All Scripture is of ultimate significance as the word of God, but it may be helpful to think about what makes a book (in this case, a letter) possibly unique within the canon. In this case, the “general” nature of Ephesians should stand out, but it often is not recognized for it’s real significance. People don’t think of Ephesians as unique because they read all Epistles as if they are Ephesians.

To explain what I mean, consider Jeff Meyers introduction to his excellent commentary on James:

I initially approached the book with the relatively popular idea that James is a general epistle and so has some sort of generalized message to everyone at all times.

Approaching the book this way means that the message and the details of the letter are de-contextualized and verses and paragraphs are make to stand alone as nuggets of Christian wisdom for the ages. And, of course, as we shall see, there is a great deal of wisdom in James for all ages. I’m not denying that. But the letter was not written to twenty-first century American Christians. Not directly anyway. As with all Scripture, this book is for us and the Spirit obviously intends for us to read and apply it…

Here is a huge challenge for us modern Christians in reading and appropriating the New Testament. We are prone to forget the historical context and turn all these New Testament letters into free-floating expositions of Christian doctrine and ethical instruction. It is all too easy to do this with the New Testament epistles because they seem like they are written directly to us…

In the case of Ephesians, we have the opposite problem. It appears that the document is the more “generic” of Paul’s letters. But we don’t think much of that fact because we treat all the New Testament letters as “free-floating expositions of Christian doctrine and ethical instruction.” That is obviously a hyperbolic expression (which makes an accurate point!), but the fact the Ephesians seems to come much closer to the hyperbole than, say, Romans, ought to affect how we read it.

A brief example of how this can help us avoid errors: Everyone knows that Ephesians is a letter that teaches emphatically the grace of God in human salvation apart from any human works. We also know that Romans does the same. But Romans 6:1 is usually interpreted as a “correction” to a mistake that can arise to this message: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?” (ESV). Romans 3:1-8 is often interpreted the same way.

What you will notice if you are comparing Romans to Ephesians, is that Paul never seems to worry that anyone will think that God’s grace might raise the possibility that we can “continue in sin.” He tells people to do well and turn away from sin without seeing any need to correct a mistaken idea they might derive from his teaching of the Gospel.

But, among some Christians, Romans is treated as more of a general guide to Christian doctrine so you get this kind of understanding of Romans 6:1.

First of all, let me make a comment, to me a very important and vital comment. The true preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace alone always leads to the possibility of this charge being brought against it. There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation than this, that some people might misunderstand it and misinterpret it to mean that it really amounts to this, that because you are saved by grace alone it does not matter at all what you do; you can go on sinning as much as you like because it will redound all the more to the glory of grace. If my preaching and presentation of the gospel of salvation does not expose it to that misunderstanding, then it is not the gospel. Let me show you what I mean.

If a man preaches justification by works, no one would ever raise this question. If a man’s preaching is, ‘If you want to be Christians, and if you want to go to heaven, you must stop committing sins, you must take up good works, and if you do so regularly and constantly, and do not fail to keep on at it, you will make yourselves Christians, you will reconcile yourselves to God and you will go to heaven’. Obviously a man who preaches in that strain would never be liable to this misunderstanding. Nobody would say to such a man, ‘Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?’, because the man’s whole emphasis is just this, that if you go on sinning you are certain to be damned, and only if you stop sinning can you save yourselves. So that misunderstanding could never arise…

Nobody has ever brought this charge against the Church of Rome, but it was brought frequently against Martin Luther; indeed that was precisely what the Church of Rome said about the preaching of Martin Luther. They said, ‘This man who was a priest has changed the doctrine in order to justify his own marriage and his own lust’, and so on. ‘This man’, they said, ‘is an antinomian; and that is heresy.’ That is the very charge they brought against him. It was also brought George Whitfield two hundred years ago. It is the charge that formal dead Christianity – if there is such a thing – has always brought against this startling, staggering message, that God ‘justifies the ungodly’…

That is my comment and it is a very important comment for preachers. I would say to all preachers: If your preaching of salvation has not been misunderstood in that way, then you had better examine your sermons again, and you had better make sure that you are really preaching the salvation that is offered in the New Testament to the ungodly, the sinner, to those who are dead in trespasses and sins, to those who are enemies of God. There is this kind of dangerous element about the true presentation of the doctrine of salvation (Martyn Lloyd-Jones Romans: Exposition of Chapter 6 [Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1989] pp. 8-9.

Ironically, this statement includes a quotation from Ephesians (“dead in trespasses and sins”), but it proposes a test that, if applied objectively, would raise doubts about Ephesians as adequate teaching about God’s grace and salvation. That might indicate this “litmus test,” as it were, is far too prone to condemn Biblical preachers of the Gospel today.

Of course, if Paul knows of groups that are twisting his words in that way at the time he is writing Romans, it is natural that he should address that error. But the fact remains that there is nothing intrinsic to the message that demands such corrections. Ephesians proves this.

On a personal note, it was by thinking about the comparison between Romans and Ephesians that led me to believe that Romans 3:1-8 and 6:1 are not referring to antinomianism at all (though I still think 6:15 includes it). Paul is not referring to “justified sinners” who think they can go on sinning in a justified state. He is replying to Jewish unbelievers who mock Paul’s gospel because it means that Israel’s unfaithfulness rather than faithfulness has led to the salvation of the world.

Romans 6:1 expressed an outraged sarcastic response the previous statement, Romans 5:12-21. The passage is commonly understood as an exposition of two “Adams,” the original Adam and then Jesus. However, there are actually three Adams: first, Adam, then Israel with the Law, and then Jesus. This becomes especially clear in verse 16:

And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.

Here the contrast is not between Adam and Jesus but between Adam and Israel, the many trespasses. Thus the law was given to intensify sin through history until the measure of God’s wrath was filled up. Rather than Israel’s faithfulness being the means of bringing salvation, it was their apostasy that brought blessing to the nations.

Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:20-21 ESV)

The natural reaction to this message is to mock it. If God’s plan was to bring salvation from climactic sin, deliberately increased by the giving of the Law, then why not preach that we should continue in sin that grace (i.e. salvation spreading throughout the world as Paul has described in 5.12-21) might increase? The objection recorded in Romans 6:1 makes sense.

The same objections are raised on the same grounds in Romans 3:1-8 and also later in Romans 9, which builds to the climax of Paul’s argument in Romans 11 where Paul repeats several time that Israel’s sin (the crucifixion of Christ) leads to the salvation of the world.

• “Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!”
• “For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?”

And then, in the conclusion of this great argument that spans from chapter 9-11, we find that salvation is to spread to all:

For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

None of this is in Ephesians. Romans and Ephesians both teach about grace and salvation through Christ but passages like Romans 6:1 are not related to that overlap in content. Romans has detractors in view that are not a concern for Paul in Ephesians. But the evidence is that these detractors are opposed to the story of Israel and how God saved the world through Israel, not that free grace will lead to more sin.

So recognizing that Ephesians is a more “general statement” than Romans can keep us from making general statements about the implications of the Gospel (or setting up tests for authentic preaching of the Gospel) that are not reliable. Our expositions of Romans cannot allow us to condemn Ephesians as an insufficient statement of the Christian Faith. The general character of Ephesians must be given it’s due weight. To mention another instance: if Paul is able to write about grace and salvation without mentioning justification or righteousness as a forensic term even once in the entire letter, that has to mean something for how we require professing Christians to express themselves on these issues.

---

Mark Horne is a member of the Civitas group, and holds an M.Div from Covenant Theological Seminary. He is a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America, and is the executive director of Logo Sapiens Communications and  writes at www.SolomonSays.net. He is the author, most recently, of “Solomon Says: Directives for Young Men” from Athanasius Press.