The Ordo Salutis And Monergism: The Case For Faith Preceding Regeneration, Part 1

By R. Bruce Compton

[R. Bruce Compton is Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature and New Testament Chair at the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Allen Park, Michigan.

This is the first article in a three-part series offering exegetical support for a Calvinist soteriology that places faith logically before regeneration. An earlier edition of this paper was presented at the 67th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta, Georgia, November 17, 2015.]

Abstract

The order of events in initial salvation has traditionally pitted Calvinists against Arminians. Calvinists support monergism by placing regeneration logically before faith. Arminians support synergism by placing faith logically before regeneration. Some Calvinists, however, defend monergism, yet place regeneration logically after faith. In connection with the effectual call, the Spirit illumines the lost in a temporary life-giving work so that the lost respond to the gospel in saving faith. Logically following conversion, the Spirit imparts a permanent life-giving work in regeneration. In support of the third position, this study examines the key Old Testament texts that juxtapose repentance or faith with regeneration. Parts 2 and 3 examine New Testament evidence, define illumination, and assess the contribution of the third position within a Calvinist soteriology.

Introduction

The debate over the relationship between faith and regeneration in initial salvation is long-standing.[1] Calvinists argue that salvation is monergistic, a work of God alone. Because of human depravity, the lost are spiritually dead and unable to respond savingly to the gospel. At salvation, the Spirit gives spiritual life by regenerating the lost and equipping them to respond in saving faith. Arminians contend that salvation is synergistic, a work of both God and humans. Through prevenient grace, human depravity is effectively neutralized so that the lost can respond to the gospel in saving faith and be regenerated.[2]

Some Calvinists, however, argue for a third position. They support monergism, deny prevenient grace, and hold that the lost are spiritually dead and unable to respond savingly to the gospel. At salvation, spiritual life is temporarily given through Spirit illumination, which convicts the lost of sin and effectively equips them to respond in saving faith. The moment the person responds, the Spirit permanently imparts spiritual life through regeneration.[3]

The third position has not received the attention it deserves, and this three-part series provides an exegetical defense to address that deficiency. The defense begins in part 1 with a definition of regeneration followed by a close reading of key Old Testament texts. Specifically in view are passages that juxtapose lexemes or word groups for regeneration with those for either repentance or faith.[4] Part 2 will discuss the relevant Johannine texts, while part 3 will examine the writings of Paul, define illumination to distinguish it from regeneration, and conclude with an assessment of the third position and its significance for the debate on the ordo salutis.

Definition Of Regeneration

Arriving at a definition for regeneration is difficult. Even those engaged in the debate do not agree on the precise meaning of the term. The challenge comes in providing a definition that fits the biblical evidence and does not prejudice the issues or preempt the discussion by favoring one view over another. Added to this problem, the term itself is found only twice in Scripture, in Matthew 19:28 and Titus 3:5, and only in Titus 3:5 does it refer to individual salvation.[5] Fortunately, a number of synonyms in the Old and New Testaments assist in defining the expression. Yet even here debate remains over which expressions represent legitimate synonyms.

For these reasons this study starts with a preliminary definition and adjusts it as necessary with the examination of the biblical evidence. Furthermore, the examination of the biblical evidence intentionally focuses on passages using synonyms that are generally recognized by all sides of the debate. These include Old Testament expressions such as “circumcise the heart” (Deut 10:16; 30:6), “new heart” (Ezek 36:26), “heart of flesh” (Ezek 36:26), and “new spirit” (Ezek 11:19). In the New Testament, the synonyms include “life” (John 5:24–25), “alive” (Rom 6:11, 13), “make alive” (John 5:21; Eph 2:5; Col 2:13), “renewal” (Titus 3:5), “raise up” (Col 2:12), “born” (John 1:13; 1 John 5:1), “born from above” (John 3:3, 7), “born again” (1 Pet 1:3, 23), “new creature” (2 Cor 5:17), and “new creation” (Gal 6:15).[6]

Combining these concepts, regeneration as part of the ordo salutis refers to the instantaneous work of God’s Spirit within the individual, giving spiritual life in connection with initial salvation and making the recipient a new creature/creation and a child of God.

Among the passages that employ synonyms for regeneration in the Old Testament, those frequently mentioned in the debate over the ordo salutis are Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 24:7; 31:33; Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26–27; and Zephaniah 3:9.[7] The Deuteronomy passage appears to be the key Old Testament text. The surrounding verses in Deuteronomy 30 link expressions associated with repentance and regeneration that bear directly on the debate. Jeremiah 31:33 and the two passages in Ezekiel, while using expressions for regeneration, do not refer to repentance or faith in the surrounding context and therefore do not directly contribute to the debate. Consequently, they do not receive separate treatments in this study. Jeremiah 24:7, which is parallel with Deuteronomy 30:6, is discussed with the Deuteronomy passage. Zephaniah 3:9 uses different metaphors from the other texts and is treated after the examination of Deuteronomy 30:6.

Deuteronomy 30:1–10

Deuteronomy records the renewing of the Mosaic covenant with a new generation of national Israel. The generation that had received the covenant at Mt. Sinai some thirty-eight years earlier had essentially passed from the scene, and a new generation of Israelites had come of age (1:3–5; 2:14–15). Sensing the nearness of his own death and a transition in leadership, Moses rehearsed and applied the Sinai covenant for this new generation, now encamped in Moab and anticipating crossing the Jordan and occupying the land of Canaan (1:5; 29:1; 31:1–3).[8]

The section in which Deuteronomy 30:6 is found, 29:2–30:20, calls the new generation to commit themselves to the covenant. The section begins with Moses rehearsing the Lord’s gracious dealings with the nation in the Exodus, wilderness wanderings, and Transjordan conquests (29:2–8). This is followed by the call for national commitment to the covenant the Lord was renewing with them that day (vv. 9–15). Moses then warned the nation against idolatry and listed the covenant curses that would follow should the nation fail to remain faithful. Prophesying that a future generation would indeed fall into idolatry, Moses described these curses in terms of the destruction of the land and the deportation of the inhabitants in exile (vv. 16–29). Their future rebellion and judgment notwithstanding, Moses promised that the Lord would one day renew his relationship with his people and restore them to their land in covenant faithfulness and blessing (30:1–10). The section concludes with Moses challenging the new generation to choose life rather than death, that is, to choose covenant obedience rather than covenant disobedience (vv. 11–20).[9]

The Historical And Literary Context Of Deuteronomy 30:1–10

Deuteronomy 30:1–10 describes the Lord’s promise of future restoration and blessing for national Israel. The prophesied future destruction of the land and the dispersion of the nation in exile in the preceding paragraph (29:22–29) naturally raised questions. How does this future judgment harmonize with the Lord’s electing the nation as his own (7:6) or his promise to the patriarchs that their descendants would inherit the land of Canaan as an everlasting possession (29:13; cf. Gen 17:8 and passim)? The preceding paragraph ends with a proverbial statement about the secret things of the Lord (Deut 29:29), a secret the present paragraph, 30:1–10, clarifies. In spite of the nation’s predicted future rebellion and punishment, the Lord would one day restore the nation of Israel to its land in covenant faithfulness and blessing.[10]

The remainder of the paragraph forms two extended conditional sentences that closely parallel one another. In the protasis, the exiles are informed of what they must do to have the curses removed and replaced with covenant blessings (vv. 1b–2, 8, 10). In the apodosis, the Lord specifies what he promises to do in removing the curses and replacing them with covenant blessings (vv. 3–7, 9).[11]

Deuteronomy 30:1b–2 forms the protasis of the initial conditional sentence.[12] The exiles are called upon to consider the divine intent in the covenant blessings and curses (“call them to mind”),[13] repent of their disobedience (“return to the Lord”), and give heed to the Lord and his covenant (“obey Him with all your heart”).[14] The apodosis is developed in verses 3–7, identifying what the Lord promises to do for the nation.[15] The Lord promises to deliver the people from exile, return them to their land, give them material blessings, circumcise their hearts to love him, and transfer the covenant curses to their enemies (30:3–7).[16]

The second conditional sentence, 30:8–10, parallels the first, with verses 8 and 10 serving as a dual protasis and verse 9 as the apodosis.[17] In verse 8, the initial protasis, Moses repeats the responsibility from verse 2b about the exiles giving heed to the Lord, adding to this the responsibility of keeping the covenant. In verse 9, the apodosis, Moses echoes the Lord’s promise from verse 5 to bless the nation with material prosperity (“the Lord . . . will prosper you abundantly”). Finally, in verse 10 Moses returns to the protasis and the responsibilities of the exiles. Moses restates the exiles’ need to heed the Lord from verses 2b and 8 and then concludes with their responsibility to repent, forming an inclusio with verse 2.[18] Thus, the structure of the passage can be outlined according to the following format.

Conditional sentence 1 (30:1b‒7)

Protasis: vv. 1b‒2

Apodosis: vv. 3‒7

Conditional sentence 2 (vv. 8‒10)

Protasis: vv. 8, 10

Apodosis: v. 9

The Order Of Events In Deuteronomy 30:1–10

Arguments for Regeneration Preceding Repentance. The tension in the debate over the ordo salutis is identifying the logical relationship between the circumcision of the heart in 30:6, a reference to regeneration, and the exiles turning or returning to the Lord in verses 2 and 10, a reference to repentance. Those who maintain that regeneration precedes repentance and faith in the ordo salutis offer essentially two arguments from Deuteronomy 30. First, proponents point out that the grammatical sequence in verse 6 has the circumcision of the heart preceding and resulting in the recipients loving the Lord. They further contend that loving the Lord in verse 6 should be understood as a synonym for saving faith. They conclude from this that verse 6 teaches that regeneration (circumcision of the heart) precedes faith (loving the Lord).[19]

Second, proponents note that the paragraph is arranged in a chiasm. References to repentance in verses 2 and 10 represent the bookends of the chiasm; circumcision of the heart in verse 6, they aver, represents its center. The sequence is expressed in the following structure:

A The exiles’ requirement to repent and obey the Lord with all their heart and soul, v. 2

B The Lord’s promise to restore them to the land and to prosper them, vv. 3–5

C The Lord’s circumcision of the heart so that the exiles love God, v. 6

B´ The Lord’s promise to restore them to the land and to prosper them, v. 9

A´ The exiles’ requirement to repent and obey the Lord with all their heart and soul, v. 10

Based on this structure, proponents further assert that the logical or causal starting point of the chiasm is the reference to circumcision in verse 6, with repentance in verses 2 and 10 representing the logical consequence. Thus, regeneration, the starting point, precedes repentance, the consequence.[20]

Arguments for Repentance Preceding Regeneration. There are several problems, however, with the above reading of the passage. First, it is questionable whether loving the Lord in verse 6 can legitimately be identified as a synonym for saving faith. The standard lexical sources recognize that love of the Lord in the Old Testament is often associated with expressions that reflect faith, such as fearing the Lord (e.g., Deut 10:12) or clinging to the Lord (13:4). But these sources do not expressly equate love of the Lord with repentance or saving faith.[21] Furthermore, the larger covenant context in Deuteronomy argues for taking loving the Lord in 30:6 as a reference to covenant loyalty. In other words, the circumcision of the heart in 30:6 results in the nation’s showing covenant loyalty (“love”) to the Lord by faithfully fulfilling its covenant responsibilities.[22]

Second, a good argument can be made for taking 30:8 rather than verse 6 as the center of the chiasm. The paragraph alternates between the exiles as the subject of the verbal actions and the Lord as the subject. The sequence is represented by the following structure:

A The responsibilities of the exiles, 30:1–2

B The promises of the Lord, vv. 3–7

C The responsibilities of the exiles, v. 8

B´ The promises of the Lord, v. 9

A´ The responsibilities of the exiles, v. 10

The center element in this reading is the activity of the exiles in verse 8, not the activity of the Lord in verse 6.[23]

Even assuming for the moment that 30:6 is the center of the chiasm, taking verse 6 as the causal starting point ignores the grammar and syntax of the paragraph. As mentioned above, verses 1b–7 form an extended conditional sentence. Since verse 6 with its reference to circumcision is part of the apodosis, the actions in verse 6 are contingent on the actions in the protasis, verses 1b–2. In short, circumcision in verse 6 is contingent upon and follows repentance in verse 2, not the reverse.[24]

Resolving Remaining Tensions

Having established the order of events in the passage, two points of tension remain. The first tension arises in that Ezekiel 11:19–20 and 36:26–27 identify obeying the commandments of the Lord as the logical consequence of the Lord’s changing the human heart and spirit. In other words, if the Lord’s changing the human heart/spirit in Ezekiel is synonymous with circumcision of the heart, Ezekiel indicates that circumcision of the heart is a prerequisite for obeying the Lord’s commands.[25]

The solution to this tension is to recognize that “obey him” (וְשָׁמַעְתָּ בְקֹלוֹ) in Deuteronomy 30:2 can mean either (1) to listen to someone with the intent to obey or (2) to obey someone.[26] The same expression is used in verses 8 and 10, where it is followed by words for obedience. In verse 8 Moses declares, “And you shall again obey [שׁמע] the Lord and observe [עשׂה] all His commandments.” In verse 10, Moses repeats, “If you obey [שׁמע] the Lord your God to keep [שׁמר] His commandments.” It is possible that “obey” in verses 8 and 10 is used synonymously with the words connoting obedience that follow. However, it is also possible that “obey” in verses 8 and 10 means “to listen with the intent to obey” and the words for obedience that follow simply address the realization of that intent.

This same meaning, “to listen with the intent to obey,” can also be given to the expression in verse 2. Assuming that is the case, there would be no conflict with having the circumcision of the heart in verse 6 as a logical consequence. In other words, if the exiles will “call to mind” the divine purpose in the covenant blessings and curses (v. 1b), “return to the Lord” in genuine repentance (v. 2a), and “listen” to the Lord with the intent to obey (v. 2b), the Lord will circumcise their hearts, enabling them to obey the Lord. In sum, the translation “you return to the Lord with the intent to obey him” in verse 2 is fully harmonious with what is involved with genuine repentance.[27]

The second point of tension is to explain passages that call on individuals to circumcise their own hearts (Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4; Ezek 18:30–32). These passages are a challenge for either arrangement of the ordo salutis in Deuteronomy 30.[28] Assuming regeneration follows repentance and faith, these passages can be taken as employing a metonymy of cause and effect. As such, individuals are called upon to exercise repentance, that is, to circumcise their own hearts (the cause), which results in the Lord’s circumcising or regenerating their hearts (the effect).

These passages link the command to circumcise the heart with expressions associated with repentance, further supporting the metonymy. In Deuteronomy 10:16, the command is followed by a prohibition against stiffening the neck, that is, a hardening in rebellion rather than repentance from it (cf. Lev 26:41).[29] In Jeremiah 4:4 the command is preceded by the parallel command to return to the Lord (v. 1), the same expression used in Deuteronomy 30:2 and 10 for repentance.[30] Thus, these texts fully support taking the command to circumcise the heart as a metaphor for repentance that results in the Lord’s circumcising or regenerating the heart.

In sum, the evidence from Deuteronomy 30:6 and related Old Testament texts argues that turning to the Lord or repentance is the prerequisite for the circumcision of the heart or regeneration, placing repentance logically prior to regeneration.

Zephaniah 3:9–10

According to the superscription (1:1), Zephaniah was a prophet of Judah who prophesied during the reign of Josiah in the last half of the seventh century. Zephaniah’s uncompromising preaching against sin and his dire warnings of the Lord’s impending judgment may have been catalysts for Josiah’s reform movement.[31] The prophecy itself revolves around the universal Day of the Lord. The expression refers to the Lord’s future intervention to judge Israel and the nations and to restore a purified Israel to her land as the chief of the nations and to establish his worldwide kingdom.[32] The prophecy may be divided thematically into two sections. The first section, 1:2–2:15, focuses on the theme of divine judgment; the second section, 3:1–20, centers on the theme of divine blessing.[33]

The second section, in which 3:9 occurs, begins with a woe oracle, 3:1–8. Zephaniah pronounces a woe or threat of calamity against Jerusalem and the nations, documents Judah’s history of rebellion, and warns of impending judgment.[34] In effect, the woe oracle repeats themes from the previous section, underscoring the need for divine deliverance by emphasizing the certainty and severity of the coming judgment. This is followed by a salvation oracle, 3:9–20. In response to the need for divine deliverance, the Lord promises to purify a remnant from among the Israelites scattered in exile, to establish himself as Israel’s king, to judge Israel’s enemies, and to restore the nation’s fortunes in its land.[35]

The Order Of Events In The Passage

Arguments for Regeneration Preceding Faith. The salvation oracle begins in 3:9 with the Lord’s promise to purify a remnant from among those in exile. Specifically, the Lord promises that he “will give to the peoples purified lips” with the intent “that all of them may call on the name of the Lord.”36 Those who believe regeneration precedes repentance and faith in the ordo salutis take “purified lips” as a reference to regeneration and “call on the name of the Lord” as a reference to saving faith. According to this reading, regeneration (“purified lips”) precedes and results in the exercise of saving faith (“call on the name of the Lord”).[37]

Arguments for Faith Preceding Regeneration. There are two problems with the above interpretation. First, it is not clear that the expression “purified lips” is a reference to regeneration. In fact, the lexical evidence suggests the expression, like the parallel expression “the cleansing of the heart” (e.g., Ps 24:4), symbolizes the cleansing of the person from sin.[38] In effect, the expression represents a reversing of what is found, for example, in Isaiah’s description of himself and his fellow Israelites as people with “unclean lips” (Isa 6:5). In response to Isaiah’s confession, the Lord sent an angel with a burning coal to touch Isaiah’s lips (vv. 5–7). Having done that, the angel declares to Isaiah that his “iniquity is taken away” and that his “sin is forgiven.”[39] Thus, the promise in Zephaniah 3:9 that the Lord will give to the peoples “purified lips” means that the Lord will forgive their iniquity and cleanse them from their sin.[40]

Second, the expression “call on the name of the Lord” should not be taken as a reference to saving faith. While the expression can refer to the exercise of saving faith (Joel 2:32; cf. Rom 10:13), the majority of its uses in the Old Testament refer to calling on the Lord’s name in worship, generally by those who are already saved.[41] For example, Genesis uses the expression several times to describe the activity of Abraham (Gen 12:8; 13:4; 21:33). These verses all appear after the Lord reveals himself to Abraham, and in each case, the expression describes Abraham’s worshiping the Lord as a believer.[42]

Similarly, the expression in Zephaniah is found specifically in connection with worship, not salvation. In 3:9, Zephaniah declares that the purpose or goal of the Israelites’ calling on the name of the Lord is for the nation “to serve Him,” an expression regularly associated in the Old Testament with worship.[43] Furthermore, those who call on the Lord’s name are expressly described in verse 10 as “worshipers.”[44] In short, the context clearly identifies calling on the name of the Lord in verse 9 as an act of worship and, specifically, as an act of worship by those who have “purified lips,” that is, by those who have been cleansed or forgiven.

Thus, when interpreted in light of the nearer and larger contexts, Zephaniah 3:9 does not support regeneration preceding faith, because it says nothing about either regeneration or saving faith. Rather, the passage speaks of God cleansing the nation from sin and of the nation worshiping God.

This survey of the relevant Old Testament texts reveals little to support the classic Calvinist ordo salutis that places regeneration logically before faith. In fact, the evidence argues for the opposite.

Part 2 of this study will examine the exegetical evidence for the ordo salutis in the works of John. Part 3 will examine the same evidence in Paul’s writings and address the role of Spirit illumination in initial salvation. The study concludes in part 3 by arguing that the logical order of illumination, saving faith, and regeneration best conforms to the biblical evidence and is fully consistent with a Calvinist, monergistic soteriology.

Notes

1. The term ordo salutis in the broadest sense refers to the order of events in the entirety of personal salvation, from divine foreknowledge and election to glorification. However, the expression has been used in a more limited sense to describe the specific events surrounding initial salvation. See S. B. Ferguson, “Ordo Salutis,” in New Dictionary of Theology: Historical and Systematic, 2nd ed., ed. Martin Davie et al. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2016), 633–34. The events involved in initial salvation are generally regarded as having a logical rather than chronological order in that these events effectively transpire simultaneously in a single moment of time. Some, however, sensing a tension with a logical order that takes place within time but does not also demand a chronological order, demur from using the idea of an order altogether. See the discussion in Anthony A. Hoekema, Saved by Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 11–17. For a historical survey of the debate regarding the role of regeneration in initial salvation, see Peter Toon, Born Again: A Biblical and Theological Study of Regeneration (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 71–182.
2. For representatives of the Calvinist position, see Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Nelson, 1998), 703–32; Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 699–706; Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 556‒86. For representatives of the Arminian position, see Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will—Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism (Nashville: Randall House, 2002), 139–68; Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006), 137–78; F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Randall House, 2011), 251‒72.
3. See, for example, Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987–94), 3:73–107; Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation (Wheaton: Crossway, 1997), 277–305; Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013), 861–75.
4. On taking repentance and faith as corollaries representing two sides of the same coin and used interchangeably in Scripture as the sole condition for salvation, see R. Bruce Compton, “Water Baptism and the Forgiveness of Sins in Acts 2:38, ” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 4 (Fall 1999): 17–21.
5. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BAGD), 3rd ed., ed. Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 752. See also F. Büchsel, “παλιγγενεσία,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1974), 1:686–89; J. Guhrt, “παλιγγενεσία,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975–1978), 1:184–86; Moisés Silva, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, 2nd ed., 5 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 1:573–74.
6. See the discussions by J. L. Nuelsen, “Regeneration,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979–1988), 4:67–70; G. Goldsworthy, “Regeneration,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander et al. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 720–23; R. D. Knudsen, “Regeneration,” in Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, rev. ed., ed. Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 5:62–71; A. J. Stobart, “Regeneration,” in New Dictionary of Theology: Historical and Systematic, 2nd ed., ed. Martin Davie et al. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2016), 752–54.
7. Similarly N. R. Gulley, “Regeneration,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 5:659; J. I. Packer, “Regeneration,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1000.
8. Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 20–24; Eugene H. Merrill, “A Theology of the Pentateuch,” in A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Chicago: Moody, 1991), 62, 73–74; Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 26–27; Eugene H. Merrill, Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament (Nashville: B&H, 2006), 383, 389–92; Edward J. Woods, Deuteronomy, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2011), 26–27, 72; Michael A. Grisanti, “Deuteronomy,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 2, rev. ed., ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 461–62.
9. Similarly Earl S. Kalland, “Deuteronomy,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 3, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 178–90; Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 274–75; Merrill, Deuteronomy, 375; Grisanti, “Deuteronomy,” 747.
10. Merrill, Deuteronomy, 387.
11. Timothy A. Lenchak, “Choose Life!” A Rhetorical-Critical Investigation of Deuteronomy 28, 69–30, 20, Analecta Biblica (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1993), 178, 199, 205. See also N. Lohfink, “Der Bundesschluss im Land Moab,” Biblische Zeitschrift 6 (1962): 41; McConville, Deuteronomy, 423–25.
12. The conditional element is represented by the perfects with waw consecutive in 30:1b–2. See Bruce M. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 531, 636–37. The perfects in verses 1b–2 follow a temporal clause in verse 1a, “when all of these things have come upon you,” raising the question whether the perfects should be taken as conditional or as temporal. See the discussion in McConville, Deuteronomy, 425–26. As several note, a fine line separates a conditional clause from a temporal clause in that both involve an element of contingency in the protasis on which the fulfillment of the apodosis rests. See, for example, Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2 vols., trans. and rev. T. Muraoka, Subsidia Biblica (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2003), 2:621. In either case, the temporal clause in verse 1a is an adverbial modifier, and the perfects that follow in 1b–2 should be connected directly to the perfect with waw consecutive at the beginning of verse 1 (“So it shall be . . . [if] you call them to mind”). See Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 539, 643.
13. All Scripture quotations are from the NASB, 1995 edition, unless otherwise noted.
14. The expression “return to the Lord” (וְשַׁבְתָּ עַד־יְהוָה) is generally taken as a metaphor for repentance. See Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, A Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 2:1429–30; J. A. Soggin, “שׁוב,” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, trans. Mark E. Biddle (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 3:1315–16; J. A. Thompson and Elmer A. Martens, “שׁוב,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 4:57.
15. The apodosis consists of a series of perfects with waw consecutive. See Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 531. The sequence is momentarily interrupted at verse 4, imperfects without waw, but resumes again at verse 5 and continues through verse 7. Verse 4 represents a brief digression where Moses clarifies and reinforces the promise in verse 3 about the Lord’s gathering the exiles. Similarly, McConville, Deuteronomy, 424. The digression is expressed in the form of a conditional clause: “If your outcasts are at the ends of the earth, from there the Lord your God will gather you” (Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 636–37).
16. The expression “circumcise . . . your heart” (Deut 30:6) is used as a metaphor for regeneration. See Elmer B. Smick, “מוּל,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago: Moody, 1980), 1:494–95. For a discussion of the phrase in Deuteronomy 30:6 with this meaning, see Merrill, Deuteronomy, 388–89. The infinitive clause that follows, “to love the Lord” (לְאַהֲבָה אֶת־יְהוָה), represents the intended result of this circumcision. On the use of the infinitive with ל, see Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 607. The purpose clause at the end of verse 6, “so that you may live,” identifies the goal or purpose of the nation’s loving the Lord. See Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 638–39. The expression “live” in this context refers to eternal life in the eschaton, where the nation is restored to its land and enjoys the covenant blessings enumerated in the surrounding verses. See Merrill, Deuteronomy, 387–89, and the discussion in Terry L. Brensinger, “חיה,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 2:108–12.
17. Lenchak, “Choose Life,” 178, 198–99. Verse 8 begins with disjunctive waw, marking the transition from the first conditional sentence to the second. See Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 650–52. The conditional element is made clearer in verse 10 with כִּי marking the protasis of a real condition. See Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 637; Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Function and Interpretation of כי in Biblical Hebrew,” Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (June 1986): 207–8. Since the particle is found with both clauses in 30:10, and since the clauses in 30:10 repeat in essence what is stated in 30:1b–2 and 30:8 regarding the responsibilities of the exiles, the responsibilities of the exiles in 30:1b–2 and 30:8 are also taken as representing the protasis of a conditional clause.
18. Similarly Lenchak, Choose Life, 198–99; Grisanti, “Deuteronomy,” 762.
19. Mark A. Snoeberger, “The Logical Priority of Regeneration to Saving Faith in a Theological Ordo Salutis,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 7 (Fall 2002): 71–73; similarly James M. Hamilton Jr., God’s Indwelling Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Old and New Testaments, NAC Studies in Bible and Theology (Nashville: B&H, 2006), 47, 162. Support for this meaning of “love” generally derives from comparing the expression in 30:6 with the command to love God in Deuteronomy 6:5, and then looking at how Deuteronomy 6:5 is used in the New Testament. For instance, in Luke 10:27, Jesus cites Deuteronomy 6:5 in response to the question about how one gains eternal life. Proponents take Jesus’s reference to loving God in Luke 10:27 as identifying the means by which one gains eternal life and then equate loving God with saving faith. See, for example, Darrell L. Bock, Luke, 2 vols., Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 2:1024–25.
20. See, among others, Wright, Deuteronomy, 289–90; Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 694–95; Jack R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 816. Those who argue that verse 6 is the center and logical starting point of the chiasm do so generally on the basis of vocabulary rather than on the basis of grammar and syntax. See, for example, Paul A. Barker, The Triumph of Grace in Deuteronomy: Faithless Israel, Faithful Yahweh in Deuteronomy, Paternoster Biblical Monographs (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2004), 140–81. Barker’s defense of verse 6 as the center and logical starting point of the chiasm rests principally on the use of the word “heart.” He sees “heart” as the key term in the passage, thus its repetition in verse 6 qualifies it as the pivotal verse in the chiasm.
21. Gottfried Quell, “ἀγαπάω,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1:27–29; W. Günther and H.-G Link, “ἀγαπάω,” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 2:540–42; Gerhard Wallis, “אָהַב,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 1:112–17; E. Jenni, “אהב,” Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1:52–53; P. J. J. S. Els, “אהב,” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, 1:283–90. Els, perhaps, comes the closest to associating “love” with “trust” when he states that in Jeremiah 2:2 the lexeme for love “is uniquely portrayed in the book of Jeremiah as the obedient dependency, trust, and exclusive attachment of Israel’s pristine love for Yahweh” (ibid., 1:283). Els says that this use of “love” is “unique” to Jeremiah and, apparently, to this one verse. Later, Els expands his support for defining “love” as including the concept of “trust.” Yet of the passages he adds (Gen 15:6; Deut 10:12; 1 Sam 14:6; 2 Sam 24:14), only one uses the lexeme for “love” (Deut 10:12) and the concept of “trust” is not evident in the context (ibid., 1:284). Similarly, Quell on one occasion associates “love” with “faith,” but in a way that shows the two are simply related, rather than synonymous (Quell, “ἀγαπάω,” 1:28).
22. Summing up its religious connotation in Deuteronomy and related Old Testament contexts, Els concludes that “the love of God . . . mean[s] in essence faithfulness to Yahweh’s covenant, which must be made real by keeping the commandments” (Els, “אהב,” 1:284, citing Victor Warnach, “Love,” in Sacramentum Verbi: An Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology, 3 vols., ed. Johannes B. Bauer (New York: Herder & Herder, 1970), 2:523. See also Günther and Link, “ἀγαπάω,” 2:541; Wallis, “אָהַב,” 1:114–16; Jenni, “אהב,” 1:52–53.
23. Lohfink, “Der Bundesschluss im Land Moab,” 41; McConville, Deuteronomy, 423–25. Tigay arrives at the same conclusion, based on the uses of the root שׁוּב (Tigay, Deuteronomy, 283–84).
24. See, for example, Kenneth J. Turner, “Deuteronomy’s Theology of Exile,” in For Our Good Always: Studies on the Message and Influence of Deuteronomy in Honor of Daniel I. Block, ed. Jason S. DeRouchie, Jason Gile, and Kenneth J. Turner (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 197–99; Michael A. Grisanti, “The Impact of Deuteronomy on the Books of the Deuteronomistic History,” in For Our Good Always, 241. Mark J. Boda, “Return to Me”: A Biblical Theology of Repentance, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVaristy, 2015), 44–45, 86, 91–93, 107, 135, 155, 158–60. Even those who hold to regeneration preceding repentance/faith concede that the syntax of the passage is against their position. As McConville notes, “the theological balance [regeneration preceding repentance] need not follow the syntactical logic [the syntax of the passage which reverses the order] so closely” (McConville, Deuteronomy, 424–25). Jeremiah 24:7 has a similar construction connecting turning to the Lord with the Lord’s changing the heart. The declaration “I will give them a heart to know Me . . . and they will be My people, and I will be their God,” is followed by the statement “for [כִּי] they will return to Me with their whole heart.” The particle כִּי appears also in Deuteronomy 30:10, “if [כִּי] they turn to the Lord.” In this context the particle can be either conditional or causal. In either case, the nation’s turning to the Lord is the prerequisite for the Lord’s changing the heart. See the discussion in Peter C. Craigie, Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard Jr., Jeremiah 1–25, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1991), 359–60.
25. Ezekiel 11:19–20 reads, “I will give them one heart and put a new spirit within them . . . and give them a heart of flesh that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and do them.” The expression “that they may walk in My statutes” identifies the goal of the Lord’s changing the heart/spirit. In other words, walking in/keeping the Lord’s statutes/ordinances is dependent on the Lord’s changing the heart/spirit. For a discussion of the grammar and syntax of the passage, see Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 2 vols., New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 1:352–54. On the identification and meaning of the purpose clause, see Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 638–39. On taking the expressions “one heart,” “new spirit,” and “heart of flesh” as synonyms for the circumcision of the heart, see the discussion in Alex Luc, “לֵב,” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, 2:752–53.
26. See K. T. Aitken, “שׁמע,” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, 4:178.
27. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, 361–64. Craigie states, “Repentance involved not only turning back from the evil past, but a new and wholehearted commitment of obedience to God’s voice, which was expressed for them in God’s law” (363).
28. For these passages posing a problem with regeneration preceding repentance and faith, see the discussion in Matthew Barrett, Salvation by Grace: The Case for Effectual Calling and Regeneration (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2013), 141–44. Barrett solves the tension by separating the command for sinners to circumcise their heart from their ability to do so. God gives sinners the command, but not the ability to carry out the command (142).
29. On the meaning of “stiffen the neck,” see the discussion in M. Zipor, “קָשָׁה,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 13:190–92.
30. Charles L. Feinberg, “Jeremiah,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 6, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 405; Michael L. Brown, “Jeremiah,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, rev. ed., vol. 7, ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 121. Commenting on the expression in 4:4, Feinberg states, “Again, Jeremiah calls for repentance—this time under the figure of circumcision.” Feinberg, “Jeremiah,” 405.
31. Richard D. Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1991), 275–79; James Bruckner, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 277.
32. Hobart E. Freeman, An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophets (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968), 232–33; David W. Baker, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988), 84–85.
33. Freeman, An Introduction to theOld Testament Prophets, 235–36. Others divide the two sections at 3:8. See, for example, Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, 281–89. Still others divide the prophecy into three sections. See Chisholm, Interpreting the Minor Prophets, 201–3; Robert B. Chisholm Jr., Handbook on the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 444–45; J. Alec Motyer, “Zephaniah,” in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, 3 vols., ed. Thomas Edward McComiskey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 3:901–4.
34. Chisholm, Interpreting the Minor Prophets, 202–3, 209–10; Kenneth L. Barker and Waylon Bailey, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998), 473–74. On the forms of prophetic speech, see the survey by Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature, Forms of Old Testament Literature, ed. Rolf P. Knierim and Gene M. Tucker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 22–30.
35. So, for example, Chisholm, Interpreting the Minor Prophets, 202–3, 210–15.
36. The infinitive clause in Amos 3:9 “that all of them may call on the name of the Lord” (כֻלָּםבְּשֵׁםיְהוָהלִקְרֹא) modifies the main clause, “I will give to the peoples purified lips” (אֶהְפֹּךְ אֶל־עַמִּים שָׂפָה בְרוּרָה). The infinitive clause may indicate either purpose or result; the two uses are often difficult to distinguish. See Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction toBiblical Hebrew Syntax, 606–7, 638.
37. Similarly, O. Palmer Robertson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 328–29. Often, those who use this verse to argue that regeneration precedes faith note that the verb “I will give” (אֶהְפֹּךְ, Zeph. 3:9) is used of the Lord’s changing Saul’s heart (1 Sam 10:9). Thus, the Lord’s giving purified lips in Zephaniah is taken to mean that the Lord works a radical change in the human disposition, that is, the Lord regenerates. See, for example, Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Micah–Malachi, Communicator’s Commentary, ed. Lloyd J. Ogilvie (Dallas: Word, 1992), 235–36. Kaiser argues on the basis of 1 Samuel 10:9 that “when God promises to restore a ‘pure language,’ He is referring to more than a type or quality of speech . . . . God would purify those lips and the inner disposition which they symbolize” (236).
38. Vinzenz Hamp, “בָּרַר,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 2:310–11.
39. For a treatment of the Isaiah passage, see Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, 3 vols., New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 1:247–53. The expression “uncircumcised lips,” used by Moses to describe himself in Exodus 6:12, 30 is not a synonym for “unclean lips.” As noted above, “circumcision” can refer either to repentance or to regeneration. Conversely, “purification” or “cleansing” refers to the forgiveness of sins. Furthermore, “uncircumcised lips” in Exodus 6:12, 30 has the sense of unskilled in speech, parallel with Moses’s statement in Exodus 4:10 that he was “slow of speech and slow of tongue.” See Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “Exodus,” in vol. 1 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 1, rev. ed., ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 396.
40. Similarly, Baker, Nahum Habakkuk, Zephaniah, 115; Bruckner, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, 329. Baker applies the statement to the nations generally rather than to Israel specifically.
41. On the expression as a reference to worship, see F. L. Hossfeld and E. M. Kindl, “קָרָא,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 13:113–14; Louis Jonker, “קרא,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, 3:972. For the expression being used generally for the godly, see Leonard Coppes, “קָרָא,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2:810. On the expression in Joel 2:32 as representing the exercising of saving faith, see Richard D. Patterson, “Joel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, rev. ed., ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 337. For a treatment of the expression in Romans 10:13, see John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 2:57–58.
42. So, for example, Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco: Word, 1987), 281; Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis, 2 vols., New American Commentary (Nashville: B&H, 1996‒2005), 1:292‒94.
43. On the use of “serve” to connote worship, see H. Ringgren, “עָבַד,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 10:384–87; Eugene Carpenter, “עבד,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, 3:305–6.
44. Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, A Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1:906. See also E. Gerstenberger, “עָתַר,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 11:460.