Cheryl Schatz

Mark, you said:

Thankyou for your comments. A few points… you are correct that the verb to be in verse 1 is a present participle- I missed that and I’m glad you corrected me. However this does not change a thing, since a present participle is used as a contrast. For example it is very hard to translate that into English, but the most ‘wooden’ approach is to apply the word ‘while’. Thus the verse would read…”while you were dead in your trespasses…God made you alive”, thus the present participle stills gives the contrasting effect- thus why it is in the present tense. At the very time when God made us alive in Christ, we were presently dead in sin. So therefore the present participle of ‘to be’ still in effect constrasts a previous state to a new one.

The problem with this thinking is that if God wanted to clearly state that it was a previous state the aorist would be the tense that He could have used. But if the action was ongoing…. then the present tense is the correct tense to use just as was inspired.

Now like I have said the context ought to decide. Now it is clear in verses 1-10 that Paul is constrating a past situation with a new. He is not saying you can be both dead and alive at the same time. My position (and in fact pretty much all greek commentators) is also confirmed by the rest of the chapter. Look at verses 11 to the end of the chapter. Paul is calling them to ‘remember’ their ‘flesh’ nature and how they were seperated from Christ, but now in Christ they have been changed.

Paul is saying that they are to be dead to that nature, not just to remember it. If we are dead to sin then it has no hold over us.

So although the present can imply a continuous event, to interpret in this way divorces the verse from the context of the passage.

Now in relation to Rom 6:11 you have made the same mistake. Look at the conjunctions ‘men’ and ‘de’ Now if you know how these conjunctions work, you would know that when the two are used in the constructing precisely like Rom 6:11, a contrast is being made. So the verse essentially said “consider yourselves to be (on the one hand) dead to sin but (on the other hand) alive to God”. See the contrast? The conjunctions are used grammatically in this way to make that contrast. So no, Paul is not saying you can be both dead and alive at the same time. We are dead to sin because we are alive in Christ, in the same way as Eph 2, when we were dead in sins, but are now alive in Christ.

The contrast through ‘de’ does not mean that we are not both things at the same time. Consider Paul’s words in 2 Cor. 6:10

2 Corinthians 6:10 (NASB)
10 as sorrowful yet always rejoicing, as poor yet making many rich, as having nothing yet possessing all things.

Paul had nothing yet possessed all things. There is a contrast here for sure but the text reveals that Paul is claiming to be both having nothing and possessing all things.

“This is something that we can all search and dig deeply into God’s word for the truth is worth the effort.”

This is very true. But the problem I see with your view, is that you are divorcing the verses from their context, and therefore not allowing the actual inspired grammar to function properly. Sure a present tense can be a continuous state of being, as your grammar friend has pointed out, but and it’s a big but, the context always decides the meaning.

I went through the passage very carefully going verse by verse from Ephesians 1 and the context is God’s power over sin through the death and resurrection of Jesus and that “in Him” we have all things placed under our feet. This includes the very sin that we struggled with in the past and the sin that conquered us. Paul is saying that we are dead to that sin through the death of Jesus and that our life is lived through Christ because it was his death to sin that accomplished our mastery over sin. We indeed are dead to sin and alive to Christ. Both things are true. While you may not want to believe this because your Calvinism forces you to hold onto the only verse that can be used to say that dead unbelieving men were raised with Christ in the heavens, the fact is that my explanation is both consistent with the text and consistent with the entire text of Scripture that expresses a power over sin through the death of Christ. It is this consistent message that is the basis of the gospel.

You need to show from the context of Eph 2 how your grammar construction makes sense.

I have already done this. Unfortunately the comment I am quoting here was written by you before I was able to have time to write my verse by verse explanation of Eph. 1 & 2.

As for Roman’s 6, you are simply wrong becasue the conjunctions are clear and cannot be interpreted in the way you have said.

Again you have overstated your case. If Romans 6:11 cannot mean that we are dead (to sin) and alive (to Christ) at the same time, then Paul’s writing that he is both poor and rich at the same time cannot also be true. The fact that the expression of opposite truths that are both true at the same time can be accepted as written is not refuted by your view. To say that the conjunction must represent a contrasting view where both cannot be true at the same time is false and is easily disproven as I have shown above.

Well, I think if I am not mistaken, I have come to the end of the comments that I needed to respond to. Yeah!! 😉 Now it is time to wait for Mark to come back to life. Likely his wife is either in the process of having her baby or the busy time of post baby has begun and so Mark has not returned here likely for a good reason. So when you are ready Mark, I welcome you back. Where were we in John 6? I think it is your turn for the verse by verse exegesis.