Dead Men Can't Respond

It is often said that "dead men can't respond" or "dead means unable to respond". This is used in relation to the passages which speak of our condition before we came to Christ. It is said that since we were dead, and dead men can't respond, then we were unable to respond to God. The argument is made that a man who is physically dead is unable to do anything, being dead. Certainly this is true, but is this what Paul means when he refers to "dead" men?

Often Used Test Passages

Ephesians tells us:

Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins:

Therefore, God had to make us alive before we were able to respond:

Ephesians 2:5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)

Testing the Definition

But is this what is meant by dead in the way that the Scriptures use the word? One way to tell if a phrase has equivalent meaning is to substitute it into a passage and see if the passage still makes sense. Doing this with the two Ephesians passages from above yields:

Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were unable to respond to God in trespasses and sins:

Ephesians 2:5 even when we were unable to respond to God in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)

It seems like this word substitution is a possible equivalent phrase. But the way to tell if it makes sense is to find other passages which use dead in a similar way and see if the equivalent phrase fits them as well.

Testing in the Hard Passages

If "dead" equals "can't respond", then what do we make of this passages?

Romans 6:2 May it never be! How shall we who are dead to sin still live in it?

Doing the word substitution yields:

Romans 6:2 May it never be! How shall we who are unable to respond to sin still live in it?

The obvious problem is that this removes the meaning of what Paul is trying to say. Paul is telling them not to sin, not that they are unable to sin. The word "dead", at least in this context, can't mean "unable to respond". It has to mean something different. This would seem to break the first equivalence since it makes no sense in other places. This provisional definition of "dead" just doesn't fit.

But should do understand Paul's usage of the word "dead"? What does it mean? Since it doesn't mean "unable to" what does it mean?

A Different Definition of Dead

Let's try this definition on for size, "out of relationship with". Dead men are men who are out of relationship with the world of the living. They can't speak or have other social interactions with the living. This fits the natural definition, but does it fit with both of these verses? Doing the word substitution again:

Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were out of relationship with God in trespasses and sins:

Ephesians 2:5 even when we were out of relationship with God in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)

It fits well for that one, but does it fit with the other passage? Let's see:

Romans 6:2 May it never be! How shall we who out of relationship with sin still live in it?

This seems to fit. It leaves open the possibility that the person can come to know God as well as the possibility that the Christian can sin.

Our Approach to Evangelism

The idea that the unregenerated are unable to respond to the Gospel has led to a downplaying of evangelism both in some churches and in personal evangelism with some people. It also leads to judgment against others about who is being called and who isn't.

A more fruitful method is to assume that the person is able to respond and can make a choice to accept God for themselves. They can't save themselves by their good works, but they can reach out and receive the free gift of salvation that Christ offers. They are able to come as He calls them, they are just out of relationship with Christ. They need to come into a saving relationship with Jesus.

Conclusion

The idea that dead means "can't respond" does not fit well in all the places that Paul uses it. It brings along a presuppositional baggage which is too big for the New Testament examples. Replacing the definition in favor of one that fits solves this problem.