Was Israel Unable to Respond to God? A Study of Deuteronomy 29:2–4

By Michael A. Grisanti

[Michael A. Grisanti is Associate Professor of Old Testament, The Master’s Seminary, Sun Valley, California.]

In light of various Old Testament passages (as well as the New Testament’s emphasis on the newness of the Holy Spirit’s ministry after Pentecost), some writers have suggested that God commanded Old Testament Israel to do certain things for which He did not provide special enablement. In a word Israel was “doomed to fail.” Deuteronomy 29:4[1] affirms that in spite of all God’s many acts of faithfulness toward Israel, the nation failed to understand the larger purposes of His action. The reason seems to be that God had not given them “a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear.” This article seeks to demonstrate how God’s far-reaching demands of His chosen nation cohere with passages that imply to some that Israel was unable to live in accord with those expectations. Did Yahweh enable Israel to fulfill His expectations of them, or did He leave them on their own for that task? And how does Deuteronomy 29:4 relate to this problem?

The Context of Deuteronomy 29:2–4

The Book of Deuteronomy begins with an overview of God’s dealings with His covenant nation from their time at Mount Sinai through their encampment on the plain of Moab (chaps. 1–4). Chapters 5–26, the heart of the book, address the requirements of Israel’s covenant with Yahweh. In chapters 5–11 Moses repeated the Ten Commandments and called the nation to lead a life of absolute loyalty to their covenant Lord, and in chapters 12–26 he detailed some of the specific covenant stipulations God demanded of His people. In chapters 27–28 Moses set before his fellow Israelites the potential consequences of their conduct: blessing for obedience or cursing for disobedience. Then in chapters 29–30 Moses challenged them to renew their commitment to this covenant relationship with Yahweh.[2] These two chapters are a call for Israel to ratify the covenant that had just been presented in chapters 5–28.[3]

In chapter 29 Moses reminded the Israelites of God’s faithfulness to them demonstrated in the Exodus and in His care for them throughout their pilgrimage to the land of promise (vv. 2–9). Moses also challenged them to renew their commitment to Yahweh (vv. 10–15) lest they become objects of His wrath (vv. 16–28).

This call to covenant renewal, like several exhortation sections in the book, begins with a historical overview (vv. 2–9).[4] The entire nation had seen and experienced Yahweh’s miraculous power that delivered His people from Egyptian bondage and brought them through the barren wilderness (vv. 2–3). During that lengthy wilderness wandering He had supernaturally provided for their physical needs (vv. 5–6). After the nation arrived in the Transjordan, God delivered Heshbon and Bashan into their hands (vv. 7–8). In light of these many demonstrations of His faithfulness, Yahweh deserved nothing less than their total allegiance (v. 9).

An Overview of 29:2–4

Israel’s inability to keep the covenant represents the key issue that serves as the occasion for chapters 29–30.[5] The “argument from history” in 29:2–9 (also noted in 4:35–40; 7:7–11; 8:2–6) includes these commands: remember what Yahweh has done (29:2–3, 5, 6b–7), know what this implies (vv. 3, 5), and then apply this by keeping His requirements (v. 8).[6] This appeal for obedience based on personal experience occurs several times throughout the book (e.g., 4:35–40; 6:10–19, 20–25; 11:1–9).

Yahweh’s Miraculous Activity on Israel’s Behalf (vv. 2–3)

As is typical in Deuteronomy, God’s exhortations to Israel regarding the covenant are preceded here by a reflection on His acts of deliverance in bringing them out of Egypt.[7] Moses’ reference to what Israel had seen Yahweh do on their behalf in Egypt (29:2–3) echoes Moses’ words when Israel was encamped at the base of Mount Sinai, where he explained the divine rationale for the Law: “You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings, and brought you to Myself” (Exod. 19:4).

This historical summary serves as a motivation for action (cf. Deut. 1:30–32; 11:2–7). God’s intent was for Israel to witness His powerful deeds when He delivered them from Egypt and to trust Him to guide them throughout the wilderness and to give them victory over the Canaanites.[8] Deuteronomy 1 reports Israel’s earlier failure to trust Yahweh even though He had performed great miracles before their eyes.[9] The repetition of the verb “to see” and of the noun “eyes” emphasizes that God’s people had personally witnessed what He had done on their behalf. For this new generation, some of whom had not witnessed those events in Egypt or at the Red Sea, Moses made it clear that this indictment for failing to trust Yahweh was not simply based on hearsay evidence from some previous generation. God had continued to intervene miraculously in Israel’s affairs even after the rebellion at Kadesh-Barnea. In spite of this the nation continued to lack the spiritual perception they should have had.

Israel’s Inability to Perceive Yahweh’s Ultimate Purposes (v. 4)

The rebuke presented by this verse is powerful for several reasons. While the verb “to see” in verses 2–3 refers to those acts of divine intervention that Israel saw with their “eyes,” the reference in verse 4 to eyes that do not see presents an abrupt contrast. Also remembering God’s activity on their behalf immediately precedes and follows verse 4 in verses 2–3 and 5–8. This triad of heart, eyes, and ears occurs in only one other place with a similar significance. In Isaiah 6:10 God told Isaiah that the Israelites would generally not be responsive to his message.[10] The repetition of these three “organs” provides an emphatic statement of Israel’s inability to understand God’s dealings with them.

A “heart to know.” In addition to referring to the physical organ, the heart often signifies “the seat of understanding and knowledge”[11] or the “organ of understanding.”[12] The noun ב or בָב occurs fifty-one times in Deuteronomy and in general proximity with the verb “to know” in five other passages (4:39; 8:2, 5; 13:4; 18:21). Deuteronomy notes exactly what God’s people were supposed to know. In 29:6 Moses affirmed that Israel’s experience in the wilderness wanderings took place “in order that you might know [יָדַע] that I am the Lord your God.” In 4:35 Moses declared that God had delivered Israel out of Egypt by means of powerful deeds and that “to you it was shown that you might know [יָדַע] that the Lord, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” In 4:39 he added, “Know [יָדַע] therefore today, and take it to your heart [בָב] that the Lord, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.” In 7:9, Moses, referring to those same events, commanded Israel, “Know therefore that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments.” These and other passages affirm that God expected His people “to understand and acknowledge that the one they know as the Lord, who has acted powerfully, redemptively, and providentially in their history, is God and God alone.”[13]

However, according to 29:4, God did not give them “a heart to know”[14] (cf. 8:2–5).[15] Later prophets declared that the day is coming when Yahweh will give Israel “a heart to know.” Through Jeremiah God affirmed, “I will give them a heart to know [יָדַע] Me, for I am the Lord; and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart” (Jer. 24:7).

“Eyes to see.” In addition to being organs for physical sight and hearing, the eyes and ears refer to “the capacity of moral and spiritual perception (Is. 6:10; 32:8).”[16] The expression “before your eyes” occurs eleven times in Deuteronomy, seven of which refer to important covenant acts performed for Israel’s benefit. These acts include His delivering Israel from Egypt (Deut. 1:30; 4:34; 6:22), Moses’ breaking the tablets (9:17), Moses’ exhortation for Joshua to be courageous (31:7), the miraculous deeds performed by Moses (34:12), and Israel’s future experience of covenant curses (28:31). The combination of the verb “to see”[17] and the noun “eyes” refers to Yahweh’s defeat of Sihon and Og (3:21), His judgment on the Israelite rebels at Baal Peor (4:3), His deliverance of Israel from Egypt (4:9; 7:19; 11:7; 29:2–3), and the future experience of covenant curse (28:32, 34, 67). Throughout Deuteronomy references to eyes and seeing consistently highlight acts of divine deliverance and providential care. Weinfeld writes that this repeated emphasis on “seeing” and “eyes” served “to implant in his listeners the feeling that they themselves have experienced the awe-inspiring events of the Exodus.”[18] There is no doubt that this seeing was not an end in itself, but rather a means to an end. In 29:4 Moses heightened the contrast between what Israel saw physically and what they perceived (or did not perceive) spiritually. Although the Israelites saw the many miraculous activities of Yahweh on their behalf (v. 2), they did not really “see” what He was doing because He had not given them eyes to see (v. 4; cf. Jer. 5:21).[19]

“Ears to hear.” Although the “ear” is not often referred to in Deuteronomy (5:1; 15:17; 31:11, 28, 30; 32:44—all but 15:17 for physical hearing), the command “to hear” occurs abundantly in the book (ninety times, and most frequently in chapters 4, 5, 28, and 30). Moses repeatedly exhorted God’s chosen people to listen to and heed the voice of God, that is, His instruction and teaching embodied in the commandments, statutes, and ordinances that constituted the Mosaic Law.[20] Also, when this verb occurs in covenant contexts, to hear Yahweh meant to obey Him.[21] The addition of “ears” to make up the triad of “heart,” “eyes,” and “ears” seems to provide emphasis to God’s statement.[22] Yet He had not given His people “ears to hear.”

“To this day.” Israel’s inability to perceive had lasted “to this day,” Moses wrote.[23] By using this expression Moses made his audience aware that this problem of spiritual perception was not just an issue that plagued the previous generation that died in the wilderness.[24] It continued as a problem of national significance for those camped on the plains of Moab. Sadly the events of the Exodus and the wilderness wanderings had not led Israel to understand Yahweh’s ultimate purposes for them.

Israel’s penchant for rebellion and imperceptiveness to Yahweh’s dealings was not new. In Moses’ first speech (chaps. 1–4) he demonstrated that seeing is not the same thing as believing. Their witness of God’s stupendous deliverance of them from Egypt did not prevent His people from outright rebellion at Kadesh-Barnea (1:19–46). What God had done “there and then” seemed to have no impact on them “here and now.” Even in 29:6 God said that He had delivered and cared for them “in order that you might know [יָדַע] that I am the Lord your God” (cf. 4:35; 7:9; 9:3). Yahweh wanted His people to know (in a way that would transform their lives) that He alone is God. Although Deuteronomy shows that Israel, for the most part, was a rebellious nation, the central point of 29:4 is that God gives or does not give His people the ability to understand what He has done, is doing, and will do for them as His covenant nation. According to this verse the Israelites still lacked “the moral understanding that can produce right action.”[25]

In the wake of Moses’ detailed presentation of covenant blessings and cursings (chap. 28), chapters 29–30 delineate Israel’s need to renew their commitment to this covenant relationship with Yahweh. In 29:2–8 Moses reviewed God’s miraculous intervention on Israel’s behalf. In verses 9–14 Moses called the nation to covenant renewal. Then after describing a potential future experience of covenant curse (vv. 16–28), he looked forward to a time after they had experienced covenant curses, when God’s nation would return to Him, their Suzerain (30:1–10). Moses then exhorted Israel to choose obedience and life rather than disobedience and death (vv. 11–20). In light of this context at least two points seem inescapable. First, Israel’s renewed commitment to the Mosaic Covenant was absolutely necessary. Second, a day is coming when God will make His entire nation able to do all that He demands of them. However, the problem is whether God enables or does not enable the nation to obey Him in the centuries preceding the eschaton.

Debated Point and Interpretive Options

In the immediate sense the near context shows that Israel was responsible for their lack of spiritual perceptivity. The contrast between 29:2–3 and verse 4, especially in light of the repetitious use of the verb “to see” and the noun “eyes,” highlights this. Although Israel had physically seen what Yahweh had done, they failed to understand the far-reaching significance of His activity and to have “a proper understanding of what has been witnessed.”[26] He held them responsible for their lack of spiritual perception.

Yet in the ultimate sense, verse 4 affirms that God had not given Israel the ability to perceive the full significance of His dealings with them. How is it that God can demand that Israel love Him with all their heart and then fault them for failing to do so, when He Himself had not given them “a heart to know, eyes to see, and ears to hear”? If God alone can enable people to understand the significance of His activity on their behalf, how can He hold them accountable for not understanding what He does? Does God’s demand for wholehearted obedience and understanding contradict His refusal to enable His people to do just that?[27]

As Millar writes, “although God has done much for Israel (e.g., vv. 5–8 [MT 4–7]), it seems here that he has not as yet done that which they needed most (see also 29:25–28 [MT 24–27].”[28] Scholars have offered several resolutions[29] to this question.

View one: Israel had been unable to grasp the significance of Yahweh’s activity, but now they were able to do so

Begg says 29:4 indicates that in the Exodus Israel was unable to perceive the significance of God’s activities; so He provided the wilderness experience “as a supplementary measure.”[30] In this view verse 4 is not making a broad statement about Israel’s spiritual condition at the time of their encampment at Moab (or later). (Begg concludes that the expression “until this day” signifies Israel’s prewilderness condition, before the nation was changed by their wilderness wanderings.) As Nelson puts it, “Now that Moses has promulgated the law and encouraged obedience to it, the implications of older memories can finally be grasped. Israel’s past inadequacies are behind it; now it can obey the covenant (v. 8 [ET 9]).”[31]

Now with Moses’ presentation of the Law, Israel could understand the larger issues behind God’s activity. Cairns, who dates chapters 29–30 to the exilic period, suggests that “to this day” would be better rendered “from this day,” pointing out that the intended realization or perception of Yahweh’s larger purposes at last dawned in the exilic period.[32] Hall suggests that verse 4 implies that until Moses’ day (when Israel was encamped on the plains of Moab), God had not given them the expected understanding.[33] Like the Exodus, Israel’s wilderness experience did not make them fully aware of God’s ultimate purposes. However, the message of Deuteronomy opened the eyes of the nation to the far- reaching significance of His dealings with them.

Whether this ability to perceive God’s workings occurred in the wake of Israel’s wandering or Moses’ exposition of the Law or was the result of various historical events leading up to the time of the Exile, proponents of this view do not regard this statement as an affirmation of God’s refusal to give His people the ability spiritually to discern His purposes.

View two: A Statement of Reality: Israel was Insensitive to god

Proponents of this view readily admit that Israel did not possess sufficient spiritual insight to appreciate God’s activity on their behalf. However, they do not regard the statement “God has not given to you” as a clear reference to a divine refusal to provide Israel with this demanded insight. In this regard Manley and Harrison affirm, “In attributing such incapabilities to God, the Hebrew lawgiver is merely following Old Testament traditions generally in relating everything to Him as the ultimate source or ground of existence.”[34] Several Jewish commentators also do not regard this reference to divine causality in a literal fashion, but affirm that it emphasizes that God is the ultimate cause of all things, or that it is a pious figure of speech or a rhetorical question (“Didn’t God give you a mind, eyes, and ears”).[35]

Craigie points out that the biblical text gives the reader a clear understanding of the divine perspective. However, an Israelite living in the midst of the complexities and challenges of life would not automatically have that perspective.[36] Wright suggests that this verse reflects a Hebrew language feature “in which events and processes that today would be expressed as consequences of human choices are attributed to God’s active will. The sovereignty of Yahweh encompasses even those things that oppose Him.”[37] The emphasis Moses placed on the need to understand the significance of God’s activities demonstrates his desire that Israel come to possess that insight.[38] At this point Israel as a nation still lacked this “knowledge,” that is, “the moral understanding that can produce right action.”[39] In other words Deuteronomy 29:4 merely provides a statement of reality, not something God actually withheld.

View three: Israel Was Incapable of Genuine Trust and obedience (until Yahweh establishes the New Covenant)

Building on the view that 29:4 provides a realistic statement of Israel’s spiritual condition, some scholars contend that Israel was incapable of genuine covenant conformity throughout her history, until God will give them a new heart, that is, until He establishes the New Covenant with Israel in the eschaton.[40] In the centuries between Moses’ day and that future day, Israel was and is unable to live up to God’s expectations.[41] Under the New Covenant He will again demand the loyalty of His people, “but this time He [will] place within them the desire and ability to remain loyal to Him.”[42]

In his comments on 2 Corinthians 3:6, “the letter kills, but the Spirit makes alive,” Hafemann contends that apart from the transforming work of the Spirit (which he believes did not exist in the Old Testament), the “letter” (i.e., the Law) “kills.”[43] He affirms that “those encountered by the Law cannot obey it due to their hardened hearts (cf. e.g., Exod. 32:9; Deut. 29:4, 19. ..).”[44] Although the Law declares God’s will, the Law is totally powerless to enable people to keep it.[45] The potential for “life” will occur when the New Covenant is established and the “new” spirit is given (Ezek. 36–37). The problem Paul addressed in 2 Corinthians 3 was not the Law God gave His people. Instead it was the condition of Israel’s heart. “Although the covenant was renewed, Israel’s hearts remained ‘stiff-necked,’ so that the covenant could not be kept (cf. Deut. 29:2–4). From its very beginning, therefore, the old covenant of the Law without the Spirit implicitly looked forward to the time when the Law would encounter a people whose hearts had been changed and empowered to keep God’s covenant.”[46]

In this view the primary contrast made by 2 Corinthians 3 between the old and new covenants does not lie in the nature of the covenants themselves or in a new definition of the “remnant” people of God. Instead it contrasts the role of the Law in both settings.[47] For example it is not until the completion of Christ’s redemptive work that Old Testament circumcision became “circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:25–29; Col. 2:11).”[48] In other words according to this view until the time of the New Covenant Israel was spiritually unable to live in accord with God’s covenant expectations.

View Four: Israel’s Failure Was ultimately God’s responsibility

In this view Deuteronomy 29:4 refers to God not giving the nation the ability to obey Him until some future day. Therefore He set up Israel for failure from the very beginning. In his brief overview of the theology of the Pentateuch, Wells contrasts the Abrahamic theme of obedience with the Sinaitic theme of disobedience. What the people of the Sinai Covenant had failed to do, Abraham had been able to do. Israel manifested continued unfaithfulness to the covenant. Israel was “an ensconced failure.”[49]

In the wake of various acts of rebellion Yahweh shifted from a faith-oriented expectation (as with the patriarchs) to a Law-oriented way of dealing with Israel, expecting nothing but failure from His people.

A Proposed Fifth View: Yahweh Sovereignly Provides Spiritual Perceptiveness to Those Who Trust Him

Yahweh said He gives an understanding heart to His children who trust Him but not to those who rebel against Him.[50] Individual Israelites received this spiritual perception when they genuinely entered into the covenant relationship with God by faith.[51] This view does not place the initiative or total responsibility on the Israelites.[52] Rather, it integrally links the reception of the ability to discern with a faith relationship with Yahweh. The statement in 29:4 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. Reference to what Yahweh had not given Israel does not excuse them from having spiritual discernment. Instead it demonstrates that their hard-heartedness was so deep-seated that no human power or effort could remedy it.[53] Moses did not deny that the Israelites had knowledge of Yahweh’s action on their part. Moses affirmed that they had not yet fully realized that God was “the ultimate directive and operative power in all their national life.”[54]

Moses also affirmed that the only thing that would produce this understanding was a total commitment to the Lord in the covenant treaty. The solution to the tension between Yahweh not giving His people the ability to understand His miraculous activity on their behalf and His expectation that they should do that rests in the spiritual condition of the Israelites. God grants insight to the Israelite who lives in wholehearted covenant conformity, but He withholds that understanding from a rebellious Israelite.[55] For an Israelite who is imperceptive, that is, whose “seeing” and “hearing” are dulled, no amount of observing divine activity on their behalf would occasion true understanding.

Four factors support this view: (a) the Old Testament motif of a remnant, (b) the national focus of Deuteronomy 29–30, (c) the nature of the Mosaic Covenant, and (d) the Old Testament presentation of an inner spiritual reality (not just as a theoretical possibility but also as a practical reality). These four points are discussed on the following pages.

The Old Testament concept of a remnant. Israel’s penchant for rebellion and unbelief was the reason they did not understand the ultimate significance of Yahweh’s repeated acts of faithfulness for them. Sadly this was true throughout Israel’s history. In a passage that closely mirrors the wording of verse 4 God told Isaiah that Israel would be imperceptive during his ministry as well (Isa. 6:9–10; cf. Rom. 11:8). Nevertheless even Israel’s ever-present rebellion could not frustrate God’s commitment to His covenant. As Merrill points out, “For though the nation as a whole might reject his overtures of grace, a remnant would believe, and that would be the nucleus of his salvific purposes (Isa. 10:20–23; Rom. 9:27–28; 11:1–7).”[56] Unlike many of their kinsmen, some individual Israelites had a genuine faith relationship with Yahweh and were living in wholehearted conformity to Yahweh’s covenant demands.

The national focus of Deuteronomy 29–30. In these chapters, as in the rest of the book, Moses had in mind the nation of Israel as his audience. Although the address switches between singular and plural pronouns,[57] Yahweh’s expectation of the nation and the fate or destiny of the nation were always in view. The Mosaic Covenant was made with the entire nation (Exod. 19:7–8).[58] The blessings and curses of Deuteronomy 28 were not predicated on a given individual’s conduct but on the aggregate whole of the nation. When the nation was characterized by covenant conformity, they would experience blessing, and when they were guilty of not keeping the covenant, they would receive cursing. Moses opened chapter 29 with a call for “all Israel” to listen to his message. Since the Mosaic Covenant was established between Yahweh and Israel, the instructions throughout Deuteronomy always had the nation in mind (though not to the exclusion of individual Israelites).

The nature of the Mosaic Covenant. How can one avoid the conclusion that Deuteronomy 29:4 indicates that the divine provision of “a heart to know, eyes to see, and ears to hear” will not happen until centuries after the time of Moses (via the New Covenant)? The answer lies in the “nature” of the Mosaic and New covenants. Although Yahweh established this covenant with the entire nation Israel (Exod. 19:7–8), not all the Israelites who made up that nation were believers. After this covenant was established, each new generation of Israelites automatically became participants in it by virtue of their physical birth and/or circumcision.[59] Because the majority of Israelites were unregenerate, “they were enslaved by their confirmed, sinful dispositions of enmity against God.”[60] Consequently not only did they fail to live in accord with Yahweh’s covenantal expectations, but they also were absolutely unable to do so (Rom. 8:7). As Jeremiah wrote, “The sin of Judah is written down with an iron stylus; with a diamond point it is engraved upon the tablet of their heart” (Jer. 17:1). “Judah’s sin was so deeply ingrained that it was as though its sin had been engraved with an ‘iron tool’ (cf. Job 19:24), with a ‘flint point,’ an instrument used to carve inscriptions on stone.”[61] Only when Yahweh writes His law on their hearts (what Huey calls “radical surgery”)[62] will Israel be able to avoid rebellion and live in genuine submission to His demands. The promise of the New Covenant later in Jeremiah refers to that very phenomenon (Jer. 31:31–34).

It is essential to notice a key difference between the nature of the Mosaic Covenant and that of the New Covenant. Since the Mosaic Covenant included believing and unbelieving Israelites, participating in that covenant did not necessarily include an internal conformity to Yahweh’s requirements. God’s Law was not written on the heart of an Israelite as a necessary or automatic part of participating in the Mosaic Covenant. Israel’s perpetual hard-heartedness (Ps. 95:8; Ezek. 3:7; Zech. 7:12), stiffened neck (Deut. 9:6, 13; 10:16; 31:27; 2 Kings 17:14; Jer. 7:26; 17:23; 19:15), and stubbornness (Neh. 9:29; Isa. 30:1; 65:2; Jer. 6:28; Hos. 4:16; 9:15; Zech. 7:11) make this reality abundantly clear.

Although the Mosaic Covenant was external in nature, it would be incorrect to conclude that it had nothing to do with an Israelite’s internal disposition. After giving the Ten Commandments to Moses, God exclaimed, “Oh, that they had such a heart in them, that they would fear Me and keep all My commandments always, that it may be well with them and with their sons forever!” (Deut. 5:29). Biblical spokesmen reminded God’s people that He looks on the heart (1 Sam. 16:7), the Law must be kept with the heart (Prov. 3:1), the heart determines the issues of life (4:23), and having the Law in one’s heart brings delight in God’s will (Ps. 40:8).[63] The “problem” or deficiency of the Mosaic Covenant was the fact that, by its very nature, it encompassed unbelievers as well as believers. Not until the inauguration of the New Covenant will every participant in this covenant relationship have internal spiritual reality.[64]

An internal spiritual reality for God’s people. When Moses summarized Yahweh’s expectations of His covenant nation, he affirmed that God wanted them “to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and love Him, and to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the Lord’s commandments and His statutes” (Deut. 10:12–13). This statement of God’s expectations of Israel does not preclude specific laws, but it places the focus on the need for obedience from the heart.

The “loyalty language” of Deuteronomy (some of which is in 10:12) also gives abundant evidence that Yahweh’s demands of His covenant nation were primarily internal. Moses utilized various “covenant” verbs to refer to the multifaceted nature of God’s expectations of His people (fear, keep, serve, love, etc.).[65]

Chapters 5–11 of Deuteronomy do not delineate specific covenant requirements as much as they call Israel to a life of loyalty. What was in Israel’s heart was always at the center of Yahweh’s demands. Thus “a spiritual reality is at the very heart of the raison d’être of Israel.”[66]

Several Old Testament passages refer to the need for an internal spiritual reality among God’s people. Individual salvation in the Old Testament presupposed the idea of the “law in the heart.”[67] Yahweh places great value on a pure heart (Ps. 51:10 [Heb., 12]; Prov. 22:11) and a contrite heart (Ps. 51:17 [Heb., 19]; Isa. 57:15). He equated those who know righteousness with people in whose heart is His Law (Ps. 51:7). The psalmists (and numerous other Old Testament individuals) longed to observe God’s Law with their entire being (119:34). The psalmists also declared that God’s Law was in the hearts of His children (37:31; 40:8 [Heb., 9]). The psalmist delighted in God’s statutes (119:16, 47), longed for His precepts (v. 40), loved His commands (v. 48), took comfort in His ordinances (v. 52),[68] and found them the joy of his heart (19:8). Jeremiah 3:10 refers to a return to Yahweh as a change of heart (nationally). Jeremiah said repentance was an inner circumcision (4:4; 9:25–26). Doing anything with “all your heart and all your soul” required something more than external conformity (Deut. 4:29; 6:5; 10:12; 11:13; 13:3; 26:16; Josh. 22:5; 1 Sam. 12:20, 24). After giving the great Shema and the command for all Israel to love Yahweh wholeheartedly (Deut. 6:4–5), Moses exhorted his fellow Israelites, “These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart” (v. 6).

To have a correct understanding of this internal spiritual reality in the midst of abundant evidence of the hard-heartedness of the Israelites, the difference between “covenant” and “law” must be noted. The word “covenant” points to the existence of a prior relationship, whereas the word “law” emphasizes a set of requirements.[69] So it would be incorrect to regard covenant requirements as a “theology of demand,” because the Law does more than point to an external set of demands. Rather the laws of the covenant delineate the contours within which the covenant relationship operates. A person could never enter into a relationship with Yahweh by means of the Law.[70] In fact many Israelites enjoyed a relationship with Yahweh before the Law was given. “The very existence of the commandments as demand points to a relationship in which the demand is to be expressed.”[71] Yahweh always intended that His Law would have a place in the hearts (national and personal) of His chosen people (6:4–6; 11:18).[72]

Does the “newness” of the New Covenant demonstrate that God’s people who lived before its fulfillment had no inner spiritual reality? No, because, as already noted, many Israelites did have a genuine internal spiritual reality. The newness of the New Covenant is not that of a “new heart” in the sense of internal spiritual reality. What is fundamentally new in the New Covenant is that every participant in that covenant (unlike the Mosaic Covenant) receives this “new heart.”[73] The New Covenant may represent relational issues that are more comprehensive, more effective, more spiritual, and even more glorious than those in the Old Covenant.[74] However, not all those features are entirely new. One need not regard the internal features of the New Covenant as having had no existence among God’s people before the establishment of the New Covenant. In the same fashion the circumcision of the hearts of Israelites accomplished by Yahweh in the eschaton does not preclude heart circumcision from having taken place during Israel’s past.

Unlike the Mosaic Covenant, which was fallible (i.e, Israel could break that covenant), participants in the New Covenant cannot violate or breach the new arrangement.[75] The New Covenant does not have a “built-in” fallibility because, unlike the Old Covenant, only believers will participate in the New Covenant. Whereas only Yahweh remained faithful to His commitments in the Mosaic Covenant, both partners will live in accord with the blessings and demands of the New Covenant (i.e., be loyal).[76]

The following statements summarize these observations.

• Yahweh, Israel’s Suzerain, had repeatedly proved Himself faithful to His vassal nation Israel.
• In spite of Yahweh’s many miraculous deeds performed on behalf of His chosen people, Israel failed to understand the larger purposes of Yahweh.
• In the ultimate sense Israel was unable to understand fully God’s intentions for them because He had not enabled them to do so.
• God does not totally or exclusively withhold His provision of the “heart to know, eyes to see, and ears to hear” until the return of His chosen nation to the Promised Land and the establishment of the New Covenant with them.
• God could legitimately expect His people to be spiritually perceptive because He had given them the potential of enjoying an intimate relationship with Him through faith and because a number of Israelites possessed this “heart to know, eyes to see, and ears to hear.”
• In the wake of the presentation of covenant blessings and curses (occasioned by covenant conformity or disobedience, respectively), Moses’ reference to Israel’s continual failure is appropriate.
• The only way for Israel as a nation to live in accord with Yahweh’s expectations is for Him to give them this spiritual perception, a future event that will take place when “all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26; cf. Deut. 30:1–10).
• Individual Israelites who have a faith relationship with God have the ability to perceive the larger significance of God’s actions on the nation’s behalf.

Conclusion

In various parts of biblical history Yahweh held people and nations responsible for acts of obedience that they were not able to perform or acts of disobedience that they were not able to avoid.[77] Isaiah and Paul both point out that the clay is in no position to struggle against the will of the potter (Isa. 45:9–10; Rom. 9:19–20). Yahweh told Isaiah that he would preach to a nation of Israelites who would not perceive or accept his God-given message (Isa. 6:9–10).

Many Israelites possessed an internal spiritual reality in their life of faith. On the other hand many Old Testament narratives suggest that because of Israel’s lack of submission to the Lord as a nation, they deserved destruction.

In spite of seeing powerful demonstrations of Yahweh’s greatness and care for His people, a lack of spiritual perception often characterized Israel. Does Deuteronomy 29:4 mean that Israel was left without the ability to obey God genuinely and wholeheartedly until the coming inauguration of the New Covenant? Although the New Covenant introduces a significant change in the plan of God for the people of God, the ability to have an inner spiritual reality or to have spiritual perception does not await that future day. That verse correctly evaluated the nation in general. The reason God had not given this ability to perceive spiritually His activities for Israel’s benefit is that most of them did not enjoy a faith relationship with Him. This divine verdict about their lack of genuine perception should have led the Israelites to commit themselves wholeheartedly to this covenant relationship with Yahweh. If they did that, He would provide for them what He gave every believing Old Testament Israelite, a heart that understands, eyes that see, and ears that hear.

Notes

1. The versification of the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 29 and most English translations differs by one verse (e.g., verse 4 in English is verse 3 in Hebrew). This article follows the English numbering.
2. Scholars generally agree that chapters 29–30 have no parallel in similar ancient Near Eastern treaties (A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy, New Century Bible Commentaries [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979], 358–59). Regardless, this section clearly serves an integral role in Moses’ delineation of Yahweh’s covenant relationship with Israel, looking to Israel’s past, present, and future. It is commonly referred to as Moses’ third speech. Eugene Merrill points out that chapters 29 and 30 serve at least four purposes in the larger context of Deuteronomy: they provide a summation of God’s past dealings with Israel, restate the present occasion of covenant offer and acceptance, address the options of covenant disobedience and obedience respectively, and exhort the assembled throng to covenant commitment (Deuteronomy, New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994], 375).
3. Gary Hall, Deuteronomy (Joplin, MO: College, 2000), 431.
4. Peter Craigie points out that in the following verses Moses developed themes presented earlier in the book: (a) 29:2–3 and 1:30; 5:1; 7:17–19; 11:2–3; (b) 29:5–6 and 8:2–3; (c) 29:7–8 and 2:32–36; 4:34; 11:3–7 (The Book of Deuteronomy, New International Commentary on the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976], 356).
5. Timothy Lenchak refers to an exigence, that is, a need, that gives rise to a communication act (“Choose Life!”: A Rhetorical-Critical Investigation of Deuteronomy 28,69–30,20 [Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1993], 112).
6. Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 339.
7. J. G. McConville, Deuteronomy, Apollos Old Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), 414.
8. Hall, Deuteronomy, 432.
9. Although the terms “miraculous signs and great wonders” in verse 3 draw the reader’s attention to the ten plagues and Yahweh’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt, they may serve more broadly to refer to Israel’s pilgrimage from the time of their departure from Egypt to their present encampment at Moab (Paul Barker, The Triumph of Grace in Deuteronomy: Faithless Israel, Faithful Yahweh in Deuteronomy [Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2004], 117–18).
10. These anatomical terms occur together in three other passages. In Jeremiah 5:21 the prophet condemned God’s people as a “foolish and senseless [lit., ‘without a heart’] people,” and affirmed that they “have eyes but do not see [and] have ears but do not hear.” These three terms do not form a perfect triplet as in Deuteronomy 29:4 or Isaiah 6:9–10, but they do provide a near parallel. In Ezekiel 40:4 and 44:5 God addressed “the son of man,” exhorting him to give careful attention to what he would see and hear: “set your heart” or “mark well” (NET), “see with your eyes,” and “hear with your ears.” He was to understand thoroughly what Yahweh was about to reveal to him.
11. J. Ridderbos, Deuteronomy, Bible Student’s Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 264.
12. S. R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, 3rd ed., International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1901), 321.
13. Patrick D. Miller, Deuteronomy, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox, 1990), 205.
14. Herbert B. Huffmon suggests that the verb יָדַע serves here as a technical term for the legal recognition of treaty obligations and relationships (“The Treaty Background of Hebrew Yda,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 181 [February 1966]: 31–37). Although it may have that significance in certain contexts and this passage is clearly set against the backdrop of covenant, 29:4 has a spiritual emphasis rather than a legal one.
15. Deuteronomy 29:4 especially resonates with 8:2–5, which discusses Israel’s capacity to keep the covenant with Yahweh. In that passage Moses wrote that Yahweh had tested Israel (through the wilderness wanderings) to discern (יָדַע) what was “in their heart” (בָב; 8:2). He then exhorted them to “know [יָדַע] in your heart [בָב]” that Yahweh disciplines Israel as a father would discipline his son (v. 5). This inability to perceive also reminds the reader of 9:4–6, where Moses indicted Israel for a disposition to covenant treachery. In a similar fashion Yahweh wanted His chosen people to know (יָדַע) His purpose for wiping out the Canaanites. See Barker, The Triumph of Grace in Deuteronomy, 119, for several other words that are shared by 8:2–5 and 29:2–4.
16. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, 321.
17. The verb “to see” (רָאָה) occurs four times without “eyes” with similar emphasis (Deut. 1:19; 4:15; 29:2, 17).
18. Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 173.
19. “Heart” and “eyes” occur as parallel terms (without “ears”) five times in Deuteronomy (4:9; 11:18; 15:9; 28:65, 67), referring to the internalization of what is seen, taught, or heard.
20. Miller, Deuteronomy, 205. When followed by the noun “voice” (with a prefixed preposition ב this verb means “to obey,” that is, “to do what Yahweh says and wants” (nineteen times—4:30; 8:20; 9:23; 28:1–2, 15; 30:2, 8, 10, 20, etc.) (H. Schult, “שָׁמַע, to hear,” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. E. Jenni and Claus Westermann [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997], 3:1379).
21. Schult, “שָׁמַע, to hear,” 3:1379.
22. Lenchak suggests that several triads occur in Deuteronomy for emphasis (29:2, 3, 5–6, 23; 30:1–2, etc.) (“Choose Life!” 216–17).
23. This phrase occurs six times in Deuteronomy. In each case there is no indication that the situation lasting “until this day” was about to change or was in the process of changing (Barker, The Triumph of Grace in Deuteronomy, 118).
24. Of course those who date Deuteronomy to the seventh century B.C. (or later) would suggest that the writer/editor utilized this expression to point out that the same problem still existed centuries after the time of Moses (e.g., Ronald E. Clements, “The Book of Deuteronomy: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible [Nashville: Abingdon, 1998], 2:511). Although this expression seems to point to a time later than Moses in a few instances (3:14; 29:28; 34:6), it fits Moses’ day in most of its occurrences in Deuteronomy.
25. McConville, Deuteronomy, 415.
26. Lenchak, “Choose Life!” 158.
27. This tension between what God demands and what He provides also occurs twice elsewhere in Deuteronomy. In 10:16 He demands that His children circumcise their hearts, and in 30:6 He promised that after they returned from the Exile He would circumcise their hearts. For a brief treatment of this issue see Michael A. Grisanti, “Circumcising the Heart: Man’s Role or God’s (Deut. 10:16 and 30:6)?” (paper presented at the National Evangelical Theological Society meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, November 2003).
28. J. Gary Millar, “ ‘A Faithful God Who Does No Wrong’: History, Theology, and Reliability in Deuteronomy,” in The Trustworthiness of God: Perspectives on the Nature of Scripture, ed. Paul Helm and Carl R. Trueman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 14.
29. Various scholars contend that the solution to this tension lies in the “composition history and rhetorical technique of the book of Deuteronomy” (Mark E. Biddle, Deuteronomy [Macon, GA.: Smyth & Helwys, 2003], 438), that is, the book is the product of a long editorial process. Several scholars regard the entire book and this section in particular as stemming from a very late period in biblical Israel’s history (ibid.). See also Mayes, Deuteronomy, 359; E. W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967), 35–36; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 115–16, 145; Ian Cairns, Word and Presence: A Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy, International Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 255; and R. E. Clements, “Deuteronomy,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, 2:511. If this is true, then verse 4 represents an editorial aside and was not part of the reported speech of Moses. This verse would then express the later author’s disappointment in his people’s history. Peter J. Kearney also dates chapter 29 in the exilic period and views the chapter as a description of Israel’s history stretching from the time of Moses until beyond the Babylonian exile (“The Role of the Gibeonites in the Deuteronomistic History,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 35 [1973]: 6–7). The passage calls that exilic audience to renew their commitment to Yahweh. Some who date chapters 29–30 to the exilic period also associate this need for divine enablement with the promises made by Yahweh to Israel in the New Covenant (cf. Clements, “Deuteronomy,” 2:511).
30. Christopher Begg, “ ‘Bread, Wine and Strong Drink’ in Deut 29:5a, ” Bijdragen 41 (1980): 273.
31. Nelson, Deuteronomy: A Commentary, 340.
32. Cairns, Word and Presence, 255. Cf. Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), 179.
33. Hall, Deuteronomy, 433; cf. von Rad, Deuteronomy, 179. After making that point Hall adds the clause, “but now he has,” suggesting that in the time depicted in chapter 29 God had given Israel that understanding (ibid.). Hall contends that the phrase “to this day” refers to a reality that existed up to the present (from the speaker’s or writer’s perspective), but not through the present (Deuteronomy, 433 n. 7). However, the use of this expression in Deuteronomy does not support Hall’s interpretation. In several passages the phrase “to this day” simply refers to a present reality, something that was still true from the perspective of the speaker or writer (2:22; 3:14; 4:20; 10:8; 11:4; 29:28; 34:6, etc.). It normally does not signify that a change had taken place.
34. G. T. Manley and R. K. Harrison, “Deuteronomy,” in the New Bible Commentary, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 225.
35. J. Tigay, Deuteronomy, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 276.
36. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, 356.
37. Christopher Wright, Deuteronomy, New International Bible Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 286.
38. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, 356.
39. McConville, Deuteronomy, 415. McConville suggests that Moses may have simply meant that it would take time for Israel to realize how good and essential the laws of God were for a full life and how important it was for Israel to keep those laws (“Deuteronomy,” in New Bible Commentary, ed. D. A. Carson et al., 4th ed. [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994], 226). He suggests that this passage could raise the question of whether Israel would ever have the character to be a faithful covenant partner.
40. Miller connects the language of Deuteronomy 29:4 with Jeremiah 24:6–7; 31:31–34; and Ezekiel 36:26–28, which delineate the New Covenant and point to the future when Yahweh will give His people this ability to perceive (Deuteronomy, 206–7). Miller views Deuteronomy 29–30 as a “second covenant” that dates from the exilic period. “This second covenant reflects the people’s history of frequent failure and its devastating effects in loss of the land and exile. Up to this day, time and again the people of God have failed to know or understand, to see, and to heed. Now in this covenant it is suggested—nay, claimed—that God will have to give people knowledge, sight, and obedience” (ibid., 206 [italics his]).
41. Yahweh established this covenant with the nation Israel and not with individual Israelites. The consummation of this covenant will occur after Israel repents and is regathered to the land after Christ’s second coming.
42. Eugene H. Merrill, “A Theology of Jeremiah and Lamentations,” in A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Chicago: Moody, 1991), 355. William Dyrness writes that the New Covenant will overcome the tension between the external deed and the internal intent (Themes in Old Testament Theology [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1979], 141).
43. Scott J. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 180. He adds, “The Law pronounces both the covenant stipulations and their blessings, as well as the consequence for disobeying them, which under the Sinai covenant. .. is death” (ibid.).
44. Ibid., 181.
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid., 442.
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid., 442 n. 16.
49. M. Jay Wells, “Figural Representation and Canonical Unity,” in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect, ed. Scott J. Hafemann (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), 117–18.
50. As Wright suggests, “Hearts understand, eyes see, and ears hear only through the gift of God” (Deuteronomy, 286). See also Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 130.
51. Norbert Lohfink refers to a cultic act at which time Yahweh gives His people this spiritual perceptivity (Das Hauptgebot: Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungs-fragen zu Dtn 5–11 [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963], 128 n. 5). Although the Mosaic Covenant was made with the nation and entered into by national affirmation (Exod. 19:7–8), an individual’s embracing a faith relationship with Yahweh, rather than a cultic act, seems to be required for Yahweh to give the ability to understand.
52. Tigay affirms that the Talmud (Shabbat 104a) seems to teach that those who seek Yahweh receive God’s help. “When a person seeks to purify himself, he receives help in doing so” (Deuteronomy, 276).
53. Ridderbos, Deuteronomy, 264.
54. Earl Kalland, “Deuteronomy,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 179. See also Cairns, Word and Presence, 255; Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, 321; C. F. Keil, The Fifth Book of Moses (Deuteronomy), Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (n.p.; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 5:447; and J. A. Thompson, Deuteronomy: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1974), 279.
55. Hall, Deuteronomy, 433.
56. Merrill, Deuteronomy, 376. See Isaiah 32:3–4 and 35:4–5.
57. Scholars have debated the significance of this change in “number.” Apparently the plural was used to address the nation at large and the singular brought the exhortation down to the individual level. Although Israel was Yahweh’s covenant nation, the decisions by individuals to obey or disobey the Lord impacted the testimony of the entire nation.
58. Although this name is probably too firmly entrenched to change it, it would be preferable to refer to it as the “Israelite Covenant” since it was made with the entire nation and not with Moses (unlike the Noahic [made with Noah], Abrahamic [made with Abraham], and Davidic [made with David] covenants). This might prevent the mistaken notion that this covenant was established between Yahweh and Moses rather than between Yahweh and Israel.
59. Renald Showers, The New Nature (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1986), 33.
60. Ibid.
61. F. B. Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1993), 171.
62. Ibid.
63. Showers, The New Nature, 34.
64. Consequently as Wright points out, “the persistent and wholly culpable failure of Israel to make the right response to God and to live accordingly was indeed because the gift was not yet fully given” (Wright, Deuteronomy, 286 [italics added]). Not all Israelites have received this gift.
65. These terms occur as follows: 6:13—fear, serve, swear by His name; 8:6—keep, walk, fear; 10:12–13—fear, walk, love, serve, keep; 10:19–20—fear, serve, hold fast, take oaths by His name; 11:1—love, keep; 11:13—obey/hear, love, serve; 11:22—be careful to do, love, walk, hold fast; 13:4–5—love, walk, fear, keep, obey/hear, serve, cleave; 13:18—obey/hear, keep, do what is right; 19:9—keep, love, walk; 30:16—obey/hear, love, walk, keep; 30:20—love, obey/hear, hold fast.
66. Thomas E. Finch, “The Theology of Deuteronomy with Special Emphasis on the Implications of the Hittite Suzerainty Treaties” (Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1980), 354.
67. William J. Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old Testament (Sydney: Lancer, 1985), 91.
68. John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 1:380.
69. Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning, 90.
70. Ibid., 91. Dumbrell adds that in the Mosaic context “law was the relationship in operation” (ibid.).
71. William J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 123. Any attempt to keep the laws God required of Israel outside the parameters of a genuine covenant relationship represented meaningless and offensive conduct because it was external and ritualistic (see, e.g., Isa. 1:10–17).
72. Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning, 91.
73. Ibid., 78.
74. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 234.
75. Ibid., 90.
76. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 178.
77. This is seen in God’s use of Assyria, Babylon, and Cyrus to accomplish His purposes, after which He judged them for carrying out this divine mandate in pride and arrogance and not giving Him the glory. As pagans, they did exactly what their sinful hearts drove them to do, but they were still held accountable (whether or not they had the ability to have the attitude God required of them).