Hugh, I said I was going to bow out but you have asked me to respond to a statement I made in my previous reply. And you accused me of teaching against scripture because I did not accept your interpretation of scripture related to statements that people who are not of Christ have Satan as their father.
The issue for me is when Christ says someone is of their father the devil is He intending that in a literal sense or in a Hebrew figurative sense? You would say it was in a literal sense; after all, taking things literally at first glance is simply good hermeneutics. But Jesus often used a strong statement as a figurative device. For example, when He said that unless you hate your father and mother you could not be His disciple or was clearly not meant to be taken literally. Since hating father and mother would have been a violation of the Mosaic law, and since he taught us to love even our enemies, He was using a common Hebrew device of dramatic contrast to make His point: specifically, that we should love Him above mother and father.
In the very same way, I believe He used references to the devil being the father of those who rejected Him and withstood His teaching. This is more in keeping with the teaching of scripture that man is a slave of sin and a captive of Satan, and that those who act like Satan and choose to follow his ways are acting just like his children. But that does not mean they are his children. And this is where you and I disagree on that topic-- our references to the children of Satan or the fatherhood of Satan to be taken literally or figuratively.
Now, as to the statement in Genesis 2: 17 in which God tells Adam that in the day he sinned he would surely die, one could correctly state that Adam certainly died the moment he sinned because at that moment he died spiritually as he was no longer in communion with God. Now physically he continued to live until he was 930 (not 969 as you stated: you confused him with Methuselah) but he in fact "died" the moment he was cut off from pure and unhindered fellowship with God. If you like we could consider that also dual fulfillment: for he first died spiritually and then he later died physically. Btw. I really liked your idea that Adam indeed died in the same day that he sinned, by using the literal "dying you will die" verbal phrase from the Hebrew. It's an interesting concept. And you might be correct. There is a Hebraic beauty in the idea. However, in order to accept that, we must take a pass on normal Hebrew grammar. The word dying in Genesis 2:17 is an infinitive absolute, a very flexible verbal form that is most commonly used to express intensity --or certainty-- of the verb it modifies (in our specific verse that would be the verb "you will die"). You seem to be suggesting that translators who follow the normal rules of Hebrew syntax mistranslated this verse by rendering it as "surely you will die" (which is correctly interpreting the Qal infinite absolute as giving certainty to the verb "you will die" that it modifies) rather than translating it literally as it would appear in English syntax (namely as two things: "dying" and "you will die", which is what you hang your two deaths on.) I have to admit it's tempting. But I'm not prepared to bite that apple just yet.
So perhaps now you can see why I have decided to step back from this discussion in order to allow you to proceed with your teaching. Were I not to do so, you would be unable to proceed because we would be bound up in endless arguments, likely neither of us convincing the other, and we would leave in our path a lot of confused people. So rather than allow such a mess to develop, I will step back ... unless I see outright error. But the fact that you and I disagree on some things does not mean that there is error, at least not fundamental error. The things we disagree on that I detailed above are not critical to the security of the gospel message and therefore I can agree to disagree with you without digging in and hindering you from proceeding with your teaching.
So, if that is all right with you, please proceed.
The issue for me is when Christ says someone is of their father the devil is He intending that in a literal sense or in a Hebrew figurative sense? You would say it was in a literal sense; after all, taking things literally at first glance is simply good hermeneutics. But Jesus often used a strong statement as a figurative device. For example, when He said that unless you hate your father and mother you could not be His disciple or was clearly not meant to be taken literally. Since hating father and mother would have been a violation of the Mosaic law, and since he taught us to love even our enemies, He was using a common Hebrew device of dramatic contrast to make His point: specifically, that we should love Him above mother and father.
In the very same way, I believe He used references to the devil being the father of those who rejected Him and withstood His teaching. This is more in keeping with the teaching of scripture that man is a slave of sin and a captive of Satan, and that those who act like Satan and choose to follow his ways are acting just like his children. But that does not mean they are his children. And this is where you and I disagree on that topic-- our references to the children of Satan or the fatherhood of Satan to be taken literally or figuratively.
Now, as to the statement in Genesis 2: 17 in which God tells Adam that in the day he sinned he would surely die, one could correctly state that Adam certainly died the moment he sinned because at that moment he died spiritually as he was no longer in communion with God. Now physically he continued to live until he was 930 (not 969 as you stated: you confused him with Methuselah) but he in fact "died" the moment he was cut off from pure and unhindered fellowship with God. If you like we could consider that also dual fulfillment: for he first died spiritually and then he later died physically. Btw. I really liked your idea that Adam indeed died in the same day that he sinned, by using the literal "dying you will die" verbal phrase from the Hebrew. It's an interesting concept. And you might be correct. There is a Hebraic beauty in the idea. However, in order to accept that, we must take a pass on normal Hebrew grammar. The word dying in Genesis 2:17 is an infinitive absolute, a very flexible verbal form that is most commonly used to express intensity --or certainty-- of the verb it modifies (in our specific verse that would be the verb "you will die"). You seem to be suggesting that translators who follow the normal rules of Hebrew syntax mistranslated this verse by rendering it as "surely you will die" (which is correctly interpreting the Qal infinite absolute as giving certainty to the verb "you will die" that it modifies) rather than translating it literally as it would appear in English syntax (namely as two things: "dying" and "you will die", which is what you hang your two deaths on.) I have to admit it's tempting. But I'm not prepared to bite that apple just yet.
So perhaps now you can see why I have decided to step back from this discussion in order to allow you to proceed with your teaching. Were I not to do so, you would be unable to proceed because we would be bound up in endless arguments, likely neither of us convincing the other, and we would leave in our path a lot of confused people. So rather than allow such a mess to develop, I will step back ... unless I see outright error. But the fact that you and I disagree on some things does not mean that there is error, at least not fundamental error. The things we disagree on that I detailed above are not critical to the security of the gospel message and therefore I can agree to disagree with you without digging in and hindering you from proceeding with your teaching.
So, if that is all right with you, please proceed.
This is from Chafer's Systematic Theology series of books, volume VII, pg 9-11. All italics within these [...] and underlining is mine:
) to give an overview of what will be taught or shared, and then things get broken down to support the overview or main point. Maybe that's part of what's going on here?
