The noun, \u201cdead\u201d (\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u0300\u03c2), when used figuratively in New Testament literature, has a relational sense when used of people, and an effectual sense when referring to other realities such as sin, the law, and faith. Its consistent use indicates something\u2019s ineffectualness, or inability to influence or act upon someone, rather than non-existence. Recognizing this pattern of use, and resulting sense, should help in the debate over the meaning of \u201cdead faith\u201d in James.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
The noun, \u201cdead\u201d (\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u0300\u03c2) occurs 127 times in the New Testament, with at least 20 occurrences being figurative.[1] Its verb form occurs three times, once in a figurative sense.[2] What is the basic sense of this figurative use? Is there a consistent nuance to its use, or does it carry a diversity of significances? For example, does it indicate non-existence, past existence, inability, a combination of senses, or something else? These questions shall be explored by examining the various instances where it is used figuratively.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
People with Respect to People<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Twice in the New Testament \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u0300\u03c2 is used to describe people who are alive, but somehow cut off from communion with loved ones. In one instance physical death separates the two. In the other instance, distance separates the two.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
DEAD MEN BURY DEAD MEN (MATTHEW 8:22 AND LUKE 9:60)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The first figurative use of \u201cdead\u201d is found with Jesus in the Gospels. In these two parallel passages Jesus addresses a young man whom He calls to follow Him, but who then seeks to delay joining Jesus in order to \u201cbury\u201d his father. His father most likely was either dying or had died earlier. He would not have died that day. The practice of that time was to bury someone on the day of their death. The young man would have been at home with the family, not out in public if that were the case. If his father was dying, then the delay would be for an unspecified time. At any rate, a son\u2019s recognized duty was to care for his father in these circumstances, and so his request might not seem unusual or unreasonable. On the other hand, as noted by Craig Keener, \u201cOne of an eldest son\u2019s most basic responsibilities (in both Greek and Jewish cultures) was his father\u2019s burial. The initial burial took place shortly after a person\u2019s decease, however, and family members would not be outside talking with rabbis during the reclusive mourning period immediately following the death. It has recently been shown that what is in view here instead is the secondary burial: a year after the first burial, after the flesh had rotted off the bones, the son would return to rebury the bones in a special box (an ossuary) in a slot in the tomb\u2019s wall. The son in this narrative could thus be asking for as much as a year\u2019s delay.\u201d[3]<\/sup><\/sup> This gives us better insight into Jesus\u2019 response.<\/p>\n When Jesus says, \u201cLet the dead bury their own dead,\u201d Bullinger identifies this figure as antanaclasis (word-clashing) in which the same word is repeated in the same sentence, but with a different meaning.[4] The first use of dead may also be viewed as either a metaphor or metonymy.[5] That Jesus is speaking figuratively is evident, though, because someone must be alive to bury a dead person. Thus His first use of \u201cdead\u201d refers to living people who are quite active, though His second clearly should be taken literally. The common interpretation of this passage is to see Jesus referring to those left behind by the disciple as \u201cspiritually dead.\u201d[6]<\/sup><\/sup> They are either not following, or not being called to follow Jesus. Though this is an \u201cevangelistic\u201d interpretation of Jesus\u2019 words, nothing in the context requires this meaning beyond His reference to preaching the coming kingdom in Luke\u2019s Gospel. Willoughby Allen raises the possibility that this may be a proverbial saying carrying the sense of \u201ccut yourself adrift from the past when matters of present interest call for our whole attention.\u201d[7] This would then follow the idea expressed by D. A. Carson, that these words are a \u201cpowerful way of expressing the thought\u201d that \u201ceven closest family ties must not be set above allegiance to Jesus and the proclamation of the kingdom.\u201d[8] Alternately, Jesus may be referring to those elderly who are awaiting their own deaths and would be unwilling, or unable, to follow Him. The \u201cdead\u201d doing the burial are not inactive, nor are they corpses, but are viewed as dead in some non-literal sense.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n SEPARATED FROM LOVED ONES (LUKE 15:24, 32)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The prodigal son is another example of a living person being called \u201cdead.\u201d The term is used by the father to describe the significance of their separation. His son passes from the \u201cdead\u201d status to \u201cliving\u201d with his return to the presence, and therefore fellowship, of his father from whom he had separated himself. His deadness is described from the perspective of the father, not the son. And, again, in his deadness he is very active, though not acting as a son should. Robert Stein correctly identifies the metaphor, but misunderstands its significance when he makes the father\u2019s description of his son as \u201cdead\u201d to mean \u201cspiritually dead\u201d and \u201calive\u201d to mean \u201csaved,\u201d or, \u201cpossessing life in God\u2019s kingdom.\u201d[9]<\/sup><\/sup> Nothing in the text requires or implies such a meaning. Jesus\u2019 point in the three parables (lost sheep, lost coin, lost son) is our<\/em> response<\/em> toward the repentant, not who is regenerate (saved) and who is not, or how to become regenerate.[10] I. Howard Marshall notes the Jewish background by which \u201cdead\u201d could carry the sense of having been disinherited and was now returned to the family, though he does not endorse it. Rather he sees the son \u201cas good as dead.\u201d[11]\u00a0 John Noland understands the significance of the terms better when he notes that \u201cthe father does not use the language primarily in connection with the son\u2019s experiences in the distant land\u2014he does not know about this except by supposition, and minimally from the state in which he finds his son\u2014but in connection with his own \u201cbereavement\u201d and \u201cfinding again\u201d of his son: the language is relational.\u201d[12]<\/sup><\/sup> Further, the point of all three parables is crystallized in the contrast between the father\u2019s response, representative of God the Father, and the eldest son\u2019s, representative of the murmuring Pharisees. But, here again, \u201cdead\u201d does not mean non-existent or that he was lying around as a corpse. Rather, it vividly pictures the pain and sorrow caused by separation and inability to commune with a loved one.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n People with Respect to Things<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A second figurative use of \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u0300\u03c2describes living people\u2019s relationship to conceptual or non-living things. In this case, these entities have no influence on the person and so are \u201cdead\u201d in relation to them. These include both sin and the Law.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n DEAD TO SIN (ROMANS 6:11, 13)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Paul uses the imagery of death contrasted with life to describe the believer\u2019s attitude toward and response to sin and God. His metaphorical use of \u201cdead\u201d in Romans 6 anticipates the imagery of the following chapter wherein the literal death of a husband frees a woman from the law of marriage. Here he does not describe sin as dead, but says that believers are to view themselves as dead to it.[13]<\/sup><\/sup> This relationship to sin is a result of our identification with Christ who died literally and lives literally.[14] Kenneth Daughters notes well that \u201cthese verses make it clear that sin has not died, but rather we have died to it. And furthermore, the issue at hand is sin\u2019s mastery. … Just as Christ died once for all, never to die again, so we have permanently been liberated from sin\u2019s mastery. And just as Christ now lives His life to God, so we should follow in His steps.\u2019[15]<\/sup><\/sup> We can do this because sin no longer has the power to make us sin, we are \u201cdead to its power\u201d and \u201cought to recognize that fact and not continue in sin.\u201d[16]<\/sup><\/sup> Carson clarifies our relationship to sin in this context. \u201cTo be \u2018dead to sin\u2019, thus, does not mean to be insensible to its enticements, for Paul makes clear that sin remains for the Christian an attraction to be battled with every day (see v 13). Rather it means to be delivered from the absolute tyranny of sin, from the state in which sin holds unchallenged sway, the state in which we all lived before conversion (see 3:9). As a result of this death to sin, we can no longer live in it <\/em>(2b)\u2014for habitual sinning reveals sin\u2019s tyranny, a tyranny from which the believer has been freed.\u201d[17]<\/sup><\/sup> James Dunn agrees. \u201cThe figurative sense is well enough known \u2026 and so would be sufficiently meaningful and realistic\u2014\u2018dead\u2019 in the sense of \u2018lost to,\u2019 \u2018completely out of touch with\u2019; \u2026 The death is not an actual death, nor a mere playing with words, but a living in relation to the power of sin (see on 3:9) as to all intents and purposes dead.\u201d[18]<\/sup><\/sup> Again, this use of \u201cdead\u201d does not mean people are inactive or cease to exist with regard to sin. Rather, they are not impacted by it. It is ineffective in influencing or controlling them.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n DEAD TO THE LAW (ROMANS 7:4, 6)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Not only does Paul describe our changed relationship to sin as \u201cdead,\u201d but also our changed relationship to the Law.[19] Using the imagery of a once-married widow\u2019s relationship to her departed husband, Paul describes \u201cthe believer\u2019s transfer from the domain of the law to the domain of Christ.\u201d[20] He teaches that the Law no longer has jurisdiction over a believer because of his or her identification with Christ. Paul\u2019s sense is that the believer \u201cis no longer enslaved to the law.\u201d[21]<\/sup><\/sup> John Witmer sees the connection between this use and what Paul said in Romans 6 about the believer\u2019s relationship to sin. And, in fact, the two concepts are parallel, with Paul using the same metaphor to describe the believer\u2019s relationship to the Law as identical to that of his relationship to sin. \u201cJust as a believer \u2018died to sin\u2019 (6:2) and so is \u2018set free from sin\u2019 (6:18, 22), so he also died to the Law and is separated and set free from it.\u201d[22] William Mounce notes that this \u201cdeath of the believer took place when by faith that person became identified with the crucified Christ\u201d whose death was very literal, but also changed Jesus\u2019 relationship to the Law as well.[23] Again, in this imagery the Law is still very much alive and present, and the Saint is very much alive and active. But, any relationship they once shared is severed. And, in this case, the Law loses its ability to command obedience or bring condemnation.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n People with Respect to God<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A third figurative use of \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u0300\u03c2is to describe living people\u2019s relationship to God. This is a relationship of separation rather than non-existence on the part of the person. Further, the \u201cdead with respect to God\u201d person is still very present and active in the expression of his or her deadness.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n DEAD ELECT (EPHESIANS 2:1, 5)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Ephesians 2 introduces us to a fascinating insight into the life history of every elect person.[24] When writing the Ephesian Christians, Paul uses a synecdoche (effect for the cause) to describe those chosen \u201cbefore the foundation of the world\u201d (1:4) as being \u201cdead\u201d before the day they become saints by spiritual birth.\u00a0 This state of deadness is not a state of inactivity, but a lifestyle.<\/p>\n Prior to their conversions, Paul\u2019s readers were very active, but their conduct was not in the sphere of good works (2:10) to which they were subsequently spiritually born. In this state of death, the elect were identified with \u201cthe sons of disobedience\u201d who are \u201cchildren of wrath\u201d (2:2-3) rather than being \u201cblessed with every spiritual blessing\u201d (1:3) including communion with God.<\/p>\n The elect person, who has not yet believed and therefore been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, is described by Paul as \u201cdead.\u201d[25] This cannot mean non-existent or unable to act, but unable to respond positively to God.[26]<\/sup><\/sup>So, \u201cdead\u201d does not mean a lifeless corpse,[27]<\/sup><\/sup> but a separated pre-saint, someone unable to commune with or respond to God.[28]<\/sup><\/sup> Kenneth Wuest describes it well. \u201cDeath itself is a separation, whether physical, the separation of the person from his body, or spiritual, the separation of the person from God.\u201d[29]<\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n Ephesians 4:17-19 describes the \u201cdead\u201d life of Gentiles, the sons of disobedience. Again, it is not inactivity, but activities apart from God that Paul lists. He moves from this description to contrast the \u201cold man\u201d (4:22-23) with the \u201cnew man\u201d (4:24). Both are active, but their conduct is very different, depending on whether they are \u201cdead\u201d or \u201calive\u201d to God. These verses explain what Paul means in Colossians 2:13. \u201cThis I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart.\u201d They are living, active people, separated from the living God and unable to commune with Him.[30]<\/sup><\/sup> That being said, as the elect, they are not destined for destruction, but salvation. Even so, their pre-justified state is the same as that of the non-elect which is a life characterized by death as expressed in their deeds.[31]<\/sup><\/sup> Harold Hoehner describes: \u201cThis death is spiritual, not physical, for unsaved people are very much alive physically. Death signifies absence of communication with the living. One who is dead spiritually has no communication with God; he is separated from God. The phrase \u2018in your transgressions and sins\u2019 shows the sphere of the death, suggesting that sin has killed people \u2026 and they remain in that spiritually dead state. … Both suggest deliberate acts against God and His righteousness and thus failure to live as one should. The plural of these two nouns signifies people\u2019s repetitious involvement in sin and hence their state of unregeneration.\u201d[32]<\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n <\/p>\n PRE-CONVERSION ELECT ARE DEAD SLEEPERS (EPHESIANS 5:14)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Later in Ephesians, Paul again uses the imagery of death to conclude a call to a changed lifestyle with a poetic interlude. This short poem may be an allusion to or paraphrase of Isaiah 60:1.[33] Or it may be a quote from an early church hymn.[34] At any rate, it is the culmination of a call to be different from the world out of which his readers had been saved. It is interpreted in one of three ways.<\/p>\n First, the sense of \u201cdead\u201d in this poem is thought by some to refer to the readers\u2019 previous identification with the unregenerate.[35] Thus it is a call to the unregenerate to come to Christ for salvation.[36] \u201cArise\u201d then alludes to their identification with Christ\u2019s resurrection.[37] A second view sees it as addressing both believers and unbelievers. \u201cBelievers<\/em> are called on to \u2018awake\u2019 out of sleep; unbelievers,<\/em> to \u2018arise\u2019 from the dead<\/em>.\u201d[38] A third approach takes it as addressing only the church. It is a call \u201cnot to life still, as if she were asleep or dead,\u201d but to be a light to the world; \u201cnot to sleep or loiter, but spring forth as if from the grave, and pour light on the world.\u201d[39]<\/p>\n Since the context of the passage is the Christian\u2019s separation from a sinful mindset and lifestyle, described as darkness, this passage metaphorically applies the previously stated truth that dark deeds are exposed by the light. Since believers are not to be a part of that dark world, the call is best seen as addressing the church. \u201cYou who sleep\u201d and \u201cthe dead\u201d are synonymous terms. \u201cLight,\u201d then, must allude to life. So, if this were a resurrection formula, \u201cthe dead\u201d could be taken literally. But, in the context of the Ephesian church and its possible allusion to Isaiah, it is better to see \u201cthe dead\u201d as symbolic of those formerly spiritually dead upon whom Christ \u201cshines\u201d as their Savior. Thus, these \u201cdead\u201d are physically living, previously unregenerate people, who had been separated spiritually from God until Christ changed their status. This call is a reminder to the Ephesians of their previous call out of darkness to become light in the Lord (verse 1).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n DEAD IN TRESPASSES (COLLOSIANS 2:13)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In Colossians 2:13 Paul is addressing his readers\u2019 identification with Christ in their salvation. In the process, he describes them as previously \u201cbeing dead\u201d in trespasses and \u201cthe uncircumcision of your flesh.\u201d This use of \u201cdead\u201d again refers to their spiritual condition, not physical.[40]<\/sup><\/sup> And so death here is a metaphor for separation from God which ultimately means lacking the life of God. [41]<\/sup><\/sup> MacDonald and Farstad conclude \u201cThis means that because of their sins, they were spiritually dead toward God. It does not mean that their spirits were dead, but simply that there was no motion in their spirits toward God and there was nothing they could do to win God\u2019s favor.\u201d[42]<\/sup><\/sup> Richard Melick notes, \u201cIn these equations, \u2018dead\u2019 and \u2018uncircumcision\u2019 form a semantic field so that they refer to the same condition. They both confirm the fact that believers\u2019 circumcision occurs at salvation and reaffirm that the \u2018unhandmade circumcision\u2019 corresponds to being made alive.\u201d[43]<\/sup><\/sup> James Dunn relates the terms more to the Jewish background of the Colossian heresy. \u201cTheir \u2018being dead\u2019 refers to their status outside the covenant made by God with Israel (cf. again Eph. 2:12). That is to say, their \u2018transgressions\u2019 (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, usually violations of God\u2019s commands) would be those referred to already in a similar passage (1:21), the transgressions of the law that from a Jewish perspective were typical of lawless Gentiles (see on 1:21). The Jewish perspective is put beyond question with the complementary phrase \u2018you being dead (\u201calthough you were dead\u201d) in \u2026 the uncircumcision of your flesh.\u2019\u201d[44]<\/sup><\/sup> So, they were separated from God, not inactive. They, as elect, could not commune with God while in their spiritually uncircumcised state.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A State of Being<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A fourth figurative use of \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u0300\u03c2involves describing regenerate people, thus who are spiritually \u201cdead,\u201d with regard to their being out of fellowship with God. This use is not a denial of their salvation, but a description of the seriousness of their condition.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n DEAD BODIES WITH LIVE SPIRITS (ROMANS 8:10)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Having addressed the issue of the sin nature, Paul turns to the Spirit\u2019s work in the believer\u2019s life. Robert Hughes and Carl Laney note that \u201cthese verses expand and elucidate the contrast between the mind conditioned on and patterned after the flesh and the mind conditioned on and patterned after the Spirit.\u201d[45] The believer\u2019s body is \u201cdead because of sin.\u201d This metaphorical use of \u201cdead\u201d clearly does not mean presently, literally, dead. But in what sense is the believer\u2019s body dead?<\/p>\n The first view sees \u201cdead,\u201d as used here, describing the regenerate person\u2019s continued physical mortality. In this passage the believer\u2019s body and spirit are distinguished in their experience.[46]<\/sup><\/sup> While the body is still subject to the consequences of sin, and will die physically,[47]<\/sup><\/sup> the believer\u2019s spirit is immune to its power.[48] As a result, the believer enjoys the life of God now and anticipates resurrection.[49]<\/sup><\/sup> This is accomplished by the Holy Spirit who supplies \u201cthe risen life of the Lord Jesus\u201d in the life of the believer.[50]<\/p>\n A second view proposes that Paul is describing the inner man rather than the physical man. Charles Pfeiffer and Everett Harrison represent this approach. \u201cThe false self is dead or useless because of sin. This self cannot be effective for God. But the spirit\u2014the true self\u2014is living because of the righteousness which God bestows. Of course, there are not two separate selves. When the self becomes false, it acts in accordance with the flesh. When the self is true, it acts in accordance with the Spirit.\u201d[51] However, since Paul calls the body<\/em> dead, and not the man, the former view is best. He uses \u201cdead\u201d to refer to mortality and anticipates resurrection with the promise of life.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n DEAD WIDOWS (1 TIMOTHY 5:5-6)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Paul, in giving instructions to Timothy about the support of widows, warns him not to support some. In particular those that give themselves over to wanton pleasure were to be excluded. He uses oxymoron[52] to describe them as being \u201cdead\u201d even while they \u201clive.\u201d This use of \u201cdead\u201d is almost universally understood to be a figurative way of saying she is not spiritually right with God. Some see this as describing a believer whose life has become spiritually empty.[53]<\/sup><\/sup> The majority question her salvation and see Paul saying she is spiritually dead while physically alive, \u201ca mere professor\u201d and, by implication, unregenerate.[54]<\/sup><\/sup>A third option is to see \u201cdead\u201d referring to her as \u201cuseless to God and others,\u201d but still a believer.[55]<\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n This \u201cdead\u201d person is certainly active, but not doing what pleases God. Her activity is sinful. She is not a corpse, but quite alive. Yet, she is certainly not devoting herself to prayer, and thus is not experiencing communion with God.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A DEAD CHURCH (REVELATION 3:1)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The last figurative use of \u201cdead\u201d in the New Testament is found in Revelation 3:1 with Christ\u2019s criticism of the church at Sardis. He calls the church dead and warns them to salvage what they have left of their life. But what does Jesus mean by a \u201cdead\u201d church? This use of dead indicates a lack of life in the church with a reputation for being alive.[56]<\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n One approach is to see \u201cdead\u201d in this context still to mean the church is basically unregenerate, either because many of its members had \u201cforfeited\u201d their salvation,[57] or because the church congregation was mostly composed of unregenerate members.[58] Charles Feinberg describes it as \u201cfull of empty profession\u201d because \u201cthe union of church and state brought about more profession than life.\u201d[59]<\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n A second approach is to see the church as a whole, rather than its individual members, as spiritually dead.[60] This is better since the promise of heavenly rewards to those who overcome in all seven churches is based on their deeds<\/em> rather than as a gift of God\u2019s grace for their faith. Further, the danger of a removed lamp stand is addressed to each church as a whole rather than its individual members. G. K. Beale understands well Jesus\u2019 use of figurative language here. \u201cThough it considered itself spiritually alive, and perhaps other churches in the region respected the Sardian Christians, in reality, they were in a condition of spiritual death (cf. other such uses of \u2018dead\u2019 in the NT). Verse 2 reveals that this assessment of their condition is a figurative overstatement (hyperbole) intended to emphasize the church\u2019s precarious spiritual state and the imminent danger of its genuine death.\u201d[61]<\/sup><\/sup> If they did not \u201cget their act together\u201d spiritually, the church would cease to exist when Jesus removed their lamp stand. David Aune sees Jesus intending a paradox using the contrasting metaphors of \u201clife\u201d and \u201cdeath\u201d to \u201crepresent moral and spiritual vitality and morbidity.\u201d[62]<\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n Again, though called dead, the church\u2019s members were living human beings and the church was active, though not in a spiritually vital way.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Inanimate Concepts<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A fifth use of \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u0300\u03c2involves concepts rather than human beings. These are realities affecting humans and can be described in terms of their influence on humans. Recognizing their figurative sense and the intent behind its figurative use should also shed light on the interpretation of these difficult passages.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n SIN IS \u201cDEAD\u201d APART FROM THE LAW (ROMANS 7:8)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n As he continues his discussion of the believer\u2019s relationship to the Law and sin, Paul personifies sin and employs the same metaphor to describe it as being \u201cdead\u201d apart from the Law. Then, in detailing its impact, he describes himself as starting out alive and ending up dead when personified sin uses the Law to produce evil desires in him. But what does he mean by sin being \u201cdead\u201d? The two major interpretations are that sin is nonexistent,[63]<\/sup><\/sup> or that it is dormant or inactive.[64]<\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n In this description of the believer\u2019s struggle with his sin nature, sin is neither absent nor inactive, even when \u201cdead\u201d apart from the Law. It is just unable to act upon its intended victim.[65] If it were absent or non-existent, it would not be able to \u201ctake the opportunity\u201d when the Law came in. As Paul describes it, sin is essentially standing by until it finds a means of killing him, namely, the Law. Dunn describes it as \u201cineffective\u201d and \u201cpowerless.\u201d\u00a0 William MacDonald and Art Farstad see a slightly different nuance. \u201cThe sinful nature is like a sleeping dog. When the law comes and says \u2018Don\u2019t,\u2019 the dog wakes up and goes on a rampage, doing excessively whatever is forbidden.\u201d[66]<\/sup><\/sup> Though inactive, when the Law comes, sin uses the commandment to \u201cdeceive\u201d and \u201ckill.\u201d Thus Paul\u2019s use of \u201cdead\u201d to describe sin does not indicate its non-existence or even its inactivity, but only its inability<\/em> to influence and act on him. Sin, now active, \u201cproduces\u201d death in Paul in verse 13. But this death also is not inactivity or non-existence, but a condition of existence that is a consequence of disobedience. In this context it is not hell, but loss of communion with God, separation from fellowship with God in the life of a believer.[67] Paul does not lose his salvation. He just loses his enjoyment of the benefits of that salvation, his experience of eternal life in this life.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n WORKS ARE DEAD APART FROM FAITH (HEBREWS 6:1; 9:13-14)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Twice the author of Hebrews uses the terms, \u201cdead works,\u201d a metonymy of effect,[68] as a contrast to serving God. The contrast does not imply the absence of works. On the contrary, there are works being done, but they are ineffective in pleasing God. Further, the contrast assumes the existence of those works, though they are the wrong kind. But what does he mean by this?<\/p>\n First, this could refer to works \u201cdevoid of faith.\u201d[69]<\/sup><\/sup> This is argued on the basis that \u201cdead works\u201d is paired with and thus contrasted to \u201cfaith toward God.\u201d[70]<\/sup><\/sup> Thus, they might not be sinful acts, but \u201cworks without the element of life which comes through faith in the living God.\u201d[71]<\/sup><\/sup> They are works done by the unregenerate \u201cin an effort to earn their own cleansing.\u201d[72]<\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n Second, this may be works which were good under the Law, but \u201cnow are dead<\/strong> since Christ has come. For example, all the services connected with temple worship are outmoded by the finished work of Christ.\u201d[73]<\/sup><\/sup> For Jewish converts to Christianity, the rituals were replaced by Christ\u201d[74]<\/sup><\/sup> These rituals, \u201cin contrast with the work of Christ, can never impart spiritual life.\u201d[75]<\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n Third, this could be works that lead to or cause spiritual death, sinful deeds.[76]<\/sup><\/sup> For example, Paul Ellingworth argues, \u201c\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70\u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 is an expression peculiar to Hebrews \u2026 The contrast, here as in Gal. 5:19, 21, is between actions which incur the punishment of death, and the \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f70\u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 (10:24; cf. 13:21) which enable God\u2019s people to take possession of what God has promised them (cf. Heb. 6:12). The author may have in mind the choice set before Israel by Moses in Dt. 30:15, 18.\u201d[77]<\/sup><\/sup> And with Eugene Nida he says, \u201cThe implication is that the useless rituals<\/em> (or literally \u2018dead works\u2019<\/em>) actually make the conscience unclean or impure, or even cause death.\u201d[78]<\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n The term \u201cdead works\u201d in this case, regardless of which interpretation one follows, refers to something that exists. It involves activity, but does not please God. Again, it is a relational term. The works exist, but are of the wrong kind.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n DEAD FAITH (JAMES 2:17, 26)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This is probably the most disputed passage that uses the analogy of death to describe something. Using hypallage, or interchange, James tells us that faith without works is \u201cdead.\u201d[79] But what does he mean by that and what significance does it have in the life of a believer?<\/p>\n The first approach to this passage is to see James asserting that the absence of works means the complete absence of faith. For James, dead faith means \u201cno faith,\u201d[80]<\/sup><\/sup> or only a false \u201cclaim to faith.\u201d [81]<\/sup><\/sup> MacDonald and Farstad state the view well. \u201cWhat James is emphasizing is that we are not saved by a faith of words only but by that kind of faith which results in a life of good works. In other words, works are not the root of salvation but the fruit; they are not the cause but the effect.\u201d[82]<\/sup><\/sup> The basic logic of this position is that justifying faith continues to express itself permanently and so necessarily produces works.[83] John MacArthur states it this way. \u201cWorkless faith is dead faith, and dead faith is no faith at all. Real faith cannot die, but if you have a so-called faith that is devoid of works, it is not living faith, and it cannot save.\u201d[84]<\/sup><\/sup> As John Calvin is reputed to say, \u201cWe are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.\u201d[85]<\/sup><\/sup> Therefore, the absence of works means the absence of faith. And, since James describes non-work producing faith as dead, it must necessarily not be justifying faith.[86]<\/sup><\/sup> John Hart answers well the problem of calling this a false claim to faith. He notes the syntactical parallel with Romans 7:8b (\u201cFor apart from the law sin is dead\u201d) and says, \u201cNo one would suppose that Paul intended to say that apart from the law sin was \u2018false sin\u2019 or an unreal sinfulness. Sin is still real and true sin, even apart from the law. The thought is that sin lies dormant and unrecognized until the law arouses it to action. In the same way, faith apart from works is true and real faith. But works have a way of enlivening faith and arousing it from abeyance.\u201d[87]<\/sup><\/sup> Furthermore, James is talking about works done to another \u201cbrother,\u201d a fellow believer. [88]<\/p>\n A second view is to see faith as ineffectual, though present.[89] Keener seems to express this view and notes that \u201cwriters like Epictetus could use \u2018dead\u2019 the same way as here; this is a graphic way of saying \u2018useless\u2019.\u201d[90]<\/sup><\/sup> Zane Hodges argues that dead should be understood in this context to mean \u201csterile, ineffectual, or unproductive.\u201d[91] Donald Burdick sees the faith as present, but not able to \u201csave.\u201d[92] Hart catches well the point of the analogy, that \u201cwhen a Christian engages in practical deeds to benefit others, James says our faith comes alive.\u201d[93]<\/sup><\/sup> Kevin Butcher notes further that James, rather than defining faith, \u201cdefines the condition <\/em>of a faith that is not accompanied by works.\u201d[94]<\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n In verse 22, faith uses works to express itself and to bring itself to completeness (perfection). James uses the analogy of the body to describe the relationship of faith to works. The body without the spirit is dead. Faith without works is dead in the same way. However, both are still there! Neither can function without the other, but both are still present. The idea here is the need for expression and activity, not a lack of existence. Further, nothing in James or any other New Testament author indicates two kinds of faith, saving and non-saving faith.[95] It is not the quality of one\u2019s faith that saves him. Faith\u2019s validity is in its object, God, not its source, man.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Conclusion<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The use of \u201cdead\u201d in a figurative manner throughout the New Testament involves two major concepts. \u201cDead\u201d is used relationally to describe a person\u2019s separation from God, or from the spiritual life of God. It is also used to describe inability to act on someone or something. But, always that which is ineffectual is always present, not absent.<\/p>\n In most instances the figure of speech is obvious and its significance in the argument of either Jesus or a New Testament author is fairly obvious, but not always. Further, theology seems to control most people\u2019s interpretation of the term more than the implications of the surrounding context, especially in James 2. There the general consensus is that \u201cdead\u201d means missing, non-existent. The absence of works means \u201cno faith.\u201d Yet, it is better to see it as meaning ineffectual in the same way that sin is unable to act, or get the Saint to misbehave, apart from the Law. Rather than say that the faith that justifies necessarily sanctifies, it would be better to say that the faith that justifies will not sanctify unless it continues to express itself in the life of the believer. Such an understanding allows James 2 to be a positive motivation to personal evaluation and action rather than a source of doubt in an immature believer\u2019s life.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1] Figurative uses include Matt 8:22; Luke 9:60; 15:24, 32; Rom 6:11, 13; 7:8; 8:10; Eph 2:1, 5; 5:14; Col 2:13; Heb 6:1; 9:14; James 2:17, 26; Rev 3:1.<\/p>\n [2] Rom 4:19, Col 3:5 (figurative sense), and Heb 11:12.<\/p>\n [3]<\/sup><\/sup> Craig S. Keener and InterVarsity, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament<\/em>, Mt 8:21 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993).<\/p>\n [4] E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible<\/em> (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968 reprint), 286.<\/p>\n [5] It would be seen as a metaphor if the first use of \u201cdead\u201d is seen to describe a spiritual state of being rather than physical. It might be seen as a metonymy if \u201cdead\u201d is seen to refer to those about to die, the elderly of the community.<\/p>\n [6]<\/sup><\/sup> Louis A. Barbieri, Jr., \u201cMatthew\u201d in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures<\/em>, 2:38 (Wheaton: Victor, 1983-c1985); Craig Blomberg, vol. 22, Matthew<\/em>, electronic ed., Logos Library System; The New American Commentary, 148 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001, c1992); Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible<\/em>, 290; D. A. Carson, New Bible Commentary : 21st Century Edition<\/em>, Rev. ed. of: The New Bible Commentary. 3rd ed. \/ edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer, 1970., 4th ed., Mt 8:18 (Leicester, England; Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1994); David E. Garland, Reading Matthew<\/em> (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2001) 99; Donald A. Hagner, vol. 33A, Matthew 1-13<\/em>, Word Biblical Commentary, 218 (Dallas: Word, 2002); R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel<\/em> (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1943), 343; Homer A. Kent, \u201cMatthew\u201d in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary: New Testament<\/em>, Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison, editors, Mt 8:18 (Chicago: Moody, 1962); Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew<\/em>, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 203; John Noland, The Gospel of Matthew,<\/em> The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 368; A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/em>, Vol. V c1932, Vol.VI c1933 by Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention., Mt 8:22 (Oak Harbor: Logos, 1997).<\/p>\n [7] Willoughby C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew<\/em>, Third ed., The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, n.d.), 82.<\/p>\n [8] Carson, \u201cMatthew\u201d in The Expositor\u2019s Bible Commentary<\/em>, Vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 209.<\/p>\n [9]<\/sup><\/sup> Robert H. Stein, Luke<\/em>, electronic ed., Logos Library System; The New American Commentary, Vol. 24 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001, c1992), 407. Also, Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Luke\u2019s Gospel<\/em> (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1946), 817. Walter L. Liefeld (\u201cMatthew\u201d in The Expositor\u2019s Bible Commentary<\/em>, Vol. 8 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], 984) notes this as the possible significance of the terms, but by connecting it to the language of Ephesians 2:1-5. The two passages should not be connected, nor should Paul be used to interpret Jesus in this instance.<\/p>\n [10] Contra John MacArthur (The Gospel According to Jesus<\/em> [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988], 153). He says, \u201cHere is a perfect illustration of the nature of saving faith. Observe the young man\u2019s unqualified compliance, his absolute humility, and his unequivocal willingness to do whatever his father asked of him.\u00a0 \u2026 His demeanor was one of unconditional surrender, a complete resignation of self and absolute submission to his father. That is the essence of saving faith.\u201d<\/p>\n [11] I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke<\/em>, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 611.<\/p>\n [12]<\/sup><\/sup> John Nolland, Word Biblical Commentary: Luke 9:21-18:34<\/em>, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 35B (Dallas: Word, 2002), 786.<\/p>\n [13]<\/sup><\/sup> Roy L. Aldrich, \u201cGrace in the Book of Romans, Part 1,\u201d Bibliotheca Sacra, <\/em>\u00a097:386 (April 1940; 2002), 227; Lewis Sperry Chafer, \u201cSoteriology,\u201d Bibliotheca Sacra<\/em>, 103:412 (October 1946; 2002) 398; Frederic L. Godet, Commentary on Romans<\/em>, Kregel Classic Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977), 249; W. H. Griffith Thomas, St. Paul\u2019s Epistle to the Romans<\/em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 169.<\/p>\n [14] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans<\/em>, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, single volume edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965, 1968), 225-26.<\/p>\n [15]<\/sup><\/sup> Kenneth A. Daughters, \u201cHow to Win Over Sin: An Exposition of Romans 6,\u201d Emmaus Journal<\/em>, 1:2 (Summer 1992; 2002) 119.<\/p>\n [16]<\/sup><\/sup> John A. Witmer, \u201cRomans\u201d in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures<\/em> (Wheaton: Victor, 1983-c1985) 2:463.<\/p>\n [17]<\/sup><\/sup> Carson, New Bible Commentary<\/em>, Rom 6:1.<\/p>\n [18]<\/sup><\/sup> James D. G. Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary: Romans 1-8<\/em>, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 38A (Dallas: Word, 2002), 324.<\/p>\n [19] Murray, The Epistle to the Romans<\/em>, 242-43.<\/p>\n [20] Carson, New Bible Commentary, <\/em>Ro 7:1.<\/p>\n [21]<\/sup><\/sup> Brice L. Martin, \u201cPaul on Christ and the Law,\u201d Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society<\/em>, 26:3 (September 1983; 2002) 275.<\/p>\n [22] Witmer, \u201cRomans,\u201d 465.<\/p>\n [23] Robert H. Mounce, Romans<\/em>, electronic ed., Logos Library System; The New American Commentary, Vol. 27 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001, c1995), 161.<\/p>\n [24] Skevington Wood (A. Skevington Wood, \u201cEphesians\u201d in The Expositor\u2019s Bible Commentary<\/em>, Vol. 11 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 33) does not see this expression as figurative, but that a literal sense lies behind it. It is describing a spiritual reality.<\/p>\n [25] Most would take this to refer to spiritual death rather than physical. Examples: T. K. Abbott, The Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians<\/em>, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, n.d.), 2:39; F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians<\/em>, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 280.<\/p>\n [26]<\/sup><\/sup> W. G. Blaikie, The Pulpit Commentary: Ephesians<\/em>, ed. H. D. M. Spence-Jones, 61 (Bellingham: Logos, 2004); MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus<\/em>, 92; Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader<\/em>, Eph 2:1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997, c1984).<\/p>\n [27]<\/sup><\/sup> Contra Joel R. Beeke, \u201cDoes Assurance Belong to the Essence of Faith? Calvin and the Calvinists,\u201d Master’s Seminary Journal<\/em>, 5:1 (Spring 1994; 2002) 64; and Wiersbe (Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary<\/em>, \u201cAn exposition of the New Testament comprising the entire \u2018BE\u2019 series\u201d–Jkt., Eph 2:1 [Wheaton: Victor, 1996, c1989]).<\/p>\n [28]<\/sup><\/sup> Aldrich, \u201cThe Gift of God,\u201d Bibliotheca Sacra<\/em>, 122:487 (July 1965; 2002) 248; George Meisinger, \u201cSalvation by Faith Alone, Part 2 of 2,\u201d Chafer Theological Seminary Journal<\/em>, 5:3 (July 1999; 2002) 23; Alfred Martin, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary: New Testament<\/em>, Eph 2:2, Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett Falconer Harrison editors (Chicago: Moody, 1962).<\/p>\n [29]<\/sup><\/sup> Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament<\/em>, Eph 2:1.<\/p>\n [30]<\/sup><\/sup> MacDonald and Farstad, Believer\u2019s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments<\/em>, Eph 2:1.<\/p>\n [31]<\/sup><\/sup> Carson, New Bible Commentary<\/em>, Eph 2:1.<\/p>\n