Barker summarizes the fundamental question in Deuteronomy 30:11–14 as follows:
There is general agreement that vv11–14 deal with Israel’s capacity to obey the covenant commands of Yahweh. However the grounds of that capacity need clarification. One view is that Israel’s capacity to obey derives from having received, learnt, and understood the torah which has been given to it. That is, the grounds are external to Israel, and involve both the easiness of the torah and its
78This is line with Lundbom, who argues, “The יִכּ . . . יִכּ construction [in v. 10] should be translated “for . . . for,” “when . . . when,” or “because . . . because,” not “if . . . if,” since the statement is wholly positive, not conditional.” Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 821.
79My translation.
revelation. The second view is that Israel’s capacity to obey rests on a change of heart which enables obedience. In this case, the grounds are internal to Israel.80
The interpretive majority understands Deuteronomy 30:11–14 to be speaking of a non-contingent, present motivation for obedience on the plains of Moab just before entering the land, and not a continuation of the future-oriented promise of 30:1–10.
McConville is representative of this view when he argues that 30:11–14 “contains the most explicit statement in the whole book of their ability to obey [Yahweh’s]
commands.”81 Merrill’s comments likewise summarize the view that 30:11–14 is a return to the Moab present:
Having set forth the results of covenant disobedience (29:16–19) and the blessings of covenant reaffirmation even in the midst of judgment and exile (30:1–10), Moses return[s] to the reality of the present situation and plead[s] for Israel’s obedience to the Lord.82
Interpreters give several reasons in support of a change in the temporal framework from future time in Deuteronomy 30:1–10 to present time in 30:11–14: the occurrence of the “urgent ‘today’” (םויה) in 30:11;83 the switch from weqatal and imperfect verbal forms in 30:1–10 to verbless clause constructions in 30:11–14; and a supposed shift in perspective of Israel’s ability to obey from 30:1–10 to 30:11–14.84 S. R.
80Barker, The Triumph of Grace in Deuteronomy, 187.
81McConville goes on to note, however, that Deut 30:11–14 must “be read in light of both 9:4–
6 (which 30:11–14 formally contradict) and of 30:1–10.” McConville, Grace in the End, 137–38. In the view articulated below, it is not necessary to admit a formal contradiction between 30:11–14 and 9:4–6.
82Merrill, Deuteronomy, 390. So also Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, 364; Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, 330–31; Currid, A Study Commentary on Deuteronomy, 470; von Rad, Deuteronomy, 184; Walter Brueggemann, Deuteronomy, Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001), 268; C. J. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, vol. 3 (Nijkerk, Netherlands: Callenbach, 1997), 155.
83McConville writes, “The relationship between 30:6 and 30:11–14 is not a simple one. The former is part of Deuteronomy’s glimpse into the future (from the standpoint of those who are assembled on the plains of Moab), its vision of a new hope for Israel on the other side of the failures of its history from settlement to exile. But vv. 11–14 come back to the Mosaic present, with the typical urgent ‘today’ (v.
11; the point is obscured by the NIV translation), repeated in vv. 15–16.” McConville, Grace in the End, 137. So also Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology (New York: Harper, 1962), 231.
84According to McConville, “The perspective of Moses’ speech appears to revert to ‘present time’, in Moab, an impression supported by the continuation in vv. 15–20, which is clearly addressed to the people who are about to go into the land for the first time.” J. G. McConville, Deuteronomy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 429. So also Nelson: “Moses abruptly stops portraying the future and
Driver goes so far as to categorically reject any connection between 30:1–10 and 30:11–
14 and suggests this material originally did not belong together and was instead (erroneously?) juxtaposed by a later redactor. According to Driver,
The paragraph [30:11–14] is loosely connected with v. 1–10. V. 11–14 (“For” . . .) clearly states the reason for a present duty; in view of the contents of the four verses, it is exceedingly unnatural to suppose that they explain why Israel should find it easy to return to Jehovah in the future contingency contemplated in v. 10. It is next to impossible, therefore, that v. 11–20 can have been originally the sequel of v.
1–10.85
Driver’s historical-critical suggestions have been immensely influential in the literature, even infiltrating evangelical commentaries as a foregone conclusion.86 But instead of disjunction, I think Deuteronomy 30:11–14 makes better sense coordinated with and even subordinated to 30:1–10. This view is summed up by Barker: “It is our contention that both structurally and theologically, vv11–14 are dependent on, and must be read in light of, vv1–10.”87 In the sections that follow, I argue that 30:11–14 is best interpreted as a continuation of 30:1–10 for the following reasons, which are in addition to and reinforce the chiasm identified in 30:1–14: (1) the יכ that heads 30:11 continues the chain of subordinating יכ clauses that begins in 30:9b–10 and concludes in 30:14; (2)
returns to the present ‘Moab moment.’” Nelson, Deuteronomy, 349.
85Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, 330–31.
86Moo rejects a future reading of Deut 30:11–14 based on Driver’s exegesis. “One possibility would be to find in Deut. 30:11–14 a continuation of the prophecy in Deut. 30:1–10 about God’s
restoration of Israel after the Exile . . . . While an attractive alternative, this way of explaining Paul’s use of Deut. 30:12–14 cannot be accepted: at v. 11 in this chapter, there is a clear transition from the prophecy of future restoration in vv. 1–10 to the situation of Israel as she prepares to enter the promised land.” For support of this interpretation, Moo turns to Driver’s commentary: “Deuteronomy 30:11–4 returns to the theme of 29:29, as Moses lays the basis for his appeal to the Israelites to obey the law that God gave the people (vv. 11–15). The future time orientation of vv. 1–10, with its waw + perfect verbs, is dropped in v.
11. See S. R. Driver.” Moo, Romans, 652. Citing Moo, Schreiner rejects a future reading of 30:11–14 but holds out the possibility of a future interpretation in the narrative flow of Deuteronomy: “Moo is correct that strictly speaking the text is not a future prophecy. Yet its placement in the narrative of Deuteronomy and Paul’s understanding of salvation history led him to see it as fulfilled in his day.” Schreiner, Romans, 558n17.
87Barker, The Triumph of Grace in Deuteronomy, 183. Coxhead likewise argues, “[T]he first reason supporting the reading of Deut 30:11–14 in the future tense relates to the יכ in v. 11 that
subordinates the thought of vv. 11–14 to v. 10. The יכ in v. 11 ties vv. 11–14 in with vv. 1–10.” Coxhead,
“Deuteronomy 30:11–14,” 308.
the verbless clauses in 30:11–14 are atemporal and thus must gain tense from the context;
and (3) the narrative flow nudges the reader to a future-oriented interpretation of 30:11–
14.
Subordinating יכ Chain in Deuteronomy 30:11–14
Deuteronomy 30:11 is headed by the particle יכ, which also appears once in 30:9, twice in 30:10, and once more in 30:14. Understanding the function of יכ in this passage is crucial to understanding the literary flow of 30:1–14. Some who posit a disjunction between 30:1–10 and 30:11–14 stress an emphatic sense of יכ in 30:11,88 while the few interpreters who posit conjunction stress a subordinate/conjunctive sense.89
The particle יכ is commonly regarded as one of the most versatile words in the Hebrew language.90 Occurring just under 4,50091 times in the Hebrew Bible, it is second only to waw in frequency.92 Depending on how one translates this particle, a passage’s meaning can vary widely. Commenting on the state of Bible translations today, Harry Orlinsky and Robert Bratcher point to יכ as a central challenge for modern interpreters seeking to understand the original meaning of the biblical text:
In the wide range of meaning and nuances commanded by it, the common
conjunction יכ is probably next to ו in hardly having been exploited in the traditional
88Cf. NIV “Now . . .”; NRSV “Surely . . .” So Lundbom, “The verses [vv. 11 and 14] are tied together by an inclusion containing an asseverative יִכּ (“Indeed”).” Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 821.
89As Barker argues, “In light of the other arguments for the association of vv11–14 with the preceding, it seems fair to treat the particle as causal or evidential, that is, giving further reason for the expected blessing and restoration expressed in v9a.” Barker, The Triumph of Grace in Deuteronomy, 186.
Cf. Braulik, Deuteronomium II, 216–17.
90Walter Gross, Hubert Irsigler, and Theodor Seidl, eds., Text, Methode Und Grammatik:
Wolfgang Richter zum 65. Geburtstag (St. Ottilien, Germany: EOS, 1991), 97. According to Muilenberg, of all the words appearing in the Old Testament, יכ has “the widest and most varied range of nuance and meaning.” James Muilenburg, “The Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages of the Particle Ky in the Old Testament,” Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961): 136.
91According to the DCH, יכ occurs 4,488 times in the Hebrew Bible. David J. A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 383.
92Carl M. Follingstad, “Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text: A Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Analysis of the Particle יכ” (PhD diss., SIL International, 2001), 2.
translations and not yet fully enough in the modern ones . . . . [F]uture revisions of the modern versions that may come into being will have to do greater justice to the various nuances of יכ; it will not do to “play it safe” by relying on “for” or
“because” or the like.93
I contend that the way יכ is deployed in Deuteronomy 30:1–14 suggests that 30:11–14 is coordinated with the future time prophecy in 30:1–10, which would make greater sense of the narrative arc of the book of Deuteronomy.
Table 5. Translation landscape of the יכ chain in Deuteronomy 30:9–14
v. 9 v. 10a v. 10b v. 11 v. 14
LXX ὅτι ἐάν ἐάν ὅτι --
Vulgate enim si tamen et -- sed
KJV for if and if For but
RSV for if if For but
NRSV For when because Surely No
ESV For when when For but
NASB for if if For but
NIV 84 -- if -- Now but
The current translation landscape of the יכ in Deuteronomy 30:1–14 seems to be largely influenced by the LXX. Table 5 above shows how the five occurrences of יכ in Deuteronomy 30:1–14 are interpreted in various translations. As table 5 makes clear, the LXX translates the first יכ in Deuteronomy 30:9 with the conjunction ὅτι, and the other translations follow semantical suit: the Latin Vulgate uses enim, glossed “for” or
“therefore,” and all English translations use “for” (except the NIV, which omits it).
93Harry M. Orlinsky and Robert G. Bratcher, A History of Bible Translation and the North American Contribution (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1991), 295–97. Though Orlinsky and Bratcher are advocates for the dynamic equivalency translation theory, to which I am philosophically and theologically opposed, their point about the particle יכ stands for those who want to understand the original intentions of the biblical authors.
The LXX renders both instances of יכ in 30:10 with the conditional/temporal conjunction ἐάν, and for the most part the Vulgate and English translations follow suit—
the exception being the NRSV, which translates the second יכ with the causal
subordinating conjunction “because.” The LXX translates יכ in 30:11 as it did in 30:9 with ὅτι, and again the English translations follow suit, except for the NIV, which
translates it with the emphatic adverb “Now,” and the NRSV, which translates it with the emphatic adverb “Surely.” Important to note here is the fact that the LXX does not use an emphatic or disjunctive such as δέ in 30:11, but by using ὅτι the LXX leaves open the possibility of coordinate subordination. The Vulgate omits translating יכ in 30:11. The final יכ in 30:14 is not translated by the LXX, but the Vulgate and the English translations opt for semantic equivalents, the adversative conjunction “but.” In order to decide
between these interpretive possibilities, it is necessary to drill down on the core function of יכ.
Core function of יכ. In his thorough work on the particle יכ, Carl M.
Follingstad looks at the numerous ways interpreters have understood יכ to function in the Hebrew language. It has been variously classified as some form of conjunction, adverb, emphatic particle, or an assorted combination.94 Depending on what is understood to be the core function of the particle, interpreters have assigned יכ a variety of meanings. DCH summarizes the function of יכ as fundamentally a conjunction, glossed “for,” with fifteen possible meanings.95 HALOT is in agreement with DCH as to each of these fifteen possible meanings for יכ, but differs in understanding its fundamental function to be a
94Follingstad writes, “Throughout its history of grammatical interpretation, יכ has been
classified as a member of various word classes.” Follingstad, “Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text,”
22. Follingstad’s survey of the diachronic development of יכ as well as the various classifications and meanings that have been assigned to יכ is illuminating, as it highlights just how much in flux the function of this particle is even today. Follingstad, 15–63.
95Clines, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 4:383–91. According to Follingstad, “The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew has the most complete entry on יכ to date.” Follingstad, “Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text,” 37.
demonstrative particle and secondarily a conjunction.96
The translators of the LXX generally reflect the possible meanings for יכ given in DCH and HALOT. While frequently left untranslated (49 percent!), the clear
preference for יכ in the LXX is the Greek conjunction ὅτι (31 percent), followed by a not- so-close second, ἐάν (4 percent).97
Figure 6. Translation distribution of יכ in the LXX
יכ, 4488 untranslated (2206, 49%), ὅτι (1413, 31%), ἐάν (192, 4%), δέ (107, 2%), ἀλλά (102, 2%), γάρ (100, 2%), ἠ (61, 1%), καί (60, 1%)
More recently, scholars in search for the core function of יכ have suggested an emphatic-deictic classification of this particle. A. Schoors, T. Muraoka, and C.
Follingstad all argue that an emphatic-deictic classification of יכ points to a macro-
syntactical function, as opposed to the logical, connective function of past understandings of יכ.98 But other scholars are not convinced. While conceding that יכ may have
originated from a non-connective or demonstrative particle, Anneli Aejmelaeus argues that “[a] brief survey of the use of יכ in the OT suffices to make it clear that, in the stage of development of the Hebrew language represented in the OT text, יכ mainly serves as a connective, a conjunction to join clauses to one another.”99 Aejmelaeus goes on to assert,
96Ludwig Köhler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (New York:
Brill, 1994), 470–71.
97Analysis completed using Emanuel Tov and F. H. Polak, The Parallel Aligned Text of the Greek and Hebrew Bible (CATSS database, dir. by R.A. Kraft and E. Tov), 2005, BibleWorks. v. 9.
98Anton Schoors, “The Particle Ki,” in Remembering All the Way: A Collection of Old Testament Studies, ed. Bertil Albrektson (Leiden: Brill, 1981); T. Muraoka, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985), 159–64; Follingstad, “Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text.” Follingstad argues יכ is a “discourse deictic” that switches the viewpoint of a passage with epistemic modal side effects.
99Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Function and Interpretation of יכ in Biblical Hebrew,” Journal of Biblical Literature 105, no. 2 (1986): 195.
The solution of the translators in the case of apparently superfluous particles is usually to omit them; also in cases where יכ is claimed to be emphatic it is often not rendered at all. I regard it as more appropriate—at least the lesser evil of the two—
to remain with the causal interpretation of יכ, that is, causal in the broadest sense of the word—even where the logical connection is imperceptible—and to regard יכ as a connective rather than an emphatic or assertive particle.100
In his dissertation on the particle יכ, Barry Bandstra examines every occurrence of יכ in the Pentateuch and the Psalms and, in the end, rejects this trend toward
understanding יכ as a fundamentally emphatic, demonstrative, or deictic particle.
Bandstra argues that these approaches fall prey to the etymological fallacy in an attempt to explain יכ in relationship to its origin in the language. Instead, Bandstra begins his investigation with an agnostic position with respect to the etymology of יכ and analyzes the actual uses in the text.101 He contends that interpreters who understand יכ to function mainly as an emphatic or deictic particle do not take it seriously enough, often eliding it in their translations, as Aejmelaeus corroborates above. Bandstra’s conclusion, which is immanently pertinent for Deuteronomy 30:11–14, is that יכ is a “syntactic relator particle in all of its semantic functions. Its primary function is to relate two clauses together in a dependency relation to form a sentence.”102
Bandstra proposes two rules for determining the nature of the semantic
relationship between the יכ clause and the rest of the sentence: “(1) if the order of clauses is main clause followed by יכ clause then the semantic relationship is one of
complementation, consequence, adversion or causation,” and (2) “if the order of clauses is יכ clause followed by main clause then the semantic relationship is one of temporal circumstance, condition or concession.”103
Significantly for the present study, Bandstra categorizes both יכ clauses in
100Aejmelaeus, “Function and Interpretation of יכ in Biblical Hebrew,” 205.
101Barry L. Bandstra, “The Syntax of Particle ‘Ky’ in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic” (PhD diss., Yale University, 1982), 8.
102Bandstra, 407.
103Bandstra, 408.
Deuteronomy 30:11–14 as following their main clauses. Therefore, according to
Bandstra’s classification system, both יכ clauses in 30:11 and 14 would have to be one of four types of clause: complementation, consequence, adversion, or causation. In verse 11, Bandstra specifically labels the יכ clause a “cause grounds” clause and offers the gloss
“for,” which would support the argument that 30:11–14 should be read as a continuation of 30:1–10.104 Even if Bandstra’s specific labels are not adopted and only his
classification system is received, the results of his study point toward the view that 30:11 is logically subordinate to 30:1–10 and does not begin a new section, as is almost
universally assumed by interpreters. In 30:14, Bandstra labels the יכ clause an
“adversative” clause and offers the gloss “but.”105 As Bandstra points out, however, this is conceptually close to and derivative of causal יכ. “The semantic development from cause to adversion is fairly straight-forward: x is not the cause because y is the case, because not x but y. The two meanings are so close at times that they are difficult to distinguish.”106 Whether the יכ in 30:14 is adversion or another “cause grounds” clause as in 30:11 makes no difference in the following interpretation.
Initially, then, the introductory יכ in Deuteronomy 30:11 would point toward understanding this passage to be logically subordinate to Deuteronomy 30:1–10, which would link the יכ clauses in 30:11–14 with the יכ clauses in 30:9b–10. Telford Work sees connective significance in the יכ of 30:11–14 when he writes, “the conjunction ki (for) suggests a connection with the preceding verses and their eschatological scenario.”107 Braulik likewise argues that the יכ in 30:11 continues and further grounds 30:10:
104Bandstra, “The Syntax of Particle ‘Ky’,” 286.
105Bandstra, 286.
106Bandstra, 150. Even those who argue against the fundamental causal function of יכ admit this close relationship, e.g., Schoors, “The Particle Ki,” 252.
107Telford Work, Deuteronomy, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids:
Brazos Press, 2009), 269.
Das dreifache satzeinleitende יִכּ in 30:10f, das die EÜ zweimal mit »wenn« übersetzt (10), einmal nicht weiter berücksichtigt (11), wird wohl besser mit »denn«
wiedergegeben. Dann stehen am Ende mehrere parallele Begründungssätze, die immer wieder das gleiche Urdatum von verscheidenen Seiten her ins Auge fassen, aber keine Bedingungen.108
What is apparent in Deuteronomy 30:9–14 is a יכ cluster, or “יכ chain,” that serves to ground the prophetic vision in 30:1ff.109 The implications of this conclusion are revisited below after examining other textual features that point toward the view that 30:11–14 is a continuation of 30:1–10.
Verbless Clauses in Deuteronomy 30:11–14
The five main clauses in Deuteronomy 30:11–14 are verbless clauses.110 It should not be surprising to see יכ paired with verbless clauses in 30:11–14; as Revell writes, “The vast majority of the verbless clauses are coordinate (introduced by the conjunction waw), or יכ clauses (introduced by the particle יכ).”111
In an analysis of the use and function of the verbless clause in biblical Hebrew, Cynthia Miller defines a verbless clause as “represent(ing) a predication by means of the collocation of nominal elements apart from a fully inflected verbal form.”112 As such, verbless clauses are atemporal, which means their temporal framework is determined by
108Braulik, Deuteronomium II, 216–17.
109Barker likewise recognizes the significance of this יכ chain, what he refers to as “a sequence of יִכּ clauses in vv9–11 . . . . Yahweh will make Israel prosperous (v9a) for (יִכּ evidential, v9b) he will restore Israel’s fortunes when (יִכּ temporal, v10a) Israel obeys and when (יִכּ evidential, causal, v11) the word is in Israel’s heart.” Barker, The Triumph of Grace in Deuteronomy, 185–86.
110It should be noted that the term “verbless clause” is a debated one. As Miller points out,
“Among Hebraists and linguists, there is little agreement about what to call predications lacking a finite verb. Some Hebraists prefer nominal clause, others verbless clause. Some linguists use the term small clause; others reject the category entirely.” Cynthia L. Miller, “Pivotal Issues in Analyzing the Verbless Clause,” in The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches, ed. Cynthia L. Miller, Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 6. I will not use the term “nominal clause” due to its potential confusion with the term “nominal sentence.”
111E. J. Revell, “Thematic Continuity and the Conditioning of Word Order in Verbless Clauses,” in The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches, ed. Cynthia L. Miller, Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 297.
112Miller, “Pivotal Issues in Analyzing the Verbless Clause,” 3.