In answer to an email question:
“How do you understand Ezekiel 18:31, in relation to monergism and synergism. I thought that the ‘God gives the new heart’ aspect of biblical teaching clearly entailed monergism, but I have no idea what to do with this verse.”
Commands serve different purposes in Scripture. One is to reveal our duties, another is to expose our needs. Indeed, the two can be interrelated.
One way of exposing my spiritual need is to confront me with a moral obligation which I, as a sinner, am unable to discharge. That makes me aware of my iniquity and need of grace. A parallel to Ezekiel is Deut 10:16 & 30:6.
As Daniel Block, in the standard commentary on Ezekiel, explains,
"This text [18:31] is unique in that it calls on the wicked to take the initiative in making their own hearts and spirits new. What is promised elsewhere as a divine act and as a gift (36:26-27) is now recast as a command. The use of the imperative mood does not mean that Ezekiel believes his audience capable of moral and spiritual self-transformation. The command 'create a new heart and a new spirit for yourselves' is a rhetorical device, highlighting the responsibility of the nation for their present crisis and pointing the way to the future. The prerequisites for positive divine intervention are a wholesale reorientation of life and an internal change in disposition. The former will not happen without the latter," The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1-24, 588.
I would understand this the same way that Christ commanded all men to be perfect.
ReplyDeleteIt is an obligation, but not one which we can attain to. This requires the power and act of God.
With man this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible.
I've also understood these things to be somewhat along the lines of answering a child who refuses help in an impossible task.
ReplyDeleteAs in "Fine, do it yourself!!"
Thanks for posting this Steve. It was very helpful.
ReplyDelete"I've also understood these things to be somewhat along the lines of answering a child who refuses help in an impossible task."
ReplyDeleteExactly. However, we must constantly highlight the inability is not metaphysical, but moral. The former is the inability of a child to carry a 150lb sack of sand. The latter is Joseph's brothers who "hated him and could not speak to him on friendly terms (Gen 37:4).
Actually, that explanation makes no sense. The verses just prior say that the righteous who turn to wickedness will die, and the wicked who turn from idols will live. If they turn from idols and to God, God will give them the new heart."Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!"
ReplyDeleteBoth my explanation and Block's are perfectly applicable to the prior verses.
ReplyDeleteNo they're not. They just beg the question.
ReplyDeletehampton said:
ReplyDelete"No they're not. They just beg the question."
To say they beg the question begs the question. I presented an argument for my interpretation. You have offered no counterargument: just your barebones assertions and denials.
No, I offered context. You offered the mere assertion and begged the question with an appeal to authority.
ReplyDeletehampton said:
ReplyDelete"No, I offered context. You offered the mere assertion and begged the question with an appeal to authority."
You need to learn how to argue for your position. What you did was to begin with a bare denial ("that explanation makes no sense") followed by a summary/quotation of the previous verse. That is not a reasoned argument. You made no attempt to show that the verse you cite is at odds with the interpretation that Block and I offer. A denial followed by a quote is not an argument for or againt anything.
Moreover, I didn't merely cite Block as an "authority." Rather, I cited his exegetical argument for his exegetical conclusion—in addition to my own argument.
That's really strange. You offer his assertion as an "exegetical argument"?
ReplyDelete