Any information can be placed in the sidebar to help your website visitors navigate your site.“You Shall Certainly Die”: A Response to Dr. Talbot
by Sam Frost on Aug 23, 2009
Hopefully, no one will misinterpret the title of this essay! Dr. Talbot and I have a strong sense of humor, and perhaps beginning with a sort of levity will help the conversation. I have no pleasure in pointing out what I believe are fatal mistakes to what Dr. Talbot has proposed recently, found here: http://preteristdebate.ning.com/profiles/blogs/dying-you-shall-die
In reading the post for the first time, I was interrupted by the phone. It was Jason Bradfield. He was calling to see if I had seen Dr. Talbot’s post on Sharon’s website! Strange. Dumb minds think alike? Anyway, we both immediately saw the same issue at the very beginning of the article, and I wish to address that in full. As far as the rest of the material, quotes from Reformed theologians that I greatly admire, I will not deal so much with that. If the exegesis is off, then the rest is irrelevant.
First off, the points that Dr. Talbot makes: môt tamût in the Hebrew is an infinitive absolute before an Qal imperfect verb. Dr. Talbot notes that some translations (very few) have “dying, you shall die.” This, as I have argued in the past, is not the “literal” Hebrew translation. It is more of a interlinear translation, but not a grammatical one.
He then quotes from Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, the standard for Hebrew exegesis. He doesn’t, however, give the reference. “Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar states: “The infinitive absolute used before the verb to strengthen the verbal idea, i.e. to emphasize in this way either the certainty (especially in the case of threats) or the forcibleness and completeness of an occurrence.” The reference is para. 113n(a). It is not quoted in full. I will get back to that.
From this Dr. Talbot remarks, “Therefore, the concept of a delayed penalty in its fullness is the proper rendering, based upon the syntactical construction as I have shown. In the disobedience of eating, they will, upon the day that they eat thereof, be guaranteed death, for themselves and their posterity. This meaning of môt tamût, is therefore properly derived from its grammar and syntax.” This is not what Gesenius said or even implied.
Somehow, Dr. Talbot is bringing in the concept of “delayed penalty”. The verbal construction of môt tamût is supposed to tell us this. Gesenius went on to translate the phrase, “thou shalt surely die” noting the certainty of the event. There are several other places where this syntactical structure occurs. In Gen 18:10,18 we read, “And He said, “I will certainly return to you according to the time of life, and behold, Sarah your wife shall have a son.” The Hebrew is “returning I shall return” which we translate, “I will certainly return.” There is no delay embedded in the construction. Verse 18: “and Abraham certainly becometh a nation great and mighty,”. “Becoming he shall become” is translated, “certainly becometh.” This later translation is from the Young’s Literal Translation, which, in verse 10, he had, “and he saith, ‘returning I return unto thee, about the time of life, and lo, to Sarah thy wife a son.’ Young went both ways, but his translation in verse 18 shows that he was aware of the intensive construction. It meant “certainty.” There is no “delay” concept. Try to bring that concept into these texts.
Further, Gesenius notes Gen 22:17; 28:22, I Sam 9:6 as examples of the infinitive absolute + imperfect structure. These examples show us that all that is meant by the construction is certainty, not delay. Delay, as a concept, is not grammatical. It’s theological. (Waltke – O’Connor – Biblical Hebrew Syntax – gives several more examples of this construction, calling it the “intensifying infinitive” – p.585,586).
Dr. Talbot is insistent that “In Hebrew both terms relate to physical death.” That is môt tamût relates to physical death. He has not explained why. We agree, sometimes the verb refers to physical death. “And Abraham died” refers to such. But, any Bible student knows that “death” has a spiritual aspect as well, utilized a great deal in the Scriptures. To insist that this is the meaning here automatically is not proof.
The main problem here is not that môt tamût is considered, but that it is not considered within the other words of the text (Gen 2:17), particularly the temporal bound morpheme, beyom (“when” or “in the day”). To show the proper function of beyom, I must quote a good portion of Gen 3.
“But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” The word “when” here is beyom. Certain effects would take place immediately – “when” – the cause is done. There is no hint whatsoever of “delayed” concept. Again, that is not a grammatical point, but a theological interpretation. “When”, then, did their eyes become open, and “when” did they become like God, knowing good and evil? The text explicitly tells us: “Then the eyes of both were opened…. Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil” (3:7,22). Note the word, “then.” “When”? “Then!” When the action was performed, the results immediately followed. There was no “delay”.
Having these examples before us in the very text itself forces me to consider that “death” here is not “physical death” at all. Because we are so accustomed to interpret “death” in physical terms, the passage before us strikes at that notion, causing us to question what is going on here. Something is going on here. They didn’t physically die. This is the Bible’s way of forcing the reader to ponder and reflect on the passage rather than just glossing through it.
Their eyes were opened immediately. They became like God, knowing good and evil, immediately. But, if we follow Dr. Talbot, they didn’t die immediately, they were just immediately guaranteed death. The genius of the text forces us to consider the nature of death meant. Eve did not drop to the ground. Adam, who was “with her” saw this. Perhaps this is what prompted him to taste. According to his senses, Eve did not die when she ate. The temptation to Adam, then, was having his eyes opened and becoming like God.
The fact that there is no concept of “delay” imbedded in the grammatical construction, coupled with the “when/then” relationship of cause and immediate effect, forces us to look for another definition of death that is in keeping with other uses of this term in the Bible. We are not hard pressed to find one.
Adam and his wife were exiled from the Garden. In the Garden was the Tree of Life. They were, in fact, separated from Life. What we have here is a picture of the meaning of death: separation from Life. In this case, Eternal Life (Gen 3:22). Adam was not separated from physical life. He was, however, separated from Eternal Life. Death is the separation from life, physically, or spiritually. The same definition applies to both concepts. Clearly, “when” Adam ate of the fruit, he was immediately banished from the Garden, separated from Eternal Life (reigning forever with God in righteousness – God’s own righteousness). Sheol would now be his lot. He may, indeed, have life with God while alive on earth, but in his death, it would not be a going-on-to-greater-things. It would be a descent into sheol. One would have to await resurrection of the dead if there be any hope of receiving eternal life. This is exactly what we find in the Psalms.
In summary:
1. The Hebrew syntax here does not have imbedded in it the idea of “delay.” It does, however, have the idea of “certainty.”
2. The temporal phrase beyom denotes the “when” aspect, that if an action is done (when), “then” another action will immediately follow. In the case of Gen 3, I have shown that those actions immediately followed.
3. Therefore, Adam and Eve, together, “died” when they ate, their eyes were opened the day they ate, they became like God, knowing good and evil, the day they ate, and they were separated from the Tree of Life the day they ate. In short: they died. It is for this far more critical aspect of Death that Christ came to rescue and deliver his people from (hence, in the end, sheol is cast into the lake of fire – and Christ, through His death, entered into sheol).
4. More crucial to our enterprise as Biblical Preterists, is that Dr. Talbot has taken the tact to refute us based on biblical exegesis. This is certainly noble. If Preterism is to be defeated, it will be defeated here. However, if we can continue to bring to bear the principles of hermeneutics as found within our standard reference books and grammars, then we should not encounter any problems. This brings me to consider the exegesis of Dr. Talbot in that he brought in the idea or concept of “delay.” Why? Because, I believe, in all fairness, he has to. The Confession and theology of the Reformation demands it. Physical death must be taught here in Gen 3, for if not, then a major plank has been taken. I have not brought into the text any presupposed Creed or theology. The text informs me of “when” and “then” – and forced me to reconsider “death.” The text did this. One can see, then, that quite apart from proving his case, Dr. Talbot brought in the idea of “delay” – which is quite foreign, and only considered when, in fact, Adam did not physically die the day he ate.
This is critical. It almost makes our case for us. The fact that a foreign idea of delay has to be smuggled into the text is due to the fact that Adam did not PHYSICALLY die that day. Should he have? If there were no textual issues here, and if physical death was meant, Adam would have physically dropped to the ground when he ate. But the fact that he didn’t forces us to reconsider the text, one way or the other. It forces Dr. Talbot to read into the text the concept of “delay” because he presupposes a theological grid that demands resurrection of physical bodies. Either way, the text itself forces one to stop and ponder. For us, we simply asked, “okay, he didn’t physically die when he ate….so what did happen?” When we see what the text says immediately happened, that, for us, constitutes “death.” We find, also, that this meaning of death is metaphorically repeated in the OT narratives over and over again. Indeed, even in the NT. When did this metaphorical (though very real) use of death begin? Where else? Genesis!
About Sam:
Completed a M.A. in Christian Studies and a M.A. in Religion from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Author of Misplaced Hope, Exegetical Essays on the Resurrection of the Dead, and coauthored House Divided: Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology. Owner of Frost Janitorial and resides in Brandon, FL.