Garrett's Final Word on Ephesians 5:14

Brother Garrett stated (here):

"Paul says that Christ being resurrected (quickened) "from (ek) the dead (nekros)" is "like"the conversion experience of Christians wherein they also were quickened "from (ek) the dead (nekros)."  Before being saved by the Spirit and word of the Lord, they were unconverted, and among the unconverted, literally, and as a class.  They were dead and among the dead.  When they were quickened (converted or regenerated) they were no longer "among the (spiritually) dead," were no longer dead."

Brother Garrett refers to Romans 6:4-6. What he says about this text is perfectly true. And I have not suggested that the use of the phrase "out of the dead" does not usually suggest that the one's coming out of the nekron are not themselves nekro. All I have argued is that, grammatically, it does not necessarily mean that, though that it is usually the contextual reference, and it is a subordinate concern to a logical approach to translation. In Ephesians 5:14, the presence and syntactical usage of the word 'katheudo' in direct reference to the subject must overrule as a matter of logical translation what we might assume from the close association of 'ek ton nekron' with actually being of the dead. Paul's use of 'katheudo' in the New Testament, as in 1 Thessalonians 5:6, becomes decisive, therefore.

How can we overrule 'katheudo' by 'ek ton nekron' when (1) katheudo is the primary word used to refer, as a participle, to the state of the subject upon the circumstance of the command to "awake", and (2) katheudo is not used to refer to spiritual deadness anywhere by the Apostle Paul as it is used of a metaphorical sense of believers in disobedience as in 1 Thess. 5:6?

Strictly speaking, the Greek does not assert that the subject of Ephes. 5:14 is spiritually dead, only that they are commanded to arise out of the dead. Out of the dead refers syntactically to the verbs of the sentence, not the subject. It must be upon the subject, and by a consideration of only those things in the syntax of the Greek that specifically identify the state of the subject that we allow the subject to be defined. Katheudo should clearly be our chief concern to understanding the spiritual state of the subject in this text by the most logical and straight-forward approach.

While I understand and empathize with the concerns of Brother Garrett in evaluating 'ek ton nekron' - it is indeed troubling to find this phrase here - it cannot logically determine our sense of the subject of the sentence because that is not the role of this prepositional phrase, as it is modifying the verbs, and the state of the subject is already defined. If we want to understand the subject of the sentence, we must allow primary consideration to things that are clearly asserted of the subject, as in that the subject is a sleeper.

If we, therefore, want to construe the state of the subject we must say first that he is a sleeper, and consider the N.T. usage of the word associated rather than allowing the implications of where they arose from to dictate the state of the subject of the sentence. Is that not reasonable, and surely an approach to translation that a logical person should adopt? We would be remiss to trump the sleeping state of the subject of the sentence with a prepositional phrase.  

Romans 6:13, though it establishes clearly that those spiritually alive in Christ are contrasted in an absolute sense as the quickened in contrast to being spiritual dead, and that to be 'from the dead' is indeed to have been spiritually dead in a fundamental sense, the clear teaching of Romans 7 is that the complete mortification of sin is impossible, even for the spiritual man, as man could be justified by the law, if it were. Allowing sin to reign in one's mortal body (Romans 6:12), or to yield to unrighteousness (vs. 13) to any degree is to that same degree to be inconsistently 'from the dead' quite literally (not in the absolute sense of 6:13) as can be seen in Romans 7:24, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

The Christian, himself, after the inner man, is plainly "among the dead" because the outward man remains "unregenerate", if you will. So, in the sense of Romans 7:24, there is a very real sense that the Christian himself exemplifies the Primitive Baptist view of of Ephesians 5:14. I do not think Paul refers to egregious sin in Romans 7 or a habit of sin (which would clearly contradict Romans 6), as, if we consider the sense of sin under consideration, it is clearly a context of "when I would do good" evil is present, so that sins of conscience are the primary referent, which is even the intent because the law requires perfection - why would Paul be referring in Romans 7 to egregious sin, like fornication, when the reprobate clearly can abstain from that?

Nevertheless, the indisputable context of "among the dead" as Brother Garrett seeks is plainly observed in the torturous condition and suffering of the Christian "among the dead" in Romans 7:24. This is clearly proved by an appeal to Romans 7:24, and should dispel Brother Garrett's accusation that the Bible does not teach that the "Christian cannot be alive and among the dead". Manifestly he can and is.

I have enjoyed the study of this text that the debate with Brother Garrett has prompted, and I hope he understands that I can see why he takes his position. However, it seems like a backward approach to the Greek syntax prompted by a doctrinal presupposition, and an unwillingness to observe the intellectual beauty of this truth in the New Testament: that a context of spiritual death exists in the very Christian from which the gospel calls the saints to awake and arise.