Sunday, February 27, 2022

Notes from Donald E. Hartley, The Wisdom Background and Parabolic Implications of Isaiah 6:9-10 in the Synoptics

  

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)