfect rather than compassion.

Some might point to Galatians 3:8 to indicate that the gospel was preached to the Old Testament elect. The problem with this is Paul says the opposite of this in the text. The text states that God preached to Abraham of the justification of the heathen by faith before the gospel, not that God preached the gospel to Abraham. The text actually denies that the gospel, as Paul delivered it, was given. Gospel preaching would require the explicit revelation of Jesus Christ, and this was not explicitly revealed to Abraham in the general promises God made to him in Gen. 15 of which Paul references.

So, it is clear here that Paul denies (or implies that the essence of the gospel is reducible to a general trust in God) that Abraham had the gospel, and Abraham's faith, therefore, was in the general promises of God, not the explicit revelation of Jesus Christ. It is inconsistent, therefore, to insist that Ephesians 5:25-27 means that the Old Testament elect were purified and sanctified by the explicit gospel of the revelation of Jesus Christ as N.T. believers enjoyed and enjoy.

If some of the elect are logically precluded from Brother Fralick's interpretation, it obviously indicates that his interpretation fails.

However, in Gal. 3:8, as previously noted, as well as 1 Thessalonians 4:9, we have textual basis to claim that God's direct revelation, which is obviously not the gospel as Paul gave (this is proved by Gal. 3:8), is the only application of Ephesians 5:25-27 that makes sense to all of the elect. This revelation clearly precedes the gospel as preached by Paul in both of these texts. It is not the explicit gospel of Jesus Christ, as Paul gave, as Paul denies this.

The direct word of the Lord is the only approach that avoids logical difficulties for a universal application to all the elect, unless Paul's primary application is to the hearers of his own ministry by which the elect are drawn. The text does not state that the word regenerates, but that it sanctifies and cleanses.