Response to Steve Hays on Deuteronomy 30



Steve Hays continues to question the way translators have rendered Deuteronomy 30:14.  (link)  His primary reason seems to be the flexibility of the Hebrew, not some problem with the translators’ contextual analysis and selected rendering.  That’s like questioning most translations simply because they are translations. 

I had said: Other translations render it “so that you may do it”. While may sometimes means permission as in “mother may I” or uncertainty, as in “it may rain”, neither of these senses make sense of the verse. It’s not as if God is now removing sanctions against morality, or guessing if they will obey or not. Rather, may is equivalent to “can” and expresses ability or capacity.

Steve responded: "May" doesn't have the same nuance as "can."

Agreed, but I already walked through why this usage of “may” expresses ability rather than uncertainty or permission.  You can’t destroy the building in front of you by saying buildings have to be built.

I had said: No doubt accessibility and intelligibility are part of why the Jews are able to obey, but they are not the only factors. In particular, when the passage says the word is in their heart, it teaches the enablement runs deeper than having the written law. Men love darkness rather than light; so the issue isn’t just in our understanding, it’s in our desire or heart. So when God enables His chosen and redeemed people to obey, the enablement is internal rather than just external.

Steve responded: That it's in their "heart" is just a picturesque way of saying they know it. Bible writers often favor concrete images over abstract nouns. The "heart" stands for man's mental life. So that's still about accessibility and intelligibility rather than enablement.

Once the statement about “ability” has been overlooked, no doubt the rest of the analysis of the verse will suffer.

Steve said: As I demonstrated, the text isn't about individual choices, but the aggregate choices of a corporate body (Israel), where the majority effectively chooses for the minority, in spite of the minority.

This goes well beyond Steve’s previous statement that, “The passage isn’t confined to individual blessing and bane, but primarily concerned with collective blessing and bane”.  While it’s true that the passage has a collective aspect; it’s wrong to deny it has an individual aspect.  Steve’s one good step here was a springboard into a mistake.

God often singles out individual sinners for punishment, or individual righteous for reward like  Joshua and Caleb entering the promise land, or God’s allowing Lot to escape or Rahab. Also group punishments are not always based on a collective choice or a vote.  Take original sin or Akin as examples; one sinned, yet the majority suffered.  This shows we should not confused collective rewards and punishment, with collective choices, since individual choices can have ramifications for one’s whole family or nation.  So while Deuteronomy 30 may have an aspect of national blessing or curse, it does not discuss a vote. 

Also, Paul’s use of this passage in Romans 10 shows the passage has an aspect that runs deeper than national Israel.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more