Garrett failed to recognize that my evaluation of the relationship of katheudo and nekros in Ephesians 5:14 was addressed to any sense that he could argue as to Paul's use of two different words in the passage.
Garrett cannot take the view that Paul means the words as synonyms because two different words are used. I considered, in reductio ad absurdum fashion the only possibilities of the difference among Arminians and Calvinists. My view is already plain that katheudo is a reference to Christians, as 1 Thess. 5:6, and nekros refers to the spiritually dead, not believers!
Why would I have invoked his favorite phrase 'consistency thou art a jewel', if I was not addressing what I took to be an inconsistency in any sense of the distinction he could make in Ephesians 5:14 between katheudo and nekros?
The distinction of katheudo from nekros in Ephes. 5:14 alone proves that there is a distinction to be made, and that the two words cannot be intended as synonyms. What is his idea of the possible distinction, if he is to escape the implicit hyper-Calvinism of addressing those that God intends by the gospel to resurrect spiritually that sleep rather than the general nekros, even in his own view of this text?
To escape what he takes to be "hyper-calvinism", he, to be consistent, must embrace that those that are already alive, as in 1 Thess. 5:6, are referenced by those that sleep, not that they are spiritually dead. That was the point and argument I was making.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Some of the commentators that Jason cited believed that the first clause refers to believers and that the latter clause refers to unbelievers. Jason thinks both clauses are addressed to believers, to those spiritually alive. Jason cannot count those commentators who interpret the first clause to believers, but the latter to unbelievers, as in league with him. Very few of them consider the latter clause to be addressed to those who are "alive among the dead.""
I have never advocated that the nekros in this text refers to those already alive! This word is used only of the unregenerate. The use of the distinct word katheudo from nekros proves that some distinction is intended. The very reference of katheudo implies that they are 'among the nekros', and not to be equated with the nekros, not that the nekros are also alive!
Brother Garrett stated:
"Further, Jason has never met my challenge to show where being "among the dead" can apply to people who are alive. It is revealing how he cannot meet this simple challenge. He is trying to find the living among the dead and he cannot. Will you give us the Scripture that shows that "among the dead" applies to the living? The case of David being among the dead was answered and his latest rejoinder has not shown how David was viewing himself as alive among the dead."
Garrett simply ignores the facts, which I have clearly presented in my posts, that the context he seeks is plainly referenced in 1 Thess 5:5-10 and Romans 13:11-14, as Gill agrees. It's certainly revealing that he will not consider the implications of these passages. He has no answer - he's refuted if he considers them! 1 Thess. 5:6 plainly uses katheudo in reference to a metaphorical state in which true believers can exist, and it is irrational to not view the word in it's applied manner in companion texts by the same writer.
Brother Garrett can resist believing by ignoring the word of God, if he desires. It is not possible that David could consider himself dead, if he were not alive, manifestly. Did David view from Psalms 88:1 that he was saved of God, and had reason to appeal to God for his deliverance? That's what the text states. So in what sense can we say that a regenerate person is 'among the dead'? Clearly, Garrett is forced to consider what he takes to be the incompatible by an honest examination of this Psalm, Ephesians 5:14, 1 Thess 5:5-10, and Romans 13:11-14. This is the plain declaration of Scripture! WWSD?? (what would Spurgeon do)
Again, which is clearer, Garrett's difficulty of understanding this text as regarding the "among the dead", which is simply self-imposed because he doesn't want to part with an eisegetical presupposition, or Paul's general usage of the word, 'katheudo', in the same context of the practical exhortation sections of Paul's writing, like in 1 Thessalonians 5:5-10?
Brother Garrett stated:
"Jason admits that the Greek word for "sleep" (katheudō) is used to refer to those who are physically dead. However, he argues that it is not used with regard to those who are spiritually dead, that the word "nekros" is used exclusively to refer to the spiritually dead. But, the passage in Eph. 5: 14 uses both katheudo and nekros in regard to the same condition of the same people."
"Ek" means 'out of', so the rendering is, "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise out of the dead". 'Dead' is in the genitive case, and is the object of the preposition 'out of' (ek). The relevance of 'dead' as an adjectival noun in this prepositional phrase is to show the origin of those that sleep, as Strong's puts it, "suggesting from the interior outward", in a general way. It does not imply that the ones who sleep are dead, and it is unlikely this was the focus of Paul because the phrase 'out of the dead' is meant to primarily convey where the subject arose from, not an emphasis on the ontology of them that sleep.
If it was the intention of Paul to emphasize that the sleepers were, in fact, spiritually dead, nekros would not be controlled by "ek", and "ek ton nekron" would not be modifying 'rise up'. Paul would simply have used nekros, and not katheudo at all, as nekros was already employed by Paul in Ephesians 2:1 to refer to the state of death from which the unregenerate actively commit sin.
Surely he can see by the mere fact of the construction of the Greek that an intended meaning of 'sleeping dead' reworks the entire Greek sentence after a fashion in which it would already exist, if Garrett was possibly correct. It could have been easily rendered far more directly, and what does such an idea of the 'sleeping dead' mean in the context? Apply this point. If the Apostle is emphasizing something about the dead, like Shrygley argued, what is it, exactly? That they are dead, so, the dead dead?
Besides this, the context establishes a contrast between two groups: those of the light and those of the dark, so such a contrast being present is certainly germane. It is also germane to the context of the exhortation of this passage and the manner in which that exhortation is applied. It is far more evident from the context that the passage is to be understood relative to exhortation.
Brother Garrett stated:
""And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlastinglife, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."
The Greek Septuagint translates the word sleep as καθευδοντων! "
The euphemistic sense of a reference to physical death as "sleep" was in Hebrew long before the Greek. There is no Hebrew word in this text for sleep proper, but the word 'quts' means awake or arise, which indicates that the dust or ground of the earth will be resurrected.
Again, the use of katheudo refers to a euphemistic usage relative to physical death in this text, the usage of which has never been denied of the physically dead. No one views this passage of Daniel as the O.T. reference of Ephes. 5:14. It seems Ephesians is referencing either Isaiah 60:1 or, possibly, chapter 26, some say.
Brother Garrett stated:
"I never said that they were synonyms! What I have argued is that the latter clause explains what Paul meant by "sleeping" in the former clause. Calvin and other commentators see this. Normally the word "sleep" refers to the slumber of the living but sometimes for those who are dead, as Jason admits. So, how are we to determine which it is in a given verse? Does the context not decide the issue? When Christ spoke of the sleeping of Jairus' daughter, the context shows he is referring to death. So likewise the context of Eph. 5: 14 shows that death is under consideration for the second part says"AND rise from the dead." Jason must feel the weight of this for he interprets "and rise up from the dead" to mean "you living ones, get up out from among the dead." But, again, he ought to be able to find another supporting verse that shows that the living are so addressed. But, universally, the call to rise up from among the dead means to come to life. The resurrection angels said that the living are not among the dead! Why not answer the witness of the angels on the point?"
The "latter clause" (ek ton nekron) modifies 'egeire' (awake) and 'anasta' (rise up), showing from (out of) where the sleeper is given imperatives, it does not grammatically refer to katheudon or imply an ontological state of the sleepers. Katheudon is a participle in the present tense, showing the verbal circumstance in which the active voice and imperative mood command of 'awake' is made. The phrase 'ek ton nekron' can only refer grammatically to the words it modifies, not katheudon.
Yes, the context is essential for translation. Is it likely in a context of practical exhortation to believers that Paul is saying that the dead, alien sinner spiritually slumbers? That's a manifest redundancy besides the fact that it doesn't apply Paul's emphasis that Christians are to walk as children of light (vs. 9, 10) rather than have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness (vs. 11,12).
Moreover, it becomes more than probable when we compare like sections of practical exhortation (1 Thess. 5:5-10, Romans 13:11-14) in which Paul both applies the same context in unquestionable contexts of Christian disobedience, and uses katheudo in the same way argued for here.
The "resurrection angels" were speaking of literal physical death and life, not spiritual death and life, which is the very contested point. Garrett is being silly, for, by this standard he would even be forbidden to preach the gospel to the spiritual dead. Besides, one cannot know who is spiritually alive or dead unless they preach the gospel to all men.
Brother Garrett stated::
"Further, Jason has put himself into a bind by saying that katheudo refers to the unregenerate! He has surrendered the whole argument. Why? Because he does not believe that God commands the unregenerate, in the Gospel, to rise from their unregenerate sleep! By the above remarks he believes that the unregenerate are addressed in both clauses! God says to the unregenerate elect - "rise up from your unregenerate sleep." God says to the unregenerate non-elect - "rise up from among the dead." Consistency thou art a jewel! Further, he is again guilty of speaking out of both sides of his mouth. In his earlier posts he asserted that the command to "rise from the dead" was addressed to the "quickened" child of God but now says it is addressed to "the world of the non-elect"!
The "gospel proclamation" of Eph. 5: 14 is not addressed to "the general nekros"? Is he not speaking to those who are dead? When he says - "rise from the dead," this is not speaking of the dead in general? Did Jason not say that the dead here refers "to the world of the non-elect"?"
Brother Garrett completely misunderstood that I was considering the logical implications of any meaningful sense in which these terms, katheudo and nekros, could refer to the same state but also be distinct, and how these interpretations would lead to problems for both Arminians and Calvinists. It was a reductio ad absurdum argument to establish that only the interpretation I have offered can stand.
As we have seen, however, the grammar of the text does not apply the adjectival noun, nekron, to those that sleep, but it is the object of the preposition 'ek' to show out of where the sleepers awoke and arose. Brother Garrett is not free to make a new Greek sentence that speaks of dead sleepers - nekron DOES NOT modify those that sleep in the Greek.
Brother Garrett stated:
"No, Garrett had more but felt like he had given sufficient citations from the leading commentators to show that they felt like it was a reference to those who are spiritually dead. And, Jason, sometimes, agrees with this, when he says that the "unregenerate elect" are in view! Further, as I said, some of the commentators he cited applied the former clause to those already alive in Christ and the latter to those dead in sin. But, again, what does it matter since Jason has admitted that the entire command is addressed to the unregenerate? But, of course, he contradicts himself, for he at first said that the command was addressed to those already "quickened" (regenerated) and now says it is addressed to those not regenerated! Consistency thou art a jewel!"
Yeah, sure he did. After all, moderation is Brother Garrett's strong point. It's hard to see how Garrett could have thought I would throw the argument in such an obvious fashion. I was simply crushing him between his conception of "hyper-Calvinism" and Conditional Time Salvation. Even if he's right, he's in error in the other.
Brother Garrett stated:
"JFB applied the first clause, as do other commentators, to Christians, but the latter clause to the lost. But, as I have shown, this is totally untenable as the same class of people are addressed in both clauses. But, JFB does affirm that the command to "rise from the dead" is addressed to the spiritually dead via the Gospel. Those who affirm that"rise up from the dead" is a command to Christians is the minority view and is without foundation. Not until one can show that being "among the dead" does not equate with being dead will such a stance have weight and validity."
There is only the participle '(thou) that sleepest', which is an adverbial participle of 'awake', and the sentence 'awake and arise out of the dead'. Then, 'and Christ will shine upon you'. The 'you' is the same, so there is no grammatical basis to say a different person 'awakes' as opposed to 'arises'. However, the central point is that Garrett is in error to view 'ek ton nekros' as if it modifies the sleepers - it only modifies the commands 'awake' and 'arise', so his intent of making the reference of 'nekros' describe or modify those that sleep is without grammatical justification.
He completely and without grammatical warrant assumes an ontological application of the dead to the sleepers. This is not the way the text is constructed in Greek. Why should I have to prove that 'ek' (from among or out of) implies that the object of 'ek' is not of the same ontological status as the subject? Were Phillip and the Eunuch of the same ontological status of water when they 'came up out of it'? Ridiculous. We have to judge conclusively by the context, which is utterly damning for Brother Garrett because he knows the 1 Thessalonians 5:5-10 bogey man will get him. Why ignore it? Let us love truth more than pride, Brother Garrett.
No comments:
Post a Comment