As can be seen from the textus receptus of Ephesians 5:14, 'ho' (looks like the 'o'), which is before katheudon, and katheudon itself, are singular. 'Ho' is the singular version of the article 'the'. However, 'ton nekron' is plural, 'ton' being the plural form of the article.
This alone proves that the command to 'awake' and 'arise' is directed discretely among the dead to them that sleep, the grammar does not allow that these commands are made to all the dead.
Some of these facts may not be as apparent to modern readers when they read this text because it is easy to gloss over the distinction of "thou" (singular) from "thee" (plural). Awake, you that sleeps (singular sleep), out of the (plural) dead (plural dead). Any reasonable mind can see that it makes little sense to say that Paul referred to the very same class by those that sleep and the general dead, as the sleepers are clearly a subset of the general dead.
This fact agrees and establishes that just because the sleepers came out of where the dead were does not necessarily imply they were dead themselves. They are sleeping when they are called upon to awake, not dead.
These facts cement that it is unreasonable for Stephen Garrett to come to this text and eisegete that the singular sleepers must be the same ontological class as the plural dead, and this is absolutely crushing for his general views because it admits that the sleepers are sleeping among the dead but must be understood as nevertheless distinct.
As we have seen from my posts on the matter, he is in a strait betwixt two, as the distinction in this text places him between what he takes to be "hyper-Calvinism" and what the Primitive Baptists mean by "Conditional Time Salvation".
He will not allow that the gospel should be directed only to those that sleep, and that the commands 'awake' and 'arise' are not express commands for every individual spiritually dead. He is, therefore, refuted soundly by this text in his Fullerite emphasis.
I do not think this text can refer to spiritual death in those called to awake from sleep. My principal reason for denying this is essentially the use of nekros and katheudo by the Apostle Paul. Paul never used these words together to refer to the same state, but he used them separately to refer, in application to Christians, two totally different states (Compare 1 Thess 5:6 and Ephes. 2:1).
Secondly, Garrett's insistence that 'among the dead' is never used in the bible where those 'among the dead' are not actually dead is a non-cogent argument when one gives this text an honest appraisal - this text alone proves it. The 'sleeping' (singular) is still presented in this text as something done by some individuals among a more general dead (plural), and, therefore, cannot be fully equated in terms of referring to the same state of all the general dead. This is absolutely certain from the grammar, and indisputable.
Given that fact, Garrett has no logical choice but to abandon that argument. He must embrace the Primitive Baptist view or some other sense of distinction between those that sleep among the dead and the general dead.
His alternatives are grim because he is still stubbornly ignoring 1 Thess. 5:6, which clears this issue to anyone without prejudice.
What choice does he have but to embrace what he takes to be a "hyper-Calvinistic" view of this text in which the gospel only tells sleepers to awake and arise, and not the general dead?
No comments:
Post a Comment