The Book of
Job. Job uses לֵב twenty times and לֵבָב nine times along these lines.
First, it is the place of hidden thoughts (10:13; 17:11), intentions (34:14), a
firm resolve (41:24), and the origination of both unspoken (1:5; 22:22) and
spoken (8:10) words. Second, it can be used for evaluating someone or something
(1:8; 2:3) or beneficent love (7:17). Third, it is the moral compass (27:6) and
where either uprightness resides (33:3), including the desire to get right with
someone (11:13), or godlessness (36:13). Fourth, it is susceptible to deception
derived through the senses, especially the eyes (15:12; 31:7, 9, 27). Fifth, it
is the locus of emotions such an unhealthy fear (23:16; 37:1) or joy (29:13).
Job also embodies explicit
concepts of wisdom in keeping with the Deuteronomic notions mentioned the earlier.
First, Yahweh is ontologically-functionally ‘wise in heart’ (9:4)
whereas men are not (37:24). Second, unlike volition, the לֵב/לֵבָב by itself
may substitute as a metonymy for ‘wisdom’ or one of its effects such as
perception, knowledge, or understanding (12:3; 34:10, 35; 36:5). Thus to ‘take
away heart’ (to deprive one from understanding [12:24]) or ‘hide’ one
from שֵׂכֶל ‘understanding’ (17:4) is the act where Yahweh refuses to grant
administrative wisdom (but it is not limited to this function elsewhere).
Third, it is God who puts wisdom (חָכְמָה) “in the inward parts” (בַּטֻּחוֹת)
but “gives perception [בִינָה] to the mind [לַשֶּׂכְוִי].” These latter concepts
harmonize well with Deut 5:29 and 29:3[4] which refer to Yahweh’s right to
deprive whomsoever of wisdom, salvific or otherwise. It testifies then to the
congenital absence of such.
The final cause of granting wisdom
is mot often a functional one, but the granting of wisdom itself is ontological
and gratuitous in nature.
A few passages deserve further
comment. Job 12:20 says, “He causes the speech of the trusty to turn
aside [מֵסִיר ‘turns aside’] he takes away [יִקָּח] the
taste/discernment of wisdom (of whatever kind) from ‘taking away’ implies depletion
of wisdom (of whatever kind) from these elders. But several non-depletive
interpretations may be given. First, ‘take away’ may refer to the death of
counsellors. Thus he does not take away the discernment from within the
elders but from the hearing of the people they advise by taking away the
elders in death. If depletion is involved it is the depletion of life (cf.
12:2). Second, God may stop supplying wisdom to individual elders in the sense
he holds back wisdom from reaching them (cf. 12:15; 38:36). Again, this would
not necessitate depletion but deprivation. Third, the verbs ‘turns aside’ the
lips and ‘takes’ understanding of the elders might be construed as from the
people (not elders), complimentary indicating the advice given to the
people is no longer issue and focusing on the source of wisdom (God). The
emphasis may fall entirely on the external.
Job 12:24 says, “He turns aside [מֵסִיר]
understanding [לֵב] from the leaders of the people of the land and causes them
to wander in the wilderness where there is no way. The verb for ‘turn aside’
may mean ‘take away’ in the sense of depletion as in Ezek 11:19 where
God takes away the bad, that is, the stony heart and replaces it with the good,
that is, a heart of flesh (Ezek 36:36). But nowhere is this verb used for
depleting the good from within man. An alternative rendering is based on the
root of this verb ‘to deviate’ and may refer to God’s withholding if
further wisdom as a deviation of sorts. God ‘turns aside’ wisdom from reaching
the destination of man’s heart or from reaching the leaders through other
sources. This would flow well with 17;4 where God ‘hides’ wisdom for it is he
who imparts of refuses to impart wisdom (Job 38:36). Thus God ‘turns aside’
wisdom by removing the continual giving or suspending it for a time. In either
case, there is no antecedent cause given for why God does this.
Job 17:4 says, “For you have hidden
[צָפַנָתָּ] their heart from understanding [מִּשָּׂכֶל].” Job is
referring to his three friends Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. The central point
is not what type of wisdom is here designated but that God withholds
understanding and controls whom possesses it. The divine act of hiding may be
by withholding what has never been there or ceasing to give what
has been given up to this point. For whatever wisdom they do possess, they
still lack this wisdom—and most likely ab initio. There is little in Job
that demands that God ‘takes away,’ ‘turns aside,’ or ‘hides’ wisdom by
subtraction from within. It is much more likely that he does so by deprivation
from without. (Donald E. Hartley, The Wisdom Background and Parabolic
Implications of Isaiah 6:9-10 in the Synoptics [Studies in Biblical Literature
100; New York: Peter Lang, 2006], 115-17)
Apparent
Exceptions to the Evil Heart. The heart (לֵב) is also depicted
in a non-negative sense. Although there are no positive occurrences in Genesis,
Exodus mentions a ‘glad’ heart (functional), a ‘willing’ heart (functional),
a heart ‘stirred up,’ (functional) a ‘generous’ heart (functional),
a ‘wise’ heart that is filled with the spirit/wind of wisdom (ontological-functional),
a heart stirred up in wisdom or simply a ‘wise’ heart (ontological-functional),
and includes various references to Yahweh giving or not giving wisdom and a new
heart, or putting something into the heart. The other term for heart (לֵבָב) is
depicted as one with Yahweh’s words inscribed on it, that seeks God (Deut 4:29)
has ‘integrity’ (in parallel with ‘innocent hands), is the ‘undivided’ heart,
with which one is to love God (6:5), and an ‘upright’ heart, that is ‘soft’ and
‘tender,’ a ‘good,’ ‘glad,’ and a ‘turning’ heart. All of these latter usages
are functional. Whenever an explicit cause of the positive notion of the
heart is mentioned and this involves in some way an ontological aspect, it is
the result of the divine activity, not a latent ability. The functional may nor
may not involve the divine initiative.
Yahweh’s benevolence is depicted
in Deut 5:29, “Oh that there were such a heart in them, to fear me and to keep
all my commandments everyday so that it would be well with them and their
children.” The expression “Oh that there were such” (מִי-יִתֵּן, 5:29; 28:67)
occurs in desiderative sentences (Qal imperfect tense form) suggesting a wish
for a situation that is not present. However, some argue that it is an
expression of divine agreement with the previous verse. Yahweh reportedly
expresses a wishful desire for this present obedience to be the case now and in
the future. He longs for them to always have such a heart that pledges
obedience as they presently do. In this view, ontology is set aside and
the function is emphasized. Furthermore, it is limited to a specific
people at a particular time. But there is good reason to set aside this
interpretation.
The following expression seems to
go beyond the mere verbiage of that generation to the core of the issue. The phrase
(מִי-יִתֵּן) occurs twenty-five times in the Qal imperfect tense form in the OT
and in every case it conveys a presently-contrary-to-fact wish. The
sense is best expressed as, “Despite your apparent obedience, Oh I wish you presently
had a heart that really fears me but you do not.” In other words,
they presently lack a heart that fears him or keeps his
commandments—it is a heart, therefore, that lacks wisdom. This is an excellent
case where functional obedience is distinguished from ontology and
where temporary obedience is no sign of possessing the new heart. A functional
view is resolutely refuted by this usage because their obedience is met with presently-contrary-to-fact
statement regarding their ontology not function. But since this addresses,
in retrospect, the previous wandering generation, it does not necessarily
represent the current audience of Moses. Given this, who can doubt that this
‘obedience’ is transitory? This statement cautions against inferring from
functional obedience the presence of the new heart. The explanation for those
wanderings is depicted in ontological-functional rather than functional
categories. Since they lack this type of heart apart from the divine
initiative, it stands to reason that all men of all time also lack this type
of heart apart from the divine initiative (Deut 29:3[4]). They may evidence
instances of obedience, but this does not imply they have a type of heart that
produces these from its ontology (or nature).
Later he tells the subsequent
generation to “circumcise” (functional) the foreskin of their heart and
to stop being stiff-necked” (Deut 10:16). That this command is impossible for
them to complete in some permanent way (as illustrated above) is
confirmed later when it is noted that Yahweh himself must circumcise (ontological-functional)
their hearts else they would not (and could not functionally) obey him
(Deut 30:6). So although the command to ‘circumcise’ the heart is purely functional,
the divine activity and remedy is presented in terms of the ontological-functional
category. Thus a functional ought does not necessarily imply an
ontological can. In the meantime (‘unto this day’), Yahweh does not give
them a heart to know, eyes to see, and ears to hear (Deut 29:3[4]). They are deprived
of the new heart or the heart of wisdom that produces fear of Yahweh and
obedience to his law (ontological-functional). Yahweh expresses a
benevolent love in regard to the obedient heart (Deut 5:29) but he does not
demonstrate beneficent love in giving it (Deut 29:3[4]) to the wandering
generation. They see and hear the great wonders in their deliverance from Egypt
but they do not really see, hear, or understand the significance. Events that
transpire before their eyes remain noetically ‘mysterious’ due to the
lack of the divine initiative. The logic of the passage seems to imply that
some (at least) of the present generation, whom Moses addresses, do possess
this understanding.
Up to this point, the heart it
shown to be depicted in terms of cognition (wisdom) and volition ( rebellion),
from the aspect of function or ontology, particularly, or universally, and
within a particular time or all times. The cognitive and volitional aspects of
the heart are never entirely separate. Both can be depicted as purely
functional issues (thinking foolishly or acting rebelliously) but when
addressing the heart certain texts appear to identify its ontology and thus
suggests an ontological-functional category. The key in construing
hardening texts in general is identifying which psychological aspect of the
heart is primarily in view, that is, the volitional (Pharaonic) or noetic
(Isaianic). Pharaonic hardening focuses mostly on volition where rebellion
is paramount. Isaiac fattening focuses on cognition where wisdom is
predominant. Wisdom is only slightly breached in Exod 4-14 as volition is in
Isaiah. However, one should not assume Pharaonic hardening and Isaianic
fattening refer to the same thing. (Donald E. Hartley, The Wisdom Background
and Parabolic Implications of Isaiah 6:9-10 in the Synoptics [Studies in
Biblical Literature 100; New York: Peter Lang, 2006], 107-14)