A Common Reformed Interpretation of Ephesians 2:1 Negates A Common Argument Against Annihilationism

In Ephesians 2:1, no one takes Paul’s description of the Ephesians as having been “dead” literally. That would have meant they were previously corpses. Instead, different sides have taken different approaches. The verse, short and sweet, tells us the following about Paul’s readers (and Christians in general, by extension):

And you were dead in your offenses and sins.

There are three main interpretations of this view that seek to make sense of this death language. The third, as will be broken down shortly below, is our focus today.

The Three Main Views

As has been discussed previously, annihilationists often (though not always) take this as prolepsis, a common figure of speech in both the Bible and modern language that a reader could be expected to pick up on. Prolepsis takes a future event and speaks of it as present for emphasis. It can be used for all sorts of events, but examples we’d be familiar with involving death would be when a person condemned to execution is called a “dead man walking,” and when God called Abimelech a “dead man” in Genesis 20:3 because fhe had taken Abarahm’s wife Sarah as his own. Quite appropriately to the Ephesians, Abimelech, though called dead, actually did not die because, like the Ephesians, he responded to God and repented. They were “dead” in that, like Abimelech, they were headed to death (had they not changed course).

Many traditionalists take the timing of the events literally, contrary to the prolepsis interpretation, but then must insert a metaphorical meaning of “dead” into the text. The metaphorical interpretation used is typically that to be “dead” means to be consciously separated from God. This allows for death to be consistent with eternal conscious hell, since it means that those who suffer the wages of sin (Romans 6:23) are still consciously existent. Their death is being separated from God.

This separation-from-God model is further complimented by the assumption that “life” in the Bible is also used metaphorically to mean a relationship with God – an idea whose biblical basis (aside from just reading this meaning into various verses that mention life) is based mostly on John 17:3 (which has been addressed previously, see below). ¹ For more on John 17:3, see “John 17:3 Does Not Change the Meaning of ‘Eternal Life’“. ² In addition, for the idea that life/eternal life must be a metaphor in order for our future eternal state to really be special and wonderful, see “The Eternal Joys of the Life to Come Do Not Change the Meaning of ‘Life'”.

This (conscious) separation-from-God definition of death is loaded with problems, as has been addressed by annihilationists outside of Rethinking Hell, and in many articles here as well (see below). ³ For a lengthy but thorough introduction to “death” in the Bible, see “Introduction to Evangelical Conditionalism: Death and Life in the Bible” Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. ⁴ The series on the proleptic view not only gives a better alternative to the separation-from-God model, but also addresses its shortcomings at times. See “Prolepsis: A Matter of Life and Death” Parts 1, Part 2, and Part 3. ⁵ Another huge shortcoming of the separation-from-God model is that it means that the wicked are already considered “dead,” yet will also be made “dead” in hell in the same sense that they are already “dead” now. So how can the (metaphorical) death of being separated from God be a “second death” as Revelation speaks of? For more on this, see Chris Date, “Traditionalism and the (Not So) Second Death“. More will also likely be written about this in the future as need arises.

However, there is also a third view besides the prolepsis view (mainly held by annihilationists) and the separation-from-God view (mainly held by traditionalists). This view comes up a lot in Reformed circles and sees a different metaphorical view of death.

This view could perhaps be summarized as saying that the wicked are “dead” in that they are so depraved that they cannot respond to God or choose God at all. Only by God’s divine mercy by making them spiritually alive could they then choose to repent. Consider R.C. Sproul’s description of how this plays out in conversion:

A better analogy would be that the man has gone under for the third time, and he’s at the bottom of the sea, and God dives in the water, and He takes that dead man, that corpse from the bottom of the sea and brings him out onto the dry land and He leans over, and He gives him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, and He breathes His life into that man, and that man is restored from the dead. That’s what the Bible is saying about the divine initiative, that that first step of quickening from the dead, from the flesh unto spirit, transferred from the Kingdom of Darkness to the Kingdom of Light is accomplished by God, not by man. And of course, after God quickens us, then we choose, then we believe, then we embrace Christ, we repent. We do all of those things because we’re alive now to the things of God. But the first step, the initiative, the being made alive from the dead, is the work of God and the work of God alone. ⁶Ligonier Ministries, “The Divine Initiative: Chosen By God with R.C. Sproul,”
YouTube video [10:37-11:40], posted April 23, 2015, http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=v3Ad6tBdLbM (accessed September 28, 2024). (10:37-11:40).

Sproul likewise ties one’s depravity and lack of any righteousness at all to their state of death, in contrast to spiritual life:

Most non-Reformed views of predestination fail to take seriously the fact that fallen man is spiritually dead. Other evangelical positions acknowledge that man is fallen and that his fallenness is a serious matter. They even grant that sin is a radical problem. They are quick to grant that man is not merely ill, but mortally ill, sick unto death. But he has not quite died yet. He still has one tiny breath of spiritual life left in his body. He still has a tiny island of righteousness left in his heart, a tiny and feeble moral ability that abides in his fallenness. ⁷ R.C. Sproul, Chosen By God (Wheaton, IL, Tyndale House Publishers: 1986), 114).

A similar sentiment is expressed in this meme I have seen floating around the internet as well: ⁸ The Chorus In The Chaos [Facebook Post],
posted June 14, 2024, https://www.facebook.com/chorusinthechaos/photos/d41d8cd9/879204804251196/ (accessed September 28, 2024).

To be dead in sin is to be so depraved that you cannot respond to God, cannot choose God, cannot even repent until God brings you to life.

Why This View Does Not Challenge Annihilationism

The separation-from-God view can serve as a challenge to the case for annihilationism because if it shows that “death” can mean conscious separation from God in the Bible, then one can say those in hell are condemned to death by being separated from God (while still being conscious and literally alive). ⁹ To some this will be controversial, but it shouldn’t be: an entity that is conscious is alive. In no other context do people speak of an entity being able to think and feel while not having life. It would not refute annihilationism even if it were true (and even if it were not fraught with problems), but it would at least diminish the force of the annihilationist argument from the language of death in the Bible.

The Reformed third view, however, is actually totally consistent with annihilationism.

Yes, on the one hand, it would show the language of death being used in the Bible metaphorically and not in a way that would seem to challenge eternal conscious existence. However, the metaphor being used is not one that could apply to hell. Therefore, one cannot say that because Ephesians 2:1 and similar passages (like Colossians 2:13) use death metaphorically in this way, therefore passages like Romans 6:23 can also be using death this way.

It makes no sense to speak of the fate of the wicked in hell being something like what it would mean in Ephesians 2:1 (under this Reformed interpretation). It would mean that the punishment of damnation, the wages of sin of Romans 6:23, would be God making wicked, depraved, and unable to respond to him.

It hardly needs to be explained why that would not be what hell is in any coherent Christian worldview. Nobody believes that God will punish sinners in hell by making them sinners. Aside from the fact that they would already be dead in the sense that they are to be made dead in hell – also a problem with the separation-from-God view – that makes God the author of sin (contrary to James 1:13-16 and just basic Christianity as a whole).

The above is the main point to consider; this metaphor for death cannot apply to hell. In addition, it is also worth noting that, unlike the separation-from-God model (where the connection between literal death and its metaphorical meaning is effectively non-existent), this more Reformed metaphorical meaning of death plays directly upon the normal, face value understanding of death. A corpse can’t move or do anything. The idea is that the wicked’s ability to respond to God is no better than a literal skeleton. So even the metaphor itself relies on us thinking not of a death that entails conscious suffering, but of a corpse (which cannot be tormented).

Therefore, annihilationism should have no problem with death language being used in this particular, metaphorical way.

Other Thoughts On This View (and More)

Although this view is entirely consistent with annihilationism, I am skeptical of it. This is not because of the theological underpinnings and ties to Reformed theology – Reformed theology and its views on total depravity do not stand or fall on Ephesians 2:1 and its use of ‘dead in sins.” I am skeptical because there really is nothing in scripture to give any basis for using “dead” as a metaphor this way at all. It really has to just be read into the passage.

In practice, there often is no actual case for why death has this meaning at alll. There is no appeal to similar, clear precedent in the Old Testament, or to contemporary literature that would give us reason to think that the New Testament writers were appealing to such a metaphor. Generally this passage is just appealed to in Reformed circles as showing that man is “dead in sins” and therefore must be regenerated by God before coming to faith. The belief that “dead in sins” means something like “too depraved to accept Christ” is assumed.

Incidentally, the other non-prolepsis view, that the Ephesians were “dead” as in they were consciously separated from God, has that same problem. It is assumed and read into the passage. Ephesias 2:1 is presented as positive proof of such use of death language in scripture, but using it as proof is circular reasoning. We know that Ephesians 2:1 uses the language this way. How do we know that Ephesians 2:1 uses the language of death this way? Because the Bible uses the language of death this way. How do we know that the Bible uses the language of death this way? Because Ephesians 2:1 uses the language of death this way…¹⁰ The one passage sometimes appealed to as showing an actual link between death and conscious separation from God is Genesis 2:17. For a rebuttal to this, see Peter Grice, “Warned of Sin’s Wages: A Concise Explanation of Death in Genesis 2:17 and Romans 6:23“.

In both cases, in both non-proleptic views, Ephesians 2:1 is used as proof of the view when all it does is use the word “dead”. Nowhere does it give any indication that “dead” means either metaphorical view, whether being too depraved ot accept Christ or being consciously separated from God.

Much more will likely be said in the future about this and its connection to the separation-from-God view of what death means. But for now, note the articles below that address various aspects of this view and the problems it has.

That said, if somebody does genuinely believe that passages like Ephesians 2:1 are metaphorically speaking of man’s depravity, that really is okay. Death being used as a metaphor for a state of being that is not what God does to the wicked in hell has no bearing on what what will do to the wicked in hell. Passages that do say that death is what God will inflict on those in hell still speak for themselves. ¹¹ For more on why God does actively inflict damnation on the wicked, see “It’s God Who Sends People to Hell – And The Bible Doesn’t Shy Away From It“. The common (though not universal) annihilationist argument from the meaning of death in scripture does not mean that death language can never be used metaphorically, only that in no instance in the Bible is it best understood as being a metaphor for something that can also be applied to hell and is also consistent with eternal torment.

Theologically conservative annihilationism, evangelical conditionalism as we call it here, is consistent with a wide range of theological systems – anything that allows the Bible to be the authority and is not bound by tradition to teach eternal conscious hell. ¹² For more on this, see “Don’t Be Afraid to Rethink Hell: We Other Views Needn’t Get In Your Way“. Being Reformed, and even holding to this particular interpretation of Ephesians 2:1, is no exception.

Liked it? Take a second to support Rethinking Hell on Patreon!