0

I am reading in the Old Testament (NIV) from the book of Isaiah chapter 63:17 where it is written,

Isaiah 63:17

Why,O Lord do you make us wander from your ways

and harden our hearts so that we do not revere you?

Return for the sake of your servants,

the tribes that are your inheritance.

The scripture appears to be saying that when one is "walking in the way of the Lord," that God will take away "free will," which would cause one to "wander from the Lords' way."

Is Isaiah really saying that humans, only have a certain amount of free will ?

Bagpipes
  • 2,989
  • 23
  • 57
  • 91
  • I agree the meaning of the text is relevant to the theological discussion of free will. But what do you mean by "free will," since there are not only the two broad definitions of compatibilist and libertarian, but even "compatibilists offer very different definitions of what free will even means," besides other views on it. Such complexities in theological discussions is why this site is cautious about how much theology is allowed. – ScottS Feb 20 '15 at 13:38
  • @ScottS- It is the first two lines in the above text that is of interest Re: free will.I have tried to stay away from a theological discussion by asking my question according to a comment from caleb-http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/14168/does-exodus-explain-itself-as-to-why-god-hardens-pharaohs-heart-in-chapter-4 – Bagpipes Feb 20 '15 at 15:00
  • 1
    You cannot "stay away from theological discussion" when you use a term like "free will" (that is my point). You have to define what you mean by "free will" in order to make the question intelligible and answerable. What do you mean by "God will take away 'free will'"? Compatibilist versions of free will already tend to argue people "only have a certain amount of free will," so God would not necessarily be taking away any aspect of "free will" by His determined limitation. It seems you are using "free will" in a more libertarian sense, but that is what I am trying to get you to clarify. – ScottS Feb 20 '15 at 16:58
  • This question is being closed at the request of the OP (below answer). See also comments under question regarding the difficulties with this question. – Susan Feb 21 '15 at 20:02

1 Answers1

1

The consensus of scholars is that the Book of Isaiah can be divided into three distinct sections, which were probably originally three separate books.

  • Chapters 1 to 39 were written during the late eighth and early seventh centuries BCE by Isaiah, son of Amoz, apart from numerous additions from a later period. For ease of reference, Isaiah is often referred to as First Isaiah, or proto-Isaiah.
  • Chapters 40 to 55 were written by a prophet living in exile during the latter part of the Babylonian Exile. This author is referred to as Second Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah.
  • A third source, now known as Third Isaiah, or Trito-Isaiah, wrote chapters 56 to 66 during the period following the Return from Exile. This chapter, chapter 63 was therefore written after the Return from Exile.

In this chapter, the author reminisces on the history of Israel; how God led the people in good times and punished them when they strayed. Isaiah 63:17-18 says:

17 Why do you let us wander, O LORD, from your ways, and harden our hearts so that we fear you not? Return for the sake of your servants, the tribes of your heritage.

18 Why have the wicked invaded your holy place, why have our enemies trampled your sanctuary?

The references to 'holy place' and 'sanctuary' in verse 18 are to the Babylonian destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. This is not at all about limits to free will, but seeking answers why God lets the Jews stray, only to punish them. If anything, Third Isaiah is regretting that the Jews have too much free will.

Community
  • 1
Dick Harfield
  • 12,589
  • 5
  • 24
  • 60
  • It is this scripture quote from the NIV "Why,O Lord DO YOU MAKE US WANDER from your ways,and HARDEN OUR HEARTS so that we do not revere you? That is a different translation to the scripture you use as reference.Most of the other translations use the same wording as the NIV.I agree that the text is speaking about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem,but it is also speaking about the way God deals with all of mankind.According to the NIV- God "hardens Hearts, and makes people wander from his ways." Is this not taking away "free will"? – Bagpipes Feb 20 '15 at 08:53
  • http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&c=63&v=17&t=NIV#s=t_conc_742017 – Bagpipes Feb 20 '15 at 09:53
  • @Bagpipes Hi, I used a different version for convenience not to confuse (I generally use one Protestant (KJV) and one Catholic Bible, plus if necessary for complex OT the Jewish Bible with Rashi commentary. In spite of minor differences, the translations are identical here. – Dick Harfield Feb 20 '15 at 19:37
  • @Bagpipes The first thing in hermeneutics is to see what the author intended, which we agree was the destruction of the temple. Having done that, it is fine to place the secondary meaning on it that you suggest. I have seen some OT passages that have had three or four different meanings placed on them, depending on the needs of the moment for each interpreter. Everything is valid if it is supportable. – Dick Harfield Feb 20 '15 at 19:41
  • 1
    I think @Bagpipes is referring to the difference between “let us wander” and “make us wander,” which seems to be a legitimate question. (HALOT (esp. “d" there) and BDB (see the far right column “hiph...3.") – Susan Feb 21 '15 at 06:09
  • @Susan Seeing your comment, I checked a Jewish Bible, at http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15994#showrashi=true. The English translation is given as: <<Why do You lead us astray O Lord,>> which unfortunately does not seem to favour either NIV or NAB. Rashi's comments, <<Why do You lead us astray: Since You have the power to remove the evil inclination, as it is said (Jer. 18:6): “Like clay in the potter’s hand.”>> seem to favour the NAB in this instance. However, I think either would not change that the author intended a contemporary meaning (on intent, Bagpipes says he agrees). – Dick Harfield Feb 21 '15 at 07:07
  • As for a secondary meaning, My stated reasoning was that "Why do you let us wander, O LORD, from your ways, and harden our hearts so that we fear you not?" implies that Third Isaiah was complaining about having too much freedom. Presumably if we read it into a modern context, the same will still apply. "Make us wander" creates some ambiguity, but only a complaint of to much free will makes sense here. – Dick Harfield Feb 21 '15 at 07:13
  • Regarding @Susan comment.What is the proper translation from the Hebrew.?Is it [A]"Let us wander" or [B]"Make us wander" ? I think i will understand the text more, if i get a definite answer to this comment. – Bagpipes Feb 21 '15 at 18:44
  • @Bagpipes this question has had some troubles, as evidenced by the verbose comment threads... I wonder if you would want to ask a question specifically re. the translation discrepancy between e.g. NAB and NIV. The hiphil verb is usually understood as causative, but the HALOT link I gave above indicates that there is something about this lexeme + min preposition (“from”) that suggests a “let us wander” translation. Feel free to use those links or to pop into chat if you’d like to discuss. – Susan Feb 21 '15 at 19:19
  • @Susan I would agree that "let us wander" is the best translation.That is a lot different to "make us wander" which was the basis for my question.I now understand that when i posted the question,i was relying on "make us wander" for an answer to my question.Probably be best to close the question.I did learn a lot from the comments,so that is good. – Bagpipes Feb 21 '15 at 19:47
  • @Bagpipes - OK, I’ll close this one, but even if you and I feel like “let us wander” is better, neither of us knows Hebrew well enough to say if that’s the intended meaning. This is why I think it warrants a new question, but I’ll let you decide. – Susan Feb 21 '15 at 19:58
  • @Susan I want this part of my answer to stand because it seems to be correct, not merely because we do not have the expertise to correct it. My reasoning, which I should have made clearer earlier, is that the issue is 'wander', more so than 'let' or 'must'. If I follow a straight path (physically or spiritually) there is no evidence of free will; if I wander (Oxford: "go about aimlessly, stray from a path, etc"), then they very word implies free will. Why I said that "Jews have too much free will." – Dick Harfield Feb 21 '15 at 20:23
  • @DickHarfield Sure, the answer will stand - I just closed the question at the OPs request, but it’s not being deleted and can still be voted on. You and I think about things very differently. ;-) I wouldn’t be satisfied without understanding the Hebrew of the question I outlined above, but I recognize that your answer has merit and it will indeed stand. Feel free to incorporate some of the reasoning from your comments into the answer if you think it would improve it. – Susan Feb 21 '15 at 20:29
  • Your input is appreciated.I did find your answer very helpful,but i thought it best to close the question.My question shows how one "word," can change the whole meaning to a text.That was my reason for closing. – Bagpipes Feb 22 '15 at 09:42