Deuteronomy 30:14 as an Explanation for Israel's Sporadic Obedience

transcript

DEUTERONOMY 30:14 AS AN EXPLANATION

FOR ISRAEL'S SPORADIC OBEDIENCE

The book of Deuteronomy not only describes Israel's failures in the past, but it also

seems to indicate that Israel will be unable to respond to Yahweh in obedience in the future

generations as well. An emphasis in Deuteronomy is that Israel will not obey, and indeed cannot

obey. However, within the book of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic History, there are small

pictures of Israel's obedience. The problem is that one must combine these two ideas, that Israel

is unable to obey, and yet, Israel obeys. The thesis of this paper is that Israel is in fact able to

obey Yahweh, and Israel's disobedience is a product of its unwillingness to obey rather than its

inability. The key to understanding Israel's ability to obey is found in Deuteronomy 30:14 and

the surrounding context. Also important for the discussion is the nature of obedience under the

new covenant. The new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:22-32 indicates that

God's people are enabled to obey by means of the Spirit of God (presence) in their hearts.

Although the exact location of the presence of God differs, this presence is still the means to

genuine obedience if in fact God's people are willing. In this respect, the ability to obey under

the Moab covenant and the new covenant are identical, namely that God's presence dwells near

his people.

To demonstrate that Israel was able to obey, this paper will examine initially the

nature and extent of Israel's obedience. In light of our understanding of God's presence, was

Israel able to obey? If so, how did they obey and what was the extent of their obedience?

Secondly, it will explore the nature of the presence of God in Deuteronomy. In what way is God

present with his people, and does that presence have any bearing on Israel's ability to obey?

Finally, we will examine the similarities between the Moab covenant and the new covenant. The

renewal of the covenant at Moab appears to be very similar to the new covenant, especially

concerning the nature and extent of obedience. In light of these observations, this paper will

seek to show that Israel obeyed Yahweh genuinely, yet sporadically, by means of the actual

presence of God demonstrated in his narrative presence in torah. Therefore, Israel's genuine,

sporadic obedience is similar to the genuine, sporadic obedience of new covenant believers who

wait for the future day when their hearts will be circumcised, enabling perfect obedience.

Israel's Inability to Obey

Some have argued that Israel was completely unable to obey the commands of

Yahweh because their disobedience is so paradigmatic and prevalent throughout Deuteronomy –

2 Kings. Since disobedience actually preceded the giving of the law at Horeb, Paul Barker

argues that disobedience was an ingrained paradigm for all generations of Israel.1 Moses brings

the golden calf incident to Israel's mind in order to show that the Moab generation was sinful just

like the Horeb generation (Deut 9:13-29). In fact, he says that "you" were the ones who "sinned

against the Lord," "provoked the Lord to wrath," and were "rebellious against the Lord" (Deut

9:16, 22, 24 respectively). Moses not only references the golden calf incident, but he also

indicates that this same rebellion occurred at other places along Israel's journey (Deut 9:22).

Barker argues that this rampant rebellion and conflation of generations indicates that these

incidents in Israel's history were paradigmatic for the nation as a whole, and that each subsequent

generation was doomed to failure just like its predecessors.2

1Paul A. Barker, The Triumph of Grace in Deuteronomy (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2004), 88-92.

2Barker, Triumph of Grace, 88-92; see also J.G. McConville and J.G. Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 48.

Barker says that the "spies incident" is also paradigmatic for the nation of Israel.3 In

Deuteronomy chapter 1, Barker imposes a concentric structure that puts the spies' report at the

center of the chiasm.4 Immediately following this report of the spies that the land was good

(Deut 1:25), Moses indicates that in an act of rebellion, "you" failed to enter the land. Again,

Moses puts the failure of the past generation on the heads of the current generation. According

to Barker, the conflation of generations indicates that the new, Moab generation is akin to those

at Horeb regarding its inability to obey. The spies are mentioned explicitly in Deuteronomy 1,

but they are also alluded to in 8:7, 10 with references to the "good land." In addition, in 8:15,

Moses uses terminology reminiscent of 1:27 and 2:7 to bring to mind that Israel failed to enter

the land at Kadesh Barnea. Israel's rebellion against the report of the spies is a paradigm of their

national sin. Barker concludes, "There is no reason given why the hearer-reader should expect

Israel to behave any differently now than it did in the past."5

Arguably, the most direct statement of Israel's inability to obey is in Deuteronomy

29:3. In this passage, Moses indicates that God has not given Israel the ability "to understand

God's dealing with them."6 The metaphors used in 29:3 of the various organs that are unable to

perform their proper functions indicate emphatically that Israel is unable to properly comprehend

God's wonders.7 Some scholars argue that 29:3, being surrounded by descriptions of the grace of

God during the wilderness wanderings, indicates that Israel was unable to understand God's

commands at one time, but now, they are able to respond properly to God by means of the giving

3Barker, Triumph of Grace, 24-8.

4Ibid., 18-9.

5Ibid., 73.

6Michael A. Grisanti, "Was Israel Unable to Respond to God? A Study of Deuteronomy 29:2-4," Bibliotheca Sacra 163, no. 650 (2006): 179.

7Ibid.

and expounding of the law.8 Others argue that Israel's failure to understand in 29:3 is "ultimately

God's responsibility," and Israel should not be held accountable.9 Barker and Hafeman conclude

that 29:3 is a statement of Israel's complete inability to obey until Yahweh creates in Israel

sensitive, obedient hearts under the new covenant.10

Grisanti gives a convincing proposal for the view that "Yahweh sovereingly provides

spiritual perceptiveness to those who trust him."11 According to this proposal, "The statement in

29:4 [English verse number] was not meant as a word of condemnation, but as a statement that

should have motivated God's people to seek genuine covenant conformity, which always

required a faith relationship with him."12 Grisanti uses four ideas from the Old Testament to

argue his case. First, he says that the Old Testament motif of a remnant indicates that God

causes a "genuine faith relationship" with some "individual Israelites."13 Secondly, the national

focus of Deuteronomy 29-30 extends this provision of faith to the nation as a whole.14 Thirdly,

the nature of the Mosaic covenant does not rule out the possibility of an internal effect of the

law. Deuteronomy 5:29 indicates that keeping the commands and fearing God is an issue of the

8Christopher T. Begg, "Bread, Wine and Strong Drink in Deut 29:5a," Bijdragen 41 (1980): 273.

9See Grisanti, "Was Israel Unable to Respond," 188 for those who hold this view.

10Barker, Triumph of Grace; Scott Hafeman, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995).

11Grisanti, "Was Israel Unable to Respond," 188.

12Ibid.

13Ibid., 190; Block links faith with obedience by showing that a lack of obedience indicates a lack of faith. (Daniel Block, "The Grace of Torah: The Mosaic Prescription for Life [Deut 4:1-8; 6:20-25]," Bibliotheca Sacra 162, no. 645 [2005]: 19); Hamilton speaks about Old Testament Israel and says, "for probably a small percentage of the population at large, faith came by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (James M Hamilton, Jr., "God With Men in the Torah," WTS 65, no. 1 [2003]: 124); see also John Sailhamer, "The Mosaic Law and the Theology of the Pentateuch," WTS 53, no. 2 (1991): 254 and Barker Triumph of Grace, 124.

14Grisanti ("Was Israel Unable to Respond," 190-1) argues that a major difference between the old and new covenants is that the participates under the new covenant are all believers whereas under the old covenant, not all of Israel were able to see with eyes of faith. Therefore, the provision of faith was extended to all Israel, but all Israel did not necessarily receive it.

"mind." In addition, many passages in Deuteronomy speak of things that influence the heart of a

person for the good, and most of these are related to the torah in some way.15 Finally, the Old

Testament idea of an inner spiritual reality shows that one function of the demands of Yahweh

was to elicit obedience from the heart rather than mere outward conformity.16 Deuteronomy

regularly places the emphasis of the law on loving, fearing, and serving Yahweh (Deut 4:30; 6:2,

5, 13, 24; 7:9, 12; 10:12, 20; 11:1, 13; 13:4; 28:58; 30:6). This type of vocabulary shows that the

law was intended to work on Israel's heart in addition to giving them governances by which to

live in the land. Therefore, rather than seeing Deuteronomy 29:3 as an exhaustive statement of

Israel's inability to obey, it should be understood as Israel's inability to obey apart from God-

given perceptiveness to the internal intention of the law.17

One final passage that explicitly portrays Israel's inability to obey (serve) Yahweh is

Joshua 24:19. This passage recalls Deuteronomy 30:15-20 when Joshua tells the people to

"choose this day whom you will serve" (Josh 24:15). The people rashly respond to this

command in 24:16-18, and Joshua quickly rebukes them with an explicit statement of their

inability "to serve the Lord." Israel's inability here, should be understood similarly to

Deuteronomy 29:3. Some could argue that this "service" is the same as that in Acts 17:25 where

God cannot be served because he does not need anything. However, in light of the

Deuteronomic understanding that the word "serve" means covenantal faithfulness, Joshua 24:19

is best understood as Israel's inability to keep the promise they have just made in vv16-18. Israel

on two other occasions in this short passage says that it will serve the Lord (vv21, 24). Joshua is

15Barker, Triumph of Grace, 159. The passages that say the Torah has a positive influence on the heart

are: Deut 4:9; 6:6; 8:5; 11:18; 17:19-20; 26:16; 30:1; 30:14; 32:46.

17One must keep in mind here that this internal dependence is only one intention of the Law, and even then, it is not a primary intention of the Law.

skeptical about their obedience and therefore made a covenant with the people at Shechem.18

One fascinating aspect of this final chapter of Joshua is that immediately following Joshua's

statement about Israel's inability to serve Yahweh, the text says, "Israel served the Lord all the

days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua and had known all the work

that the Lord did for Israel" (Josh 24:31). It is important to recognize that something enabled

Israel to "serve the Lord" even though Deuteronomy and Joshua are confident that Israel is "not

able to serve the Lord."

Israel's Obedience

From the above discussion, it appears that Israel is unable to obey apart from a work

of Yahweh in the lives and hearts of individual Israelites. However, one must account for the

passages of the Old Testament that demonstrate Israel's obedience. These two ideas must be

combined in order to understand the full biblical witness. The following section argues that

Israel's obedience was genuine, sporadic, and in response to Yahweh's initiative.

The first instance of Israel's obedience is in Deuteronomy 2:37. Yahweh commands

Israel not to harass the people of Ammon in 2:17-19. The reason they should not harass the

Ammonites is that Yahweh has not given Israel Ammon's land. The land that Israel was

commanded to occupy (the land of Canaan) is always said to be given into their hand by

Yahweh. The land was God's possession, and only he was at liberty to disperse it.19 In

Deuteronomy 2:17-19, Yahweh said to Moses that the land of the Ammonites had not been given

18Stek says, "…circumstances occasioned doubts concerning desire or promised courses of action. The

specific purpose of 'covenants' was to add a guarantee of fulfillment to commitments made." (John H. Stek, "Covenant Overload in Reformed Theology," CTJ 29, no. 1 [1994]: 25). Therefore, in light of Joshua's doubts about Israel's obedience, he made a covenant with them at Shechem.

19Hans E. von Waldow, "Israel and Her Land: Some Theological Considerations," in A Light Unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Meyers, ed. Howard N. Bream, Ralph D. Heim, and Carey A. Moore (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1974), 498.

to Israel as a possession. In other words, it was not part of the "promised land," and therefore

Israel was obedient to the command of Yahweh by not drawing near to the land of the sons of

Ammon.

The second instance of Israel's obedience concerns the defeat of Sihon and Og.

Deuteronomy 2:26-36 describes Israel's defeat of Sihon, and 3:1-17 describes Israel's settlement

in Bashan. Both stories parallel Numbers 21:21-31. Although Yahweh gave the lands of Sihon

and Og into Israel's hand, Israelite soldiers were the people who defeated these two kings (Num

21:24, 35; Deut 2:33-36; 3:3-8). One could argue that since Yahweh had already done the work

of handing over Sihon and Og that Israel was not legitimately obedient. However, this

conclusion takes human responsibility out of the picture. In order to maintain both divine

initiative and human responsibility, one must see Israel's obedience here as genuine. Millar says,

"The conquest of the Transjordan is held up as an example of the way things should be done."20

Moses would not have portrayed the defeat of Sihon and Og as a paradigm for obedience if it had

not been genuine obedience.

The final two instances of Israel's obedience find their command in Deuteronomy and

their fulfillment in Joshua. The first is the command to occupy the land promised to Abraham,

Isaac, and Jacob (Deut 1:21; see also Exod 33:1, 3). This command is fulfilled in Joshua 3-8,

21:43-45, and 23:14-15.21 The latter two passages refer to Yahweh's fulfillment of his promises

to the forefathers, and yet, these passages affirm that it was Israel who "took possession" of the

land. Joshua 3-8 tells the stories of the early conquest of Canaan, and this conquest was the

means by which Israel obeyed Yahweh and took possession of the land. Joshua 8 concludes with

20J. Gary Millar, Now Choose Life: Theology and Ethics in Deuteronomy (Downer's Grove: Intervarsity; Leicester, England: Apollos, 1998), 69.

21Jeffrey Townsend, "Fulfillment of the Land Promise in the Old Testament," Bibliotheca Sacra 142, no. 568 (1985): 329.

the renewal of the covenant at Mount Ebal, which is the final demonstration of Israel's

obedience. The command to build an altar at Mount Ebal and write the words of the law on

stone pillars is given in Deuteronomy 27:1-8. From "uncut stones" to offering sacrifices on the

altar, Joshua, and by extension Israel, obeyed each detail of this command. Perhaps there are

other instances of obedience within the life of Israel, but these will suffice for the present

discussion.

These simple instances of Israel's obedience give one the criteria by which to

determine that Israel's obedience was genuine. First, Israel responded to an initiative of Yahweh.

Barker points out several verses in chapters 1-3 that employ some form of the phrase, "The Lord

said to me" (Deut 1:42; 2:2, 9, 17, 31; 3:2).22 Each verse demonstrates that Yahweh has involved

himself in the life of Moses, and by extension, in the life of Israel. In some places, this initiative

of Yahweh takes the form of a command (Deut 1:21; 2:19). Other references to God's initiative

involve God's covenantal promises to the patriarchs. Scholarship generally agrees that God

would fulfill his covenantal promises unconditionally.23 Therefore, these promises were the

overriding initiative that God set forth in order to call his people to obedience. In the few cases

described above, Israel's obedience is genuine because it was the response to God's initiative.

Secondly, Israel's obedience is genuine because it demonstrates a dependence on

Yahweh. Since each instance of obedience above carries with it the idea of God's initiative, for

Israel to follow through in obedience indicates that they were in some way, though perhaps a

minor way, trusting Yahweh. When Israel was commanded to leave the sons of Ammon alone,

that command was prefaced with, "the Lord said to me." When Israel was commanded to enter

22Barker, Triumph of Grace, 41.

23See Walter Kaiser, "The Promise Theme and the Theology of Rest," Bibliotheca Sacra 130, no. 518 (1973): 135-138 for an example of the promise theme in the Old Testament.

the promised land, they were told that this movement from the wilderness was a result of God's

promises to the patriarchs. When Israel was commanded to defeat Sihon and Og, they were told

that Yahweh has given them into their hand. The worship at Mount Ebal was intended to give

Israel an opportunity to recognize the greatness of God, particularly in his giving them the law.

Each time Israel obeyed, its obedience was in response to either a direct command of Yahweh or

an implicit initiative by Yahweh. Therefore, when Israel obeyed, at least in these instances, they

were respectful and fearful enough of Yahweh and his commands to carry out his revealed

desires.24

One more thing should be said about the nature of Israel's obedience. Israel's

obedience is only sporadic and temporary.25 One does not have to read far after each of the

above instances of obedience to realize that Israel was not entirely faithful. One example is the

command to enter the land and conquer the people of Canaan. Israel failed to dispossess the

Gibeonites, and in Judges 1:21-36, one learns that seven of the twelve tribes of Israel failed to

completely drive out the inhabitants of their respective territories. As it pertains to obedience to

the law of God, Israel was consistently disobedient. The first thing Israel did at Sinai was to

build an idol as a false representation of Yahweh (Exod 32). Almost immediately after the death

of Joshua, Israel began to make covenants with the surrounding nations and intermarry with

them (Judg 2:1-3; 16:4ff.). Both of these actions were forbidden in the law. Israel's obedience

was not only sporadic, but it was also temporary. None of these instances of Israel's obedience

indicates that it had experienced the necessary change of heart that is required for perfect

24Millar argues that fear is a vague term for obedience in Deuteronomy since Israel is on an ethical

journey. The author cannot explain obedience any further than abstract terms like fear, serve, love, etc., because this Law will continually be reinterpreted in new situations. See Millar Now Choose Life, 45. See also Grisanti, "Was Israel Unable to Obey," 192, and Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005), 586.

25Barker, Triumph of Grace, 125.

obedience (Deut 30:6). Therefore, Israel's obedience was not permanent.

The record shows that Israel was rampantly disobedient, and it is understandable that

many scholars conclude that Israel was unable to obey Yahweh. However, there are at least four

instances mentioned above that evidence Israel's obedience. The sporadic and temporary nature

of Israel's obedience does not rule out the fact that their obedience was genuine. They acted in

response to the initiative of Yahweh and thus demonstrated at least some fear of Yahweh.

It appears there is a contradiction in the book of Deuteronomy. Israel is unable to obey; yet,

Israel genuinely obeys at times. The next section will answer how Israel was able to obey in

light of their drastic tendency to disobey.

Deuteronomy 30:14

The key to understanding how Israel was able to obey in light of their apparent

inability is found in Deuteronomy 30:14. Deuteronomy 30:11-14 is part of the larger section

beginning in 30:1. 30:1-10 is undoubtedly oriented in the future. The temporal yKi clauses in

30:1-3 and 10 point to the future. In addition, the use of the Hebrew imperfect indicates

incomplete action, and here, probably refers to the future.26 Therefore, 30:6, when Yahweh

circumcises the hearts of Israel, is clearly future-oriented. Some scholars extend this future

outlook into vv11-14, saying that the word on Israel's heart and in her mouth is the

eschatological torah written on their hearts in the new covenant.27 The arguments that 30:11-14

deal primarily with the future are strong, and they will not be completely disregarded here.

However, there is also a sense that the word is near Israel in the present. The use of the word

26Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A.E. Cowley (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2006), 316, §107i; Paul Jouon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew trans. and rev. T. Muraoka, (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2000), 2:366, §113b.

27Barker, Triumph of Grace, 182-98; Grisanti, "Was Israel Unable to Respond," 194; Steven R. Coxhead, "Deuteronomy 30:11-14 as a Prophecy of the New Covenant in Christ," WTS 68, no. 2 (2006): 306-8.

"today" indicates that Deuteronomy 30:11-14 refers to the present.28 The word ~Ay occurs 167

times in the book of Deuteronomy, and at least forty-seven of those occurrences are used with

the definite article to indicate present time ("today"). Of the forty-seven occurrences of ~AYh;,

twenty-seven of them are used with some form of hw:c.mi or hwc. Deuteronomy 30:11 is one of

the examples where the definite article is used on ~Ay in conjunction with the hw:c.mi/hwc word

group. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that there is also a present aspect to 30:11-

14.29 Millar captures both the future and present ideas well when he says, "Ultimately divine

action is necessary for the consistent fulfillment of the spirit and letter of the law. In the

immediate present Israel is equipped to 'choose to serve Yahweh'."30 Israel is unable in the

present to obey Yahweh indefinitely and therefore vv11-14 look forward to the future day when

Yahweh will circumcise Israel's heart, enabling permanent obedience. However, in light of

Israel's obedience prior to its new heart in the eschaton, one can also see in 30:11-14 the

explanation for Israel's present obedience.

Divine Presence in Deuteronomy

Israel is able to obey by means of the presence of God near the people of God. The

presence of God that enables obedience is manifested primarily through the "word" that is on

Israel's heart and in its mouth (Deut 30:14). Peter Vogt has made a convincing argument that the

28Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, 404, §126b.

29J. Gordon McConville, Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 137; Coxhead, "Deuteronomy 30:11-14," 308 n12.

30McConville and Miller, Time and Place, 82.

presence of God in Deuteronomy is displayed in torah.31 Additionally, Goldingay presents the

idea of the "narrative presence of God" in the Old Testament.32 Combining these two ideas, this

section will argue that Israel was able to obey because they had the genuine presence of God in

their midst by means of the narratives of Yahweh's mighty acts and the consistent public

declaration of the Torah.

Divine Presence in the Torah Peter Vogt uses Deuteronomy 4 to combat the idea of "demythologization" in

Deuteronomy. According to Vogt, Deuteronomy 4:7-8 and 4:32-34 place an emphasis "on

Israel's unique experience of Yahweh's nearness and their status as recipients of Torah."33 He

goes on to say that 4:7-8 and 4:32-34 are linked, and thus, "the sense here is that the nearness of

Yahweh and the Torah are closely related."34 Vogt argues that this connection is so close that

"Yahweh's immanent presence is firmly established through Torah. He is not 'relocated' but is,

rather, present in some way through Torah – the manner that he, as the unique God, has

chosen."35 If Vogt's arguments are true, then he is implying that the presence of God is with the

people of God in a very real and unique way, namely, through the torah. Since the torah was

given, both at Horeb, and now again at Moab, the torah was near them, and in fact, Deuteronomy

30:14 indicates the same. Therefore, if one understands Vogt correctly, one can conclude that

Yahweh's presence in Deuteronomy is with Israel by means of the torah.

31Peter T. Vogt, Deuteronomic Theology and the Significance of Torah: A Reappraisal (Winona Lake,

IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 113-59.

32John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology: Israel's Faith (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), 99.

33Vogt, Deuteronomic Theology, 129.

34Ibid.

35Ibid., 130.

Although Vogt's arguments are convincing, he does not speak specifically to the

situation in Deuteronomy 30:14. The question now stands, Is the "word" on Israel's heart the

torah? The connection must now be made between the word on Israel's heart and the torah in

order to conclude that this "word" in 30:14 is representative of the presence of God. Barker

argues that Deuteronomy 1:1-5 links history with law, and that "Moses' words are identified with

yahweh's words and are identified with torah (v5b)."36 Therefore, as early as the introduction to

the book of Deuteronomy, Moses' words are linked to torah. Throughout Deuteronomy, when

Moses speaks of the statutes, commands, rules, ordinances, etc., he is speaking of Yahweh's

torah. Barker also observes in 29:28 that the "revealed things" are sufficient for genuine

obedience and are best interpreted by 30:11-14.37 The revealed things are best understood as the

immediate context of Deuteronomy.38 Braulik has done an extensive analysis of the word ~yrIb'D>

and concluded that it parallels the "commandment" in 30:11. He says, "Both [terms] refer to the

whole legal corpus, including parenesis."39 Coxhead says that the "commandment" in 30:11-13

refers to the whole of the Mosaic law.40 He claims that the "word" of Deuteronomy 30:14 is the

"Mosaic commandment or torah" that is expressed in 30:11.41 In conclusion, the whole of the

Mosaic law is summed up in the term "commandment" and this term is parallel to the "word" on

Israel's heart in 30:14. Therefore, one is correct to see the "word" on Israel's heart as the torah.

So far, we have determined that the presence of God is in torah, and that this torah is

36Barker, Triumph of Grace, 13-4.

37Ibid., 139-40.

38McConville and Millar, Time and Place, 82.

39G. Braulik, "Die Ausdrucke fur Gesetz im Buch Deuteronomium, Biblica 51, no. 1 (1970): 45-9, cited and translated in Barker, Triumph of Grace, 183 n472.

40Coxhead, "Deuteronomy 30:11-14," 314.

41Ibid.., 318.

the "word" that is near Israel. The logical conclusion is that the presence of God was near Israel

in Deuteronomy 30:11-14, and therefore, Israel was enabled to obey. The next step in the

argument is to show exactly how God's presence was in torah. Vogt's conclusions are solid, but

he regularly says that Yahweh's presence is in the torah "somehow."42 Goldingay presents the

idea of the "narrative presence" of God, and this form of God's presence explains Israel's

obedience.

The Narrative Presence of God Goldingay defines the narrative presence of God as his presence "in the telling of the

story of the great acts whereby God created the world, brought Israel into being and has

delivered it over the centuries."43 This idea of the presence of God not only helps one

understand exactly how Yahweh was with Israel, but it also provides the motivation for their

obedience. The narrative presence of God is found in both the historical and legal sections of the

torah, and therefore, to the degree that Israel encounters either the narratives of God's mighty

acts or the commands of God, it encounters the divine presence.44 Janzen summarizes this idea

…the word Torah embraces both the provision of Yahweh's law and the narration of Yahweh's saving acts. Law and story are two modes of one and the same agency: the Torah of Yahweh's life-giving action. (As such, Torah – especially given its placement in the ark – can be taken as a form of Yahweh's saving presence in Israel's midst.) Correspondingly, belief in the story and obedience to the law are two modes of one appropriate covenant response."45

42Vogt, Deuteronomic Theology, 129, 130.

43Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, 99.

44Ian Wilson, "Divine Presence in Deuteronomy," TB 43, no. 2 (1992): 403-6.

45J. Gerald Janzen, "The Yoke That Gives Rest," Interpretation 41, no. 3 (1987): 261-2 [italics mine]; see also James A. Sanders, "Torah and Christ," Interpretation 29, no. 4 (1975): 372.

Gordon Wenham has written an insightful book, entitled Story as Torah.46 In this

work, Wenham uses literary critical theory to show that the genre of prose/narrative always

intends to portray a didactic message. The narrative is not for the sake of story-telling alone, but

the narrative is "implicitly didactic, because it involves the reader's imaginative involvement."47

Although Wenham uses literary material from modern fiction, he applies this theory to the Old

Testament. He says, "…the Old Testament books do have a didactic purpose, that is, they are

trying to instill both theological truths and ethical ideas into their reader."48 Wenham not only

thinks that the Bible has this didactic purpose, but he says that the didactic potential of biblical

literature is seen most clearly in historical narratives. He says, "It is evident that historical

writing makes a much stronger claim on its readers than fiction: this is what really happened and

is important, is at least implied by every historian."49 Particularly related to the Old Testament,

Wenham argues,

As far as the Old Testament is concerned, despite modern scholars' doubts about their historical reliability, there is no doubt that most of the Old Testament narratives claim to be historical and were read that way by their first readers. Because these accounts profess to be dealing with the historical origins and later experiences of the nations, they were doubtless perceived by their readers as having intrinsic authority. Therefore, to identify their ethical norms and values should clarify their didactic purpose.50

Wenham's work is helpful for understanding how Yahweh's presence could be near

Israel in the torah. If the torah encompasses the entirety of history and law, and if the historical

narratives have the particular ability to present a didactic message, then it seems that as Israel

46Gordon J. Wenham, Story as Torah: Reading the Old Testament Ethically (Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T

Clark, 2000).

47 Wennham, Story as Torah, 12.

48Ibid., 3.

49Ibid., 12

50Ibid., 13.

continually repeats its story to subsequent generations, it will encounter the presence of Yahweh

anew. The narrative presence of God is both the proper method of experiencing the presence of

Yahweh and the motivation for genuine obedience.

The narrative presence of God is seen most clearly when Israel rehearses its history

and/or reads and recites the law. Since the presence of God is found in torah (and the associated

narratives), it follows that Israel would experience the presence of God as they memorize and

declare the stories of their history (Deut 6:6-7). Israel is commanded to "teach" Moses' words to

their children and to those who are going over the Jordan (Deut 4:10, 14; 6:1, 7-9; 11:19-20;

31:12-13, 19). Moses tells Israel that when children ask the meaning of these statutes and rules,

they should repeat to them the history of Israel beginning with slavery in Egypt and ending with

the exhortation to obey (Deut 6:20-25).51 In addition, the Deuteronomic legislation indicates the

importance of repeating the torah. Deuteronomy 31:9-13 recounts Moses' legislation on the

reading of the law. It is to be read at regular intervals, in the presence of the people of Israel, and

for the purpose of learning "to fear the Lord your God" (Deut 31:10; 12a; 12b-13 respectively).52

The legislation for the king (Deut 17:14-20) and for the prophets (Deut 18:9-22) also points to

the importance and appropriateness of Israel continuing to hear its story. Millar says that the law

of the prophets indicates that "[Yahweh] will keep speaking; it is the work of Israel to keep

listening."53 Finally, Israel's tendency to forget is evidence that it is proper for them to continue

51Block, says that this passage is set in the context of everyday living instructions (in "The Grace of

Torah," 4). Therefore, the idea of teaching the children should be part of normal daily instruction.

52Millar, while speaking of Deuteronomy 31:9-13, says it was a "necessity that Israel re-enact the decisions at Horeb, Moab, and Shechem at each and every moment of their national existence" (McConville and Millar, Time and Place, 84).

53Millar, Now Choose Life, 129. Millar sees the idea of "journey" as central to Deuteronomic theology. The prophets would expound the Torah for Israel in future generations as the life and situation of Israel changed. Therefore, as Israel continued on its journey, the prophets would have been a necessary office if Israel were going to continue to experience the presence of Yahweh.

hearing their narrative history. Millar says, "God's people, then, must immerse themselves

totally in the atmosphere of the divine word, because they need to counter their innate tendency

to forget. All kinds of visual and memory aids are necessitated by their weakness."54 Peter

Vogt, after examining the work of J.P. Sonnet, concludes, "It seems that there is an important

relationship between receiving the words of Yahweh and passing them on."55 The passing on of

Israel's history and Yahweh's commands is the means by which Yahweh's presence is

experienced and perpetuated in Israel.

Not only is the perpetual passing on of the narratives of Israel the proper method to

maintain the presence of Yahweh, but the proper motivation for Israel's obedience is also found

in the narratives of Israel's history. The argument so far has stated that because Yahweh's

presence was with Israel in the narration of the torah, Israel was enabled to obey. Obedience and

narration of the torah are linked in this way, namely, as Israel tells its story of the mighty acts of

Yahweh, it are portraying the true character of Yahweh, which elicits enough fear to cause Israel

to obey, and enough faith to believe the promises of this great God. Several passages indicate

that telling of Yahweh's mighty acts should be the motivating factor in Israel's obedience. First,

Deuteronomy 1-3 is probably the most extensive rehearsal of Israel's history in the Pentateuch.

Moses portrays an accurate history of Israel, including their failures. However, whether

describing Israel's obedience (Sihon and Og), or describing Israel's failure (spies), Moses paints

the picture in light of God's great character. In Deuteronomy 4, Moses then gives a strong

exhortation to Israel to obey the commands of Yahweh. Moses places within his exhortation

remarks that "your eyes have seen" and "you heard the sound of words" (Deut 4:3, 9, 12). In

54Ibid., 166-7.

55Vogt, Deuteronomic Theology, 156.

other words, the indicative about who God is and what he has done for Israel is intended to be

the motivation for the imperative that Israel might obey the commands of Yahweh.56 Chapter 4

then ends with Moses' introduction to the law, and he again alludes to the defeat of Sihon and Og

in order to bring to mind Yahweh's great act in giving these two kings into Israel's hand. The

indicative is motivation for the imperative.

Secondly, Deuteronomy 10:12-13 link fear of God with obedience. The narratives

evidently have the capacity to elicit enough fear to enable obedience. As Israel regularly heard

of the wonders of Yahweh, they would have sporadically and temporarily experienced a genuine

fear that led to obedience. The link in 10:12-13 with the fear of God follows the narrative of the

new tablets of stone (Deut 10:1-11). Moses does not explicitly appeal to Yahweh's mercy for

preserving Israel, but surely, Israel would have remembered Moses' intercession when he was on

the mountain forty days and forty nights (Deut 10:10). This remembrance would have brought to

Israel's mind the true character of Yahweh as merciful and patient. After this recognition, Israel

would have the proper motivation for obedience, namely, fear of God elicited by the character of

God. Once again, the presence of God in the narrative of his people was the motivating factor

for commanding Israel to fear Yahweh.

Thirdly, Deuteronomy 29:1-2 rehearse the history of Israel mentioning the things the

Lord did in the land of Egypt, the tl{doG>h; tASM;h;, ttoaoh', and ~ylidoG>h; ~ytip.Moh;. Grisanti says

56Gerhard von Rad, "Ancient Word and Living Word," in From Genesis to Chronicles (Minneapolis,

MN: Fortress Press, 2005), 92. Von Rad uses the term "paraclesis" to describe Deuteronomy. He says that the indicative that the promises of God would in fact stand is what leads to the imperative, namely, Moses exhorting obedience. Diepold also says, "The reality of the covenant enables the indicative and the imperative to fully unfold one another, to that the indicative does not become cheap grace, but also so that the imperative does not degenerate to works-righteousness" [my translation]. Peter Diepold, Israels Land (Stuttgart, Germany: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1972), 100.

that these verses echo Exodus 19:4 where Moses gives the "divine rationale for the Law."57 In

Deuteronomy 29:1-2, as well as in Exodus 19:4, Moses refers to the history of Israel in order to

motivate them to obedience.58 Deuteronomy 29:6-7 recall the defeat of Sihon and Og once again

as the motivation for present obedience. Deuteronomy 29:8 makes the connection clear with the

vav-consecutive and the perfect to indicate a resulting exhortation (~T,r>m;v.W).59 Therefore, the

command to obey in 29:8 is couched in the historical narrative of Israel.

Finally, Joshua 24:2-13 rehearses God's mighty works on Israel's behalf as motivation

for obedience. This narrative precedes the statement, "Now therefore, fear the Lord and serve

him in sincerity and in faithfulness." (Josh 24:14a). Once again, the idea of fear is linked to

obedience following a motivating narration of Israel's past. Space will not allow us to mention

the times when the reading of God's law elicits obedience (2 Kgs 22:8-23:27; Neh 8-13), but

these passages also demonstrate that the history of Israel and the regular reading of the law are

proper motivations for obedience.

This section has sought to show that Israel was able to obey because the presence of

God, in the recitation of the law and the narration of Israel's history, was the proper means and

motivation for obedience.60 The final issue to address is whether this understanding of

obedience is legitimate. In order to demonstrate that it is, we will compare the Moab covenant

and the new covenant, especially regarding the nature and extent of obedience.

58Ibid. Grisanti says, "This historical summary serves as a motivation for action (cf. Deut 1:30-32; 11:2-7)."

59Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, 335 §112aa.

60Contra Moshe Weinfeld who says, "…the chief incentive employed by the deuteronomic school to induce the nation to observe its teaching is the concept of national reward," in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1972), 307.

Moab Covenant and the New Covenant

The key to understanding the nature of Israel's obedience throughout its history is to

recognize the similarities between the Moab covenant in Deuteronomy 29-30 and the new

covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:22-32. As previously demonstrated, the Moab

covenant involved the presence of God among his people in the torah and the narratives of

Israel's history. In the new covenant, however, the presence of God is not only among his

people, but it dwells within them.61 Ezekiel 36:27 says, "And I will put my Spirit within you and

cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules." It seems that the means for

obedience in the new covenant is that the Spirit of God (presence of God)62 is near his people

(within them), similarly to how the torah (presence of God) was near Israel in Deuteronomy

30:14. In both covenants, this presence of God was the means and motivation for obedience.

Deuteronomy 30:1-10 actually looks forward to this future day with the concept of circumcision

of the heart. It is reasonable then to view Deuteronomy 30:14 as a picture of the new covenant at

least, and at most, a seminal form of the new covenant. The presence of God enabled and

motivated obedience under both covenants.

Further similarities between the Moab covenant and the new covenant will solidify

this understanding of Israel's obedience. First, both the Moab covenant and the new covenant

look forward to a fuller fulfillment. Deuteronomy 30:6 indicates that Israel is looking forward to

61Weinfeld says that with the law written on the hearts, it will not be "enforced from without through

learning and indoctrination which could be forgotten or put out of mind, but would be implanted in a man's heart so that it would not depart from the heart and not be forgotten," in Weinfeld, "Jeremiah and the Spiritual Metamorphosis of Israel," Zeirschfirt fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 88, no. 1 (1976): 26.

62Thomas McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 89.

the day when Yahweh will circumcise their hearts, enabling permanent obedience.63 Israel was

able to obey in Deuteronomy 30:14, but perfect and continual obedience was lacking. Likewise,

the new covenant awaits the return of Christ as its final fulfillment.64 Jeremiah 31:31-34 and

Ezekiel 36:22-32 speak of a transforming work of God on the inner nature of believers, but

neither passage indicates that this inner renewal occurs before the Second Advent of Christ.

Barker summarizes the link between these two covenants well. Speaking of Deuteronomy 30:6-

8, he says,

Perhaps an eschatological perspective is helpful here. The New Testament makes it clear that the circumcision of the heart is associated with identification in Christ's death and the giving of the Spirit [i.e., the new covenant]. Yet it is also clear that Christians do not yet perfectly love and obey. Perfection belongs to the eschaton. However, with the giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the eschaton has broken into the current age. The changing of the heart by Jesus' death and the giving of the Spirit is a guarantee of perfect obedience in the end. This is the end of a process called sanctification, rather than the immediate result of a single action. This perspective of a gradual process is not apparent in Deuteronomy 30. It anticipates the one future event, guaranteeing perfect obedience.65

Therefore, neither the Moab covenant, nor the new covenant enables perfect obedience. Rather,

both covenants look forward to a day of future fulfillment. Moab looks forward to the new

covenant and the guarantee of perfect obedience whereas the new covenant looks forward to the

Second Advent of Christ when its guarantee will become a reality.

Another similarity is that obedience in both covenants was ultimately a matter of faith.

Sailhamer argues that the author of the Pentateuch "seized on the Abrahamic narratives" in order

63Millar, Now Choose Life, 182. He says, "The complete fulfillment of Deuteronomy 30 remains

elusive, and will do so until the day of God's final intervention in human history, when finally we shall be able to live in the way God requires, to love him with heart and soul and strength."

64Walter Kaiser, "The Old Promise and the New Covenant: Jeremiah 31:31-34," JETS 1, no. 1 (1972): 20. He says, "…only in the eschaton will God's presence dwell fully with men."

65Barker, Triumph of Grace, 178 [italics mine]. See also Adrian Schenker, "Unwiderrufliche Umkehr und Neuer Bund: Vergleich zwischen Dt 4:25-31,30:1-14, Jer 31:31-34," Freiberger Zeitschrift fur Philosophie und Theologie 27, no. 1-2 (1980): 106. When comparing the two covenants he says, "The Deuteronomistic theology stands under the centrality of change and reconstitution that will definitely happen. Jeremaic theology leads to the circumcision of the heart,… and is the new creation, combining God's will and thinking."

to show that "'keeping the law' means 'believing in God.'"66 His general conclusion is that faith

is the primary means of any form of obedience. Similarly, Grisanti argues that God grants the

ability to see and understand to those who have faith in God and are given this ability by God's

initiative.67 Under the Moab covenant, faith was granted to those who heard the narrative torah

and were given eyes to see the didactic purpose of the story.68 Only then does the actual

presence of Yahweh in the torah become apparent and effective. Under the new covenant, the

presence of God is only given to those who have faith. Once again, these two covenants are

more similar than one would originally think.

The final similarity is that both covenants only enable temporary, sporadic obedience.

Under the Moab covenant, Israel had moments of genuine victory, but these moments were

fleeting at best. Under the new covenant, the Apostle Paul did the very things he did not want to

do, and was unable to do the things he wanted to (Rom 7:7-25). Therefore, there is a continual

battle that believers must fight until the day that the guarantee of perfect obedience becomes a

reality. For Israel, sporadic obedience came through the recitation of its history, causing fear and

dependence on the Author of that story. For new covenant believers, sporadic obedience comes

through a deep dependence on the presence of God's indwelling Spirit.

One more note should be added about the similarities between these two covenants

regarding disobedience. If the Moab generation and new covenant believers have been given the

ability to obey, then why did neither Israel, nor do new covenant believers obey? The God-given

66Sailhamer, "The Mosaic Law," 254.

68Hamilton, ("God With Men in the Torah," 124) says, "We can therefore conclude that some Israelites who saw the fire and heard the voice (Deut 4:36) were hardened like the Egyptians. Others, perhaps most, experienced a temporary desire to obey (Deut 5:23-27) but had not been given a heart to carry through on their earnestness. But for at least Moses, Joshua, Caleb, Aaron, and Miriam, and probably a small percentage of the population at large, faith came by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

ability to obey does not guarantee the willingness to obey. In fact, the Deuteronomic term,

@r<[o-hveq. indicates a lack of willingness rather than a lack of ability. Van der Woude says,

"The image derives from cattle used as draft animals, whose power seems to be concentrated in

the neck. Whoever resists the yoke is "hard-necked."69 The cattle certainly have the ability to

follow the one whose hand is on the yoke, but they are inherently stubborn and unwilling. In the

Moab covenant, as in the new covenant, the lack of obedience is a product of human

unwillingness rather than inability.70

Conclusion

In light of the previous discussion, there is still no doubt that Israel displayed rampant

disobedience throughout its history. However, where Israel did obey, one must discover how it

was enabled to do so. This paper has intended to show that Israel was able to obey in exactly the

same manner that new covenant believers are able to obey. God's people obey by means of his

presence near them. Under the Moab covenant, God's presence was in the narration of the torah,

both history and law. Under the new covenant, God's presence indwells believers. Both

covenants present obedience as sporadic and temporary, yet hopeful for the day that obedience

will be perfected.

This study has not shown conclusively that Israel's obedience was to the law. The

examples used within this paper indicate that Israel obeyed in particular historical circumstances.

Perhaps the examples of Israel's obedience in this paper could be connected to the law in some

way, but it is my thought that the sporadic nature of Israel's obedience does not include

69A.S. van der Woude, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, vol. 3 eds. Ernst Jenni, Claus Westermann, Mark E. Biddle, trans. Mark E. Biddle (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), s.v. "qesheh."

70The thought that humans are able to obey but unwilling is found in Jonathan Edwards, "A Careful and Strict Inquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of that Freedom of the Will," in The Works of Jonathan Edwards vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 3-93.

obedience to the law. More work will have to be done in this area, particularly distinguishing

Israel's obedience in general from Israel's obedience to the law. This distinction also helps to

maintain the purpose of the law, namely to expose sin rather than to bring salvation through

perfect obedience.

This paper has also intentionally omitted a discussion about the connection between

the "word on the heart" in Deuteronomy 30:14 and the "law on the heart" in Jeremiah 31:33.

Part of the reason for leaving out this connection is mentioned in the previous paragraph. There

seems to be a distinction between obedience in general and obedience to the law. The fact that

Jeremiah mentioned the hr"AT explicitly could indicate that Jeremiah is referring only to an

obedience to the law. Even under the new covenant, believers do not obey the law. Law-

righteousness under the new covenant comes through faith in Christ, who is the te÷loß no/mou

(Rom 10:5). This understanding of law-righteousness is similar in the old covenant, but with its

own nuances. However, the space is not available here to investigate this particular connection

between the two covenants.

Although Israel's obedience was not necessarily obedience to the law, it was still

genuine. Therefore, one must not discount the fact that Israel did obey. God's presence enabled

and motivated Israel's obedience. Likewise, God's presence enables and motivates new covenant

believers to obey. Obedience cannot create purity, and therefore all of God's people look

forward to the day that Yahweh will create new hearts in his children. Only then, after the

initiative and work of God, will we be able to obey perfectly.

Deuteronomy 30:14 as an Explanation for Israel's Sporadic Obedience

Documents