Garrett on Arise from the Dead

Brother Garrett stated in his blog post, "Arise From the Dead":

"I challenge any Hardshell to show us one passage of scripture, besides the one in question, where the phrase is used to call forth living people from the society and place of the dead."

So, since Brother Garrett cannot deny that Ephesians 5:14 seems to be teaching that children of God can be sleeping and slothful, he wants to suggest that this interpretation cannot be correct because no other passage teaches it? This still would not prove anything about Ephesians 5:14.

Now, I'm not intending to fallaciously appeal to consensus, but the fact is that the vast majority of New Testament scholars and commentators view Ephesians 5:14 as the Primitive Baptists do. I only point this out to show that the clarity of this interpretation hardly rests on any prejudice that the Primitive Baptists might have, *ahem*.

Does Brother Garrett deny that the Bible indicates that true children of God can be in a "place of the dead"?

Psalms 88:5 states that David, in his abject spiritual condition, was counted 'among the dead', seemingly totally cut off from all spiritual blessings. There is nothing unbiblical about this idea.

Brother Garrett stated on his BaptistGadfly blog about Ephesians 5:14:

" Why he [Gill] found difficulty in making the dead in Ephesians 5:14 to be "spiritual death" and applicable to all men, is indeed perplexing, to say the least."

Garrett is a bit confusing here because Gill argued that the dead were spiritually dead sinners, but that sleeping Christians were among them. I think Garrett means to say that he doesn't understand why Gill didn't see the 'sleeping' as a reference to those also as spiritually dead, as the Arminian, Shrygley, argued against Cayce; which debate Garrett covered on his Gadfly blog linked above - covered at least partially as it considered this text.

The fact is that a different Greek word is used for both 'sleeping' and 'dead'. To interpret them as synonyms in the same context is counter-intuitive. Shrygley argues that they both referred to the same spiritually dead state for emphasis (what emphasis?), and he refers to Matt. 9:24 where Christ said, "...the maid is not dead, but sleepeth." The problem is, besides that the word for dead, ἀπέθανεν, in this text is not the same as the 'dead' of Ephes. 5:14, νεκρῶν, is that this text is in a plain context of physical death, not spiritual death, so the contrast of the two senses of death is not the same contrast or context.

I can see that to this it may be replied that physical resurrection is directly analogous to spiritual resurrection, but it is not revealing in this particular matter because καθεύδω literally means natural sleep, not physical death, save in a euphemistic sense, which seems to be Christ's usage of it in Matt. 9:24. The problem here is that καθεύδω  never refers to spiritual death, unless it is in this one instance in the entire Bible. νεκρός is the word used of the spiritually dead, as in Ephes. 2:1 and John 5:25, and it seems if Paul meant καθεύδω as spiritually dead too, Paul could have simply used νεκρός twice.

Moreover, Cayce really did not meet Shrygley's argument effectively. As we have seen and will conclude, this line of argument should destroy Garrett's faith in the arguments of Shrygley.

Shrygley stated:

""My opponent says, in his exposition of Eph. 5:14, that those addressed were to "rise from among the dead" --that is, for God's people to comeout from among the spiritually dead. But unfortunately for the gentleman's proposition, the very word "sleepeth" comes from the Greek word whichliterally means death. The word "sleepeth" means death in that passage. It is the same word translated "sleepeth" in this: "Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth." (Matt.9:24) Also: "Lazarus sleepeth." (John 11:11) We have the same Greek word in the following: "Even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him." (I Thess. 4:14) I suppose he would try to have them sleeping among the dead. Now, I ask the gentleman to tell this audience whether or not these were dead who were said to beasleep. I demand that he answer this question, for this passage (Eph. 5:14) sounds the death knell of his doctrine." "

To which Cayce responded:

""Eph. 5:14. He says that the word "dead" --the word there which is translated sleep means dead. All right. In that verse there are two words which are translated different ways. One is translated sleepest, and the other is translated dead. He says: "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead." I am giving the King James translation. Now what does the word mean that is translated dead in that same verse? And what word is it? Now they are not the same words; and if the first word means dead, and the other is not like it, then it would read: "Awake thou that art dead, and arise from thy sleep." Now I don't think that is correct. Brother Shrygley, justtell me what that word means, and what it is--what the difference is between the two words. Are the two words akin? Are they any way alike?""

It sounds to me like neither knew what the word was in Greek. Shrygley is completely wrong to say that καθεύδω literally means "death". That's a bald faced lie, or he was just assuming from the euphemistic usage of the word from certain passages that it literally meant death. The word means in Greek what sleep means in English. It's from 'kata' and 'heudo'. The word is most often translated in the New Testament in plain contexts of natural sleep.

As I've said, if Paul is using καθεύδω to refer to spiritual death, this is the only place in the New Testament this word is used in that manner instead of the normal νεκρός, which is normally used when the spiritually dead are referenced. But did Paul use καθεύδω to refer to the same metaphorical sense of Christian slovenliness as in Ephesians 5:14? Of course he did!

As most New Testament scholars and commentators agree, 1 Thessalonians 5:6,10 clearly and unambiguously refers to the same Pauline metaphorical usage of καθεύδω as Ephesians 5:14. John Gill breaks 1 Thess. 5:6's use of καθεύδω from verse 10's with what he acknowledges is a hiccup in the context and redefines the sleep in verse 10 as natural sleep, but he is out of context to do so - as I say, he even acknowledged it. He is also grammatically bound from this interpretation in verse 10. The plain command of the Apostle in verse 6 establishes, as Gill concurs, that slovenly service is something Christians can fall into, and there they are clearly commanded to watch instead of be sluggish. This is enough to destroy Garrett's view, and the view of the Arminian with which he sides (fancy that).

The key point of why Gill is in error on verse 10, though he admits the principle and usage of it anyway in verse 6, is how you can observe what seems to be an inconsistency in rendering γρηγορῶμεν as 'wake' instead of 'watch', as it is the same word as in 1 Thess. 5:6. The word literally means 'stay awake' as a guard or sentry. And it should not be rendered compatible to the simple state of being either awake or asleep because both verbs are in the subjunctive mood. If it referred to the fact of either, the verbs would both be in the indicative mood. Therefore the literal meaning is 'whether we might watch or might sleep', which agrees with the context of verse 6.

Surely Brother Garrett can concede his position on the matter in the face of these facts. At the very least any honest person can plainly see how terribly off the mark he is to say of Primitive Baptist views of Ephesians 5:14 that they are perversions of Scripture.