When Paul wanted to say `to the saints' he wrote tois hagiois (Eph.

1:1), and when he wanted to say `in the saints' he wrote en tois hagiois

(Eph. 1:18).  We therefore believe that the omission of en from Ephesians 2:1

and 5 is intentional, that the apostle did not speak of the unbeliever's

dreadful condition of being `dead in trespasses and sins', but rather of the

believer's blessed liberation `being dead to trespasses and sins'.  This,

however, is by no means proof, so we continue.  In 1 Peter 2:24 we read `that

we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness'.  Here the Greek

reads tais hamartiais which the reader can compare with the last two words of

the Greek of Ephesians 2:1 set out on page 408.  It would be monstrous to

translate this blessed passage in Peter `that you being dead in sins, should

live unto righteousness'.  This is not all however.  The same grammatical

form meets us in Romans 6 with the one difference that the word is in the

singular `sin' and not in the plural `sins'.

`We, that are dead To sin'

te hamartia (Rom. 6:2).

`He died Unto sin once'

te hamartia (6:10).

`Dead indeed Unto sin'

te hamartia (6:11).

It is absolutely impossible to use the words `in sin' in these

passages, to attempt it in verse 2 is nonsense, and in verse 10 blasphemy.

Ephesians 2:1 and 5 are building upon the great teaching of Romans 6.  There

`sin' and `the old man' are in view, whereas in Ephesians `trespasses and

sins' are in view, thereby carrying the teaching one stage further into the

practical realm along the path of complete emancipation.

Before we leave Ephesians 2, we must notice the verb that is translated

`were' in verses 1 and 5.  There is no possibility of a difference of opinion

here.  The word ontas is the present participle of the verb eimi, and in

English reads `being'.  One error is productive of others.  When once the

translation had been adopted `dead in sins' it was manifestly impossible to

put into the epistle of Paul `And you being dead in sins' without

complicating the argument and distorting the doctrine, consequently the

present participle is translated `were', yet two wrongs do not make a right,

and the only translation that abides by the language of inspiration is that

offered, `and you being dead to', indicating the present condition of the

believer, by grace.

We must now turn to the parallel passage in Colossians 2.  In the

Received Text the preposition en `in' is found in verse 13 which justifies

the translation `dead in your sins'.  Lightfoot's comment is: `the en of the

received text, though highly supported is doubtless an interpolation for the

sake of grammatical clearness'.  En is not found in either the Vatican or the

Sinaitic manuscripts, and the Numeric New Treatment omits it.  The whole of

the context is against the idea that the believer's state by nature `dead in

sins' is in view, but rather it is his standing in grace; he had died to

these things.

`And you, being dead (here the A.V. translate ontas correctly) to

trespasses and to the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened

together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses' (Col. 2:13).

To appreciate in any measure of fulness, this passage in Colossians 2

necessitates an acquaintance with the structure of Colossians 2:4-23, some

knowledge of the incipient agnosticism that was at work, and the place

that philosophy, religion and rudiments occupied in the Colossian conception