I've Been Kicked Out of Rethinking Hell
I recently learned that I was kicked out of the Rethinking Hell Facebook group. I say ‘learned’ because the leaders who made the decision did not tell me I had been kicked out – I only figured it out when I noticed I was no longer getting Rethinking Hell posts on my Facebook page.
How should I handle being kicked out? It's not clear - it's a painful dilemma for me. I am aligned closely with the goals of Rethinking Hell group. I feel strongly that the Christian church needs to expel the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment. I hate to hinder that goal.
At the same time, I think this was an unjustified decision on the part of the leaders. I believe it is important that the members know what the leaders are doing, so I'm writing this essay to present my observations.
Why was I kicked out? According to the leaders, I was repeatedly disrespectful and did not change my behavior when they asked me to do so.
But I don't think I was repeatedly disrespectful. I expressed my views on various topics, the same as other posters. While doing so, I tried to respect the views of others and to love them as we are called to do. If I found a certain argument to be without merit, I would say so. But when disagreeing, I addressed my comments against arguments and not against individuals.
It is true that I disagreed with some of the leaders on a few key points of biblical interpretation. I listened and attempted to understand their arguments, but ultimately I still disagreed. When I posted my reasons for disagreeing, they warned me to stop posting in that manner. What should I have done? While trying to remain respectful, I continued to respond to various posters that raised questions about the issues involved. I have been removed from the group.
Two Key Principles
Before addressing the issue of contention, allow me to identify two key biblical principles.
As I read the Bible, I read two terrible consequences of sin:
(a) It damages our relationship with God, leaving us hostile to and estranged from God.
(b) If left unconfessed, it will prevent us from receiving immortality and we will be destroyed.
Only the second consequence (b) is that doctrine called Conditional Immortality. Conditional Immortality claims that immortality is granted conditionally, only to those who accept the grace offered by Christ.
Most supporters of Conditional Immortality agree with me, I think, in recognizing both of these principles in the Bible. They would freely admit that sin has immediate consequences. As far as I can tell, supporters of Conditional Immortality are not threatened by assertion (a). The truth of assertion (a) in no way diminishes the truth of assertion (b). The immediate consequences of sin do not diminish the ultimate and final consequences of sin.
But here's the key issue. If a certain passage is teaching about the immediate consequences of sin, that passage is not a support for Conditional Immortality. Supporters of Conditional hope to find verses referring to the final, eternal consequences of sin, and are not helped by verses referring to immediate consequences.
Genesis 2:17
With those thoughts in mind, let's look at one specific verse, Genesis 2:17 (NASB):
This verse is often offered by supporters of Conditional Immortality as evidence in support of their position. Why? Because it essentially says that, "If you sin, you will die." That is the essential message of Conditional Immortality.
But it gets a little tricky, for two reason. First, because the verse says that Adam and Eve will die in the day they ate of the fruit. That seems to refer to an immediate consequence. But second, it is perplexing because they did not die in the day they ate of the fruit.
The fact that they did not die in the day they ate the fruit presents a challenge. What did the author intend? I'm sure he wasn't stupid and forgetful. I'm sure he didn't forget while writing Genesis chapter 3 what had been threatened in chapter 2. He was fully aware that God threatened something, and then that something did not happen - at least it didn't happen immediately. But he doesn't give us an explicit explanation of why the threatened death did not immediately happen.
How do we explain this?
Based upon my observations, the resolutions proposed to resolve this dilemma fall into two categories:
1) Something did happen immediately, and God used the word 'death' to label that which happened.
2) God was not referring to that which happened immediately, but to something that would happen much later.
It option (1) above is correct, then the passage is primarily referring to that which happened immediately, and so offers little support for Conditional Immortality. If option (2) above is correct, then this passage does provide support for Conditional Immortality.
Implausible Arguments
Below are three arguments that I've heard in support of option (2) above:
1) The Hebrew phrase that is translated "in the day" does not express immediacy
2) The Hebrew phrase that is translated "you will surely die" actually means "your death will become certain"
3) The English phrase "you will surely die" means the same thing as "your death will become certain"
I would be willing to publicly debate anybody who defends any of those assertions above. I have concluded they are all implausible.
I won’t give a comprehensive analysis of each of those assertions, but will address a few key points for each one.
1) The Hebrew phrase that is translated "in the day" does not express immediacy
This position asserts that there is no immediacy expressed in the Hebrew phrase that is translated ‘in the day you eat from it’. If there is no immediacy intended by the author, then we can conclude that the consequence referred to was the final death of Adam some 900 years later. In that case, then Genesis 2:17 could be consider to refer to the final impact of sin, and not the immediate impact. But is this position defensible?
I don't think so. First, Genesis 2:17 sure seems to express immediacy on the face of it. The author says that you will die in the day you eat from it.
One argument I've heard to deny that immediacy goes something like this:
Therefore, we should understand the phrase to be this:
That sentence does not express immediacy. Nothing in that sentence tells when the death will occur. So, if that's what was intended by the original author, then I would agree that no immediacy is expressed.
But two steps are required to get there. First, you must excise from the verse the Hebrew word ‘yom’ (often translated as ‘day’). I don’t think we should do that. The author put that word there for a reason.
Second, you must rely upon the idiosyncratic use of the English word ‘when’. The English word ‘when’ sometimes expresses immediacy and sometimes does not. That is, 'when' is sometimes used to express the same thing as the English word ‘if’ - which has no sense of immediacy. One example I've heard to illustrate this concept is the sentence below:
When you commit a crime, you will go to jail.
(One side note. The statement above is not strictly true. Many people commit crimes without going to jail. But this is one statement that has been used to support this position, so I'll go with it. I think I understand the underlying point.)
Most English speakers would understand that statement to have no immediacy. Even those people that do go to jail after committing a crime do not go to jail immediately after committing the crime. So, this sentence is essentially the same as saying this:
If you commit a crime, you will go to jail.
This observation about the English word 'when' is true - something it does mean the same thing as 'if'. But that fact has no bearing whatsoever on what was intended by the original Hebrew author. It is unjustified to use this English word 'when' in an attempt to ignore what the Hebrew author chose to include in his story. It's a moot point and does not support the notion that immediacy is absent from Genesis 2:17.
Moving on, let's look to another passage for additional insight into what the original author intended. A significant bit of evidence can be found in Genesis 4:7 (NASB), where God gives this warning to Cain:
In this verse, we have the exact concept that is claimed for Genesis 2:17. That is, we have a condition with no immediacy. In the English translation, we have two instances of the word ‘if’, but no time period referenced in either case. Nothing in this verse indicates when Cain's countenance will be lifted up. Nothing in this verse indicates when sin will pounce upon Cain.
This passage does not use the same structure as Genesis 2:17. This passage does not use the phrase ‘in the day’ to express condition.
What does that prove? It doesn’t prove anything absolutely. But it offers clear evidence that the Hebrew language had a way to express a condition with no immediacy. The author of Genesis 2:17 could have used this same structure, but he chose not to.
Instead, he chose to use the phrase ‘in the day’. I think we should honor that decision, and not just cast it away.
Let's consider another verse - a verse is in the very next chapter and part of the very same narrative. In Genesis 3:5, we have these words spoken by the serpent to Eve:
And when were the eyes of Eve opened? Her eyes were opened at the very moment she ate from the fruit. She immediately became aware of her nakedness and she immediately became ashamed. This very same phrase that we are considering was undoubtedly use to describe an immediate result. This is powerful additional evidence that the author of Genesis intended ‘in the day’ to express immediacy.
And let me address one final point. Some have offered this phrase for consideration:
In the day of my grandfather, they had no internet.
That sentence uses this same phrase 'in the day'. In the sentence above, what period does that refer to? Well, it refers to a long period of time. So the argument goes like this:
For me, this argument fails badly. Why? Well, how long did my grandfather live? Probably a long time. So that description 'of my grandfather' is not specific and refers to his entire life. That description is not analogous to what we find in Genesis 2:17. I can probably make this point best by offering this sentence in response:
In the day of my grandfather's wedding, he broke his leg.
If you read that sentence, then when did he break his leg? The very day he got married. No real question.
It is fairly easy to generalize these thoughts and come up with a rule. The question has been asked, "What does 'in the day' mean?" If we truly want to understand the intent of the author, the better question to ask is, "What does 'in the day of X' mean?" where X is an event or period of time. If X refers to a long period of time (my grandfather's life), then 'in the day of X' would refer to a long period of time. But if X refers to a specific event or moment (my grandfather's wedding day) then 'in the day of X' would also refer to a specific event or moment.
In the Genesis example, what is X? X is that moment at which they eat from the fruit. That is a single event at a very specific moment in time. The logical conclusion is that 'in the day that they eat from the fruit' would refer to an immediate result. It is difficult to conclude otherwise.
Therefore, the logical conclusion is that God warned that death would occur immediately after eating the fruit. The immediacy is clear.
In summary, I have heard arguments to support the assertion that no immediacy was expressed in Genesis 2:17. Up to this point, I have found none of those arguments compelling.
2) The Hebrew phrase that is translated "you will surely die" actually means "your death will become certain"
The goal with this argument is to claim that is only the certainty of death that is triggered by the eating of the fruit, and not the death itself. According to this claim, the author never intended to say that the eater would die in the day he or she ate the fruit. But is this position defensible?
I don't think so. The author sure seems to say that the eater will die in the day he eats of the fruit. The verb is 'die' in that sentence. The verb is not 'become certain'. Those verbs mean two different things, and we should honor the verb that the author chose to use.
For greater understanding, we can delve into some Hebrew grammar. The phrase translated as ‘you will surely die’ employs a Hebrew element called the ‘infinitive absolute’. This element is applied to many different verbs - there are many instances in the Old Testament of the structure ‘infinitive absolute X’ where X is the verb.
I have done a lot of investigation into the use of the infinitive absolute and found many examples using many different verbs. Every time I’ve found it, it is translated as ‘you will surely X’ or (maybe something like ‘you will certainly X’) If you want to find some examples yourself, it is not difficult. Just do a search on the words 'surely' and 'certainly' in an English bible. In many, if not most, of those instances, you will find an infinite absolute in the original Hebrew.
Not once have I found an example where the ‘infinitive absolute X’ is translated as ‘it will become certain that you will X’. Not once. I’ve asked for help. I’ve posted requests in Rethinking Hell for anybody to find such an example. None have yet been offered. If even one example of this translation were found, it would alter my understanding of what Genesis 2:17 might mean, and I would give it serious consideration.
At this point, I have concluded that no such example exists. If it did, those who are making these arguments would surely have pointed it out. As far as I can tell, those who claim that this phrase should be translated as ‘it will become certain that you will die’ are making a very difficult pitch. Their pitch is that Genesis 2:17 is the single place in all of scripture where the infinitive absolute should be translated in this way.
I do not find that argument compelling.
3) The English phrase "You will surely die" means the same thing as "your death will become certain"
This position asserts that this English phrase
The goal of this argument is the same as the goal of the previous argument just above. But the previous arguments involved Hebrew grammar and this arguments involves English grammar. This argument is addressing decisiosn made by translators when they chose the English phrase "you will surely die". This argument says that ‘you will surely die’ is probably a good translation, but that phrase in English actually means the same thing as ‘it will become certain that you will die’
I’ve spoken English my whole life. I understand it well. Let's talk about English.
The primary verb in each phrase are different. In the first, the verb is ‘die’. In the second, the primary verb is ‘become certain’. Those are two different verbs.
In the first statement, somebody actually dies in the day. In the second, nobody actually dies in the day. The only thing that happens in the day is that death becomes certain at some later point in time.
This is so obvious to me that I have been perplexed how anybody could argue otherwise. But in an attempt to clarify my position, I have tried to further elaborate my position in this manner:
Consider this sentence:
My wife helps design exhibits for the St. Louis science museum. When writing text for those exhibits, I have often heard her something like this, “We are targeting an eighth-grade reading level.”
The people who study these things have found a way to quantify the ‘reading level’ of language. They identify and then express that reading level by comparing it to a certain grade level in school. The process they use to do that considers the complexity of the vocabulary used and of the concepts expressed.
Using this concept of 'reading level', let me ask a question. What is the reading level of the following phrase?
I don’t really know, but I’m guessing maybe fifth grade.
Imagine you gave that phrase to a set of fifth graders. Would they understand it? I think they would. What would they answer if you asked them this question:
I’m sure they would answer this:
Again, I am not at this point arguing about the Hebrew language, or complexities of Old Testament translation. The scholars of the NASB, and multiple other translations, have far greater knowledge and experience in translating Hebrew scriptures than I do. These translations are done by a committee of people. That committee of people chose to translate the Hebrew text into this English sentence:
Allow me to make one other point related to these notions. Some have argued that there is some Hebrew-specific nuance that was intended by the original author, and only somebody from that culture could understand what was intended. As I understand it, this argument asserts the existence of some ethereal concept that can only be expressed in the Hebrew language.
I don’t buy it. Because there’s a perfectly good way to express the concept that is being proposed. The alternative concept proposed is not some ethereal, inexpressible notion. It's a concept that is very easy to express in English. I will write it again:
That is perfectly understandable English sentence. If the translators of the NASB, and other translators, believed that was the best translation, they could have easily produced it. They did not.
Having said those things, I remain unconvinced by the third argument.
Why Argue?
I could pursue this in much greater detail, but I believe I've said enough to express why I find the arguments above implausible. By taking this position, I find myself in conflict with many supporters of Conditional Immortality. If I am correct, it would remove from their arsenal weapons they hope to use in their battle. In their minds, Genesis 2:17 is referring to the final and eternal death of unbelievers. In their minds, this passage supports their cause.
Why argue back? Why point out weaknesses in their positions? I oppose those arguments for two reasons:
1) Bad arguments for Conditional Immortality harm the cause because they damage the credibility of the movement.
2) Manipulating a verse to arrive at a foregone conclusion prevents us from hearing what God truly intends to say in that verse.
Jesus said, "I am the truth." For that reason, my pursuit of the Truth is the same as my pursuit of Christ himself. It is of utmost importance.
Jesus also said, "Take up your cross and follow me." That statement of Jesus is normally and appropriately applied to obedience in our actions. However, I think that verse can also apply to our pursuit of the Truth. For us to follow Jesus, we must follow the Truth. If our pursuit of the Truth takes us some place where we don't want to go, we must take up our cross and go there anyway. We must follow Christ at all costs. Issues of eternal value are at stake here.
We must not manipulate Bible verses to make them mean what we want them to mean. I suspect that most supporters of Conditional Immortality join me in feeling exasperated when observing this behavior in others. I'm specifically referring to the behavior of those people who support the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT). To us, we see the Bible full of verses that clearly proclaim the ultimate destruction of unbelievers. When we point out those verses to supporters of ECT, it is frustrating to hear them deny what we see plainly.
We must guard strongly against behaving in those ways which exasperate us when we observe it in others.
Let me summarize this essay. On the Rethinking Hell Facebook page, people have posted arguments in support of the three assertions I listed above. I replied that I did not find those arguments compelling, giving reasons similar to the ones I give here. The leaders asked me to stop posting in that manner. When I refused to stop, they kicked me out of the group.
Was I really disrespectful?
They have said that I've been disrespectful. If you are curious, please ask them to show you specific examples. Ask them to show you the entire threads and the posts they are referring to. If you do review those threads, please ask yourself this:
Is he being disrespectful, or is he just disagreeing?
One final word. I have posted messages on the Rethinking Hell website for many years. At times I became frustrated and said inappropriate things and made unjust accusations. I am sorry for that, and I apologized to individuals in multiple situations where I was clearly out of line. I believe I have gotten better in recent years and I know of no recent posts where I unjustly accused somebody or said something inappropriate. Perhaps there are some recent statements I've made that still require an apology. I am willing to do so.
But I don't think my sinful behavior is the primary reason for being kicked out of Rethinking Hell.
What I know is this:
I repeatedly refused to recognize the merit of several arguments made on that board, and now I have been removed from the group.
How should I handle being kicked out? It's not clear - it's a painful dilemma for me. I am aligned closely with the goals of Rethinking Hell group. I feel strongly that the Christian church needs to expel the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment. I hate to hinder that goal.
At the same time, I think this was an unjustified decision on the part of the leaders. I believe it is important that the members know what the leaders are doing, so I'm writing this essay to present my observations.
Why was I kicked out? According to the leaders, I was repeatedly disrespectful and did not change my behavior when they asked me to do so.
But I don't think I was repeatedly disrespectful. I expressed my views on various topics, the same as other posters. While doing so, I tried to respect the views of others and to love them as we are called to do. If I found a certain argument to be without merit, I would say so. But when disagreeing, I addressed my comments against arguments and not against individuals.
It is true that I disagreed with some of the leaders on a few key points of biblical interpretation. I listened and attempted to understand their arguments, but ultimately I still disagreed. When I posted my reasons for disagreeing, they warned me to stop posting in that manner. What should I have done? While trying to remain respectful, I continued to respond to various posters that raised questions about the issues involved. I have been removed from the group.
Two Key Principles
Before addressing the issue of contention, allow me to identify two key biblical principles.
As I read the Bible, I read two terrible consequences of sin:
(a) It damages our relationship with God, leaving us hostile to and estranged from God.
(b) If left unconfessed, it will prevent us from receiving immortality and we will be destroyed.
Only the second consequence (b) is that doctrine called Conditional Immortality. Conditional Immortality claims that immortality is granted conditionally, only to those who accept the grace offered by Christ.
Most supporters of Conditional Immortality agree with me, I think, in recognizing both of these principles in the Bible. They would freely admit that sin has immediate consequences. As far as I can tell, supporters of Conditional Immortality are not threatened by assertion (a). The truth of assertion (a) in no way diminishes the truth of assertion (b). The immediate consequences of sin do not diminish the ultimate and final consequences of sin.
But here's the key issue. If a certain passage is teaching about the immediate consequences of sin, that passage is not a support for Conditional Immortality. Supporters of Conditional hope to find verses referring to the final, eternal consequences of sin, and are not helped by verses referring to immediate consequences.
Genesis 2:17
With those thoughts in mind, let's look at one specific verse, Genesis 2:17 (NASB):
- but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
This verse is often offered by supporters of Conditional Immortality as evidence in support of their position. Why? Because it essentially says that, "If you sin, you will die." That is the essential message of Conditional Immortality.
But it gets a little tricky, for two reason. First, because the verse says that Adam and Eve will die in the day they ate of the fruit. That seems to refer to an immediate consequence. But second, it is perplexing because they did not die in the day they ate of the fruit.
The fact that they did not die in the day they ate the fruit presents a challenge. What did the author intend? I'm sure he wasn't stupid and forgetful. I'm sure he didn't forget while writing Genesis chapter 3 what had been threatened in chapter 2. He was fully aware that God threatened something, and then that something did not happen - at least it didn't happen immediately. But he doesn't give us an explicit explanation of why the threatened death did not immediately happen.
How do we explain this?
Based upon my observations, the resolutions proposed to resolve this dilemma fall into two categories:
1) Something did happen immediately, and God used the word 'death' to label that which happened.
2) God was not referring to that which happened immediately, but to something that would happen much later.
It option (1) above is correct, then the passage is primarily referring to that which happened immediately, and so offers little support for Conditional Immortality. If option (2) above is correct, then this passage does provide support for Conditional Immortality.
Implausible Arguments
Below are three arguments that I've heard in support of option (2) above:
1) The Hebrew phrase that is translated "in the day" does not express immediacy
2) The Hebrew phrase that is translated "you will surely die" actually means "your death will become certain"
3) The English phrase "you will surely die" means the same thing as "your death will become certain"
I would be willing to publicly debate anybody who defends any of those assertions above. I have concluded they are all implausible.
I won’t give a comprehensive analysis of each of those assertions, but will address a few key points for each one.
1) The Hebrew phrase that is translated "in the day" does not express immediacy
This position asserts that there is no immediacy expressed in the Hebrew phrase that is translated ‘in the day you eat from it’. If there is no immediacy intended by the author, then we can conclude that the consequence referred to was the final death of Adam some 900 years later. In that case, then Genesis 2:17 could be consider to refer to the final impact of sin, and not the immediate impact. But is this position defensible?
I don't think so. First, Genesis 2:17 sure seems to express immediacy on the face of it. The author says that you will die in the day you eat from it.
One argument I've heard to deny that immediacy goes something like this:
- The phrase translated ‘in the day’ could also be translated as ‘when’.
- In English, the word ‘when’ is sometimes used to express the same thing as the word ‘if’.
Therefore, we should understand the phrase to be this:
- If you eat from the fruit, you will surely die
That sentence does not express immediacy. Nothing in that sentence tells when the death will occur. So, if that's what was intended by the original author, then I would agree that no immediacy is expressed.
But two steps are required to get there. First, you must excise from the verse the Hebrew word ‘yom’ (often translated as ‘day’). I don’t think we should do that. The author put that word there for a reason.
Second, you must rely upon the idiosyncratic use of the English word ‘when’. The English word ‘when’ sometimes expresses immediacy and sometimes does not. That is, 'when' is sometimes used to express the same thing as the English word ‘if’ - which has no sense of immediacy. One example I've heard to illustrate this concept is the sentence below:
When you commit a crime, you will go to jail.
(One side note. The statement above is not strictly true. Many people commit crimes without going to jail. But this is one statement that has been used to support this position, so I'll go with it. I think I understand the underlying point.)
Most English speakers would understand that statement to have no immediacy. Even those people that do go to jail after committing a crime do not go to jail immediately after committing the crime. So, this sentence is essentially the same as saying this:
If you commit a crime, you will go to jail.
This observation about the English word 'when' is true - something it does mean the same thing as 'if'. But that fact has no bearing whatsoever on what was intended by the original Hebrew author. It is unjustified to use this English word 'when' in an attempt to ignore what the Hebrew author chose to include in his story. It's a moot point and does not support the notion that immediacy is absent from Genesis 2:17.
Moving on, let's look to another passage for additional insight into what the original author intended. A significant bit of evidence can be found in Genesis 4:7 (NASB), where God gives this warning to Cain:
- If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.
In this verse, we have the exact concept that is claimed for Genesis 2:17. That is, we have a condition with no immediacy. In the English translation, we have two instances of the word ‘if’, but no time period referenced in either case. Nothing in this verse indicates when Cain's countenance will be lifted up. Nothing in this verse indicates when sin will pounce upon Cain.
This passage does not use the same structure as Genesis 2:17. This passage does not use the phrase ‘in the day’ to express condition.
What does that prove? It doesn’t prove anything absolutely. But it offers clear evidence that the Hebrew language had a way to express a condition with no immediacy. The author of Genesis 2:17 could have used this same structure, but he chose not to.
Instead, he chose to use the phrase ‘in the day’. I think we should honor that decision, and not just cast it away.
Let's consider another verse - a verse is in the very next chapter and part of the very same narrative. In Genesis 3:5, we have these words spoken by the serpent to Eve:
- For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
And when were the eyes of Eve opened? Her eyes were opened at the very moment she ate from the fruit. She immediately became aware of her nakedness and she immediately became ashamed. This very same phrase that we are considering was undoubtedly use to describe an immediate result. This is powerful additional evidence that the author of Genesis intended ‘in the day’ to express immediacy.
And let me address one final point. Some have offered this phrase for consideration:
In the day of my grandfather, they had no internet.
That sentence uses this same phrase 'in the day'. In the sentence above, what period does that refer to? Well, it refers to a long period of time. So the argument goes like this:
- The phrase 'in the day' does not necessarily refer to a short period of time. Therefore, the phrase 'in the day' can include something that happened much later.
For me, this argument fails badly. Why? Well, how long did my grandfather live? Probably a long time. So that description 'of my grandfather' is not specific and refers to his entire life. That description is not analogous to what we find in Genesis 2:17. I can probably make this point best by offering this sentence in response:
In the day of my grandfather's wedding, he broke his leg.
If you read that sentence, then when did he break his leg? The very day he got married. No real question.
It is fairly easy to generalize these thoughts and come up with a rule. The question has been asked, "What does 'in the day' mean?" If we truly want to understand the intent of the author, the better question to ask is, "What does 'in the day of X' mean?" where X is an event or period of time. If X refers to a long period of time (my grandfather's life), then 'in the day of X' would refer to a long period of time. But if X refers to a specific event or moment (my grandfather's wedding day) then 'in the day of X' would also refer to a specific event or moment.
In the Genesis example, what is X? X is that moment at which they eat from the fruit. That is a single event at a very specific moment in time. The logical conclusion is that 'in the day that they eat from the fruit' would refer to an immediate result. It is difficult to conclude otherwise.
Therefore, the logical conclusion is that God warned that death would occur immediately after eating the fruit. The immediacy is clear.
In summary, I have heard arguments to support the assertion that no immediacy was expressed in Genesis 2:17. Up to this point, I have found none of those arguments compelling.
2) The Hebrew phrase that is translated "you will surely die" actually means "your death will become certain"
The goal with this argument is to claim that is only the certainty of death that is triggered by the eating of the fruit, and not the death itself. According to this claim, the author never intended to say that the eater would die in the day he or she ate the fruit. But is this position defensible?
I don't think so. The author sure seems to say that the eater will die in the day he eats of the fruit. The verb is 'die' in that sentence. The verb is not 'become certain'. Those verbs mean two different things, and we should honor the verb that the author chose to use.
For greater understanding, we can delve into some Hebrew grammar. The phrase translated as ‘you will surely die’ employs a Hebrew element called the ‘infinitive absolute’. This element is applied to many different verbs - there are many instances in the Old Testament of the structure ‘infinitive absolute X’ where X is the verb.
I have done a lot of investigation into the use of the infinitive absolute and found many examples using many different verbs. Every time I’ve found it, it is translated as ‘you will surely X’ or (maybe something like ‘you will certainly X’) If you want to find some examples yourself, it is not difficult. Just do a search on the words 'surely' and 'certainly' in an English bible. In many, if not most, of those instances, you will find an infinite absolute in the original Hebrew.
Not once have I found an example where the ‘infinitive absolute X’ is translated as ‘it will become certain that you will X’. Not once. I’ve asked for help. I’ve posted requests in Rethinking Hell for anybody to find such an example. None have yet been offered. If even one example of this translation were found, it would alter my understanding of what Genesis 2:17 might mean, and I would give it serious consideration.
At this point, I have concluded that no such example exists. If it did, those who are making these arguments would surely have pointed it out. As far as I can tell, those who claim that this phrase should be translated as ‘it will become certain that you will die’ are making a very difficult pitch. Their pitch is that Genesis 2:17 is the single place in all of scripture where the infinitive absolute should be translated in this way.
I do not find that argument compelling.
3) The English phrase "You will surely die" means the same thing as "your death will become certain"
This position asserts that this English phrase
- you will surely die
- it will become certain that you will die
The goal of this argument is the same as the goal of the previous argument just above. But the previous arguments involved Hebrew grammar and this arguments involves English grammar. This argument is addressing decisiosn made by translators when they chose the English phrase "you will surely die". This argument says that ‘you will surely die’ is probably a good translation, but that phrase in English actually means the same thing as ‘it will become certain that you will die’
I’ve spoken English my whole life. I understand it well. Let's talk about English.
The primary verb in each phrase are different. In the first, the verb is ‘die’. In the second, the primary verb is ‘become certain’. Those are two different verbs.
In the first statement, somebody actually dies in the day. In the second, nobody actually dies in the day. The only thing that happens in the day is that death becomes certain at some later point in time.
This is so obvious to me that I have been perplexed how anybody could argue otherwise. But in an attempt to clarify my position, I have tried to further elaborate my position in this manner:
Consider this sentence:
- In the day you eat of it, you will surely die.
My wife helps design exhibits for the St. Louis science museum. When writing text for those exhibits, I have often heard her something like this, “We are targeting an eighth-grade reading level.”
The people who study these things have found a way to quantify the ‘reading level’ of language. They identify and then express that reading level by comparing it to a certain grade level in school. The process they use to do that considers the complexity of the vocabulary used and of the concepts expressed.
Using this concept of 'reading level', let me ask a question. What is the reading level of the following phrase?
- In the day you eat of it, you will surely die.
I don’t really know, but I’m guessing maybe fifth grade.
Imagine you gave that phrase to a set of fifth graders. Would they understand it? I think they would. What would they answer if you asked them this question:
- When will the eater die?
I’m sure they would answer this:
- In the day he or she eats of it.
Again, I am not at this point arguing about the Hebrew language, or complexities of Old Testament translation. The scholars of the NASB, and multiple other translations, have far greater knowledge and experience in translating Hebrew scriptures than I do. These translations are done by a committee of people. That committee of people chose to translate the Hebrew text into this English sentence:
- In the day you eat of it, you will surely die.
Allow me to make one other point related to these notions. Some have argued that there is some Hebrew-specific nuance that was intended by the original author, and only somebody from that culture could understand what was intended. As I understand it, this argument asserts the existence of some ethereal concept that can only be expressed in the Hebrew language.
I don’t buy it. Because there’s a perfectly good way to express the concept that is being proposed. The alternative concept proposed is not some ethereal, inexpressible notion. It's a concept that is very easy to express in English. I will write it again:
- In the day that you eat from it, it will become certain that you will die
That is perfectly understandable English sentence. If the translators of the NASB, and other translators, believed that was the best translation, they could have easily produced it. They did not.
Having said those things, I remain unconvinced by the third argument.
Why Argue?
I could pursue this in much greater detail, but I believe I've said enough to express why I find the arguments above implausible. By taking this position, I find myself in conflict with many supporters of Conditional Immortality. If I am correct, it would remove from their arsenal weapons they hope to use in their battle. In their minds, Genesis 2:17 is referring to the final and eternal death of unbelievers. In their minds, this passage supports their cause.
Why argue back? Why point out weaknesses in their positions? I oppose those arguments for two reasons:
1) Bad arguments for Conditional Immortality harm the cause because they damage the credibility of the movement.
2) Manipulating a verse to arrive at a foregone conclusion prevents us from hearing what God truly intends to say in that verse.
Jesus said, "I am the truth." For that reason, my pursuit of the Truth is the same as my pursuit of Christ himself. It is of utmost importance.
Jesus also said, "Take up your cross and follow me." That statement of Jesus is normally and appropriately applied to obedience in our actions. However, I think that verse can also apply to our pursuit of the Truth. For us to follow Jesus, we must follow the Truth. If our pursuit of the Truth takes us some place where we don't want to go, we must take up our cross and go there anyway. We must follow Christ at all costs. Issues of eternal value are at stake here.
We must not manipulate Bible verses to make them mean what we want them to mean. I suspect that most supporters of Conditional Immortality join me in feeling exasperated when observing this behavior in others. I'm specifically referring to the behavior of those people who support the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT). To us, we see the Bible full of verses that clearly proclaim the ultimate destruction of unbelievers. When we point out those verses to supporters of ECT, it is frustrating to hear them deny what we see plainly.
We must guard strongly against behaving in those ways which exasperate us when we observe it in others.
Let me summarize this essay. On the Rethinking Hell Facebook page, people have posted arguments in support of the three assertions I listed above. I replied that I did not find those arguments compelling, giving reasons similar to the ones I give here. The leaders asked me to stop posting in that manner. When I refused to stop, they kicked me out of the group.
Was I really disrespectful?
They have said that I've been disrespectful. If you are curious, please ask them to show you specific examples. Ask them to show you the entire threads and the posts they are referring to. If you do review those threads, please ask yourself this:
Is he being disrespectful, or is he just disagreeing?
One final word. I have posted messages on the Rethinking Hell website for many years. At times I became frustrated and said inappropriate things and made unjust accusations. I am sorry for that, and I apologized to individuals in multiple situations where I was clearly out of line. I believe I have gotten better in recent years and I know of no recent posts where I unjustly accused somebody or said something inappropriate. Perhaps there are some recent statements I've made that still require an apology. I am willing to do so.
But I don't think my sinful behavior is the primary reason for being kicked out of Rethinking Hell.
What I know is this:
I repeatedly refused to recognize the merit of several arguments made on that board, and now I have been removed from the group.