My question:
It seems that Yahweh never controls a person’s loyalty but there are times where Yahweh causes a person to do something, or am I off base here?
ChatGPT response:
You are not off base at all — and the distinction you are sensing is actually one of the most important (and most overlooked) theological lines in the entire biblical narrative.
In short:
Yahweh never coerces covenant loyalty,
but He does at times compel specific actions for His purposes.
Those are two very different categories in Scripture.
Let’s walk it carefully in the biblical frame you and I have been using.
1. Covenant loyalty is never forced
In Hebrew thought, loyalty / faithfulness (אֱמוּנָה — ’emunah) is relational, volitional, and moral.
It cannot exist if it is compelled.
This is why the Torah and Prophets repeatedly frame obedience as:
“Choose this day…” (Josh 24:15)
“If you are willing and obedient…” (Isa 1:19)
“I set before you life and death… choose life” (Deut 30:19)
If Yahweh controlled loyalty, then:
covenant would be meaningless,
love would be artificial,
and judgment would be unjust.
This is why the Shema (Deut 6:4–5) commands love but never programs it.
Love, trust, allegiance, fear of Yahweh — these are always invited, warned, pleaded for, but never forced.
2. Yet Yahweh sometimes overrides behavior
At the same time, Scripture is full of moments where God causes a person to do something — without converting their heart.
A few major examples:
Pharaoh (Exodus)
Yahweh hardens Pharaoh’s heart after Pharaoh has already established his own posture of rebellion.
But notice:
Pharaoh’s loyalty is never converted. His actions are at times constrained, escalated, or redirected to serve Yahweh’s purposes.
Pharaoh never becomes faithful.
He becomes useful.
Balaam (Numbers 22–24)
Balaam is greedy, compromised, and self-serving.
Yet:
“The LORD put a word in Balaam’s mouth” (Num 23:5)
God does not change Balaam’s loyalty.
He commandeers Balaam’s speech.
Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1–5)
Cyrus does not know Yahweh.
He does not worship Yahweh.
Yet Yahweh calls him:
“My anointed… whose right hand I have grasped.”
Cyrus becomes a political instrument, not a covenant servant.
Jonah
Jonah never wants Nineveh’s salvation.
He never becomes loyal to the mission.
So Yahweh forces the mission, not the heart.
Jonah’s loyalty remains fractured.
His obedience is compelled.
3. The critical theological boundary
Here is the boundary Scripture never crosses:
Yahweh governs events and actions,
but never manufactures covenant allegiance.
Why?
Because allegiance belongs to the realm of image-bearing.
To remove that freedom would destroy what it means to be human in biblical anthropology.
4. Why this matters
Yahweh wants:
a kingdom of priests (Ex 19:6),
a people who draw near (Ex 19; Deut 5),
a people who trust and cling (דָּבַק).
None of that can exist under coercion.
Yet Yahweh still shepherds history, empires, wars, kings, prophets, and even rebellions toward His redemptive ends.
So Scripture presents a God who is:
absolutely sovereign over history,
yet profoundly respectful of the human will in covenant relationship.
That tension is not a problem to solve —
it is the very architecture of the biblical story.
I then asked:
Is this why we see so often in scripture (especially in books like Judges) where Yahweh keeps non-loyal pagan nations in the presence of Israel in order to test their loyalty?
ChatGPT response:
Yes — exactly.
And once you see this, huge portions of the Old Testament suddenly make coherent theological sense instead of looking arbitrary or cruel.
What you are noticing is not a minor theme.
It is one of the primary engines of the covenant story.
Let’s put the pieces together.
1. The stated reason: loyalty must be tested, not programmed
Judges says this explicitly:
“The LORD left those nations… in order to test Israel,
whether they would keep the way of the LORD and walk in it.”
— Judges 2:22
“They were for the testing of Israel.”
— Judges 3:4
The Hebrew word nāsāh (נָסָה) means:
to prove, to examine, to reveal what is actually in someone.
You don’t test what you already control.
You only test what must remain free.
2. Why Yahweh does not remove all competing loyalties
If Yahweh removed every alternative:
no rival gods,
no pagan nations,
no seduction,
no threat,
no cost,
then Israel’s “loyalty” would be nothing more than environmental conditioning.
The presence of rival nations makes loyalty:
visible,
costly,
meaningful,
real.
That is why Joshua says:
“Choose this day whom you will serve.” (Josh 24:15)
He does not say, “You will serve.”
3. Judges is not about military failure — it is about covenant failure
Judges follows a repeated cycle:
Israel abandons Yahweh
Yahweh removes protection
Foreign nations dominate
Israel cries out
Yahweh delivers
Israel forgets again
The nations are not just enemies.
They are instruments of covenant examination.
Each cycle answers one question:
Who actually rules your heart?
4. An invitation to draw near
Exodus 19:
Israel is invited to draw near and become a kingdom of priests
Deuteronomy 5:
They refuse to draw near
Judges:
Their descendants are repeatedly given the chance to draw near again —
but surrounded by rival loyalties that reveal the truth of their hearts
The story is not about God being harsh.
It is about God refusing to create fake worshipers.
5. The uncomfortable but profound conclusion
If Yahweh eliminated every threat to Israel’s loyalty,
He would be eliminating Israel’s humanity.
So instead He preserves the battlefield of the heart.
Not because He enjoys risk —
but because love, trust, and allegiance cannot exist without it.
I then asked:
How do some of the verses in Proverbs 16 confirm that Yahweh never controls a person’s loyalty (or plans), but either allows or disallows such plans to happen or not?
ChatGPT response:
This is an excellent place to look, because Proverbs 16 is one of Scripture’s clearest “control-panel” chapters — it lays out, almost aphoristically, how divine sovereignty and human loyalty coexist.
And yes:
it strongly supports your framework that Yahweh never manufactures a person’s loyalty or moral orientation, but He does govern which plans are allowed to stand.
Let’s walk through the chapter carefully.
1. The opening thesis — human planning is real
“The plans of the heart belong to man,
but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.”
(Prov 16:1)
Hebrew:
מַעַרְכֵי־לֵב לְאָדָם
ma‘arkhê-lev le’ādām — “the arrangements of the heart belong to the human.”
This is not rhetorical.
It assigns ownership of intention, desire, purpose — to the person.
Yahweh is not the author of the plans.
He is the final arbiter of their outcome.
2. Moral evaluation remains with the human
“All a person’s ways are pure in his own eyes,
but the LORD weighs the spirits.”
(Prov 16:2)
Notice:
humans choose their ways,
humans evaluate themselves,
Yahweh evaluates what they have chosen.
There is no hint of Yahweh programming the choices themselves.
3. The cooperation model, not coercion
“Commit your works to the LORD,
and your plans will be established.”
(Prov 16:3)
This only makes sense if:
the plans originate with the person,
and Yahweh decides whether they are permitted to stand.
If God controlled the plans themselves, this verse would be meaningless.
4. Divine purpose does not cancel human agency
“The LORD has made everything for its purpose,
even the wicked for the day of evil.”
(Prov 16:4)
This does not mean Yahweh creates people to be wicked.
It means:
humans choose their moral direction,
Yahweh incorporates even those choices into His larger governance of history.
The verse assumes existing wickedness; it does not create it.
5. God governs outcomes, not loyalty
“A person plans his way,
but the LORD directs his steps.”
(Prov 16:9)
This is your thesis in one sentence.
The planning is human.
The permission structure is divine.
Yahweh does not replace the heart.
He governs the path.
6. Even rebellion is not scripted
“There is a way that seems right to a man…”
(Prov 16:25)
The entire logic of Proverbs assumes that:
humans choose paths, those paths can be wrong, Yahweh does not prevent the choosing, but He does govern the consequences.
The theology Proverbs 16 quietly enforces
Putting the chapter together, Proverbs 16 teaches:
Sphere: Heart / plans / intentions —-> Who holds it: Human
Sphere: Moral orientation / loyalty —-> Who holds it: Human
Sphere: Permission for success or failure —-> Who holds it: Yahweh
Sphere: Historical outcome —-> Who holds it: Yahweh
Sphere: Accountability —-> Who holds it: Human
Yahweh is King of outcomes, not author of allegiances.
Why this matters
If Yahweh controlled loyalty:
repentance would be theater,
covenant would be hollow,
judgment would be unjust,
and love would be impossible.
Proverbs 16 refuses that world.
Instead it presents a God who is:
sovereign without being coercive,
in control without being manipulative,
supreme without erasing the image-bearer.
I then asked:
How does this connect to the sermon in the Mount where Jesus emphasizes a person’s culpability for not just their actions, but the thoughts or plans they make whether God allows such plans to occur or not?
ChatGPT response:
This is a very deep — and very important — connection.
What Jesus does in the Sermon on the Mount is to move Proverbs 16’s theology inside the human person and then expose its moral implications.
In other words:
Proverbs 16 explains how God governs reality.
The Sermon on the Mount explains where guilt actually lives.
Let’s lay that out carefully.
1. Proverbs 16:
Humans own their plans; God governs their outcomes
We saw:
“The plans of the heart belong to man” (Prov 16:1) “A person plans his way, but the LORD directs his steps” (16:9) God weighs the heart, not just the outcome (16:2)
So:
Moral responsibility attaches to intention, not merely to outcome.
This is the foundation.
2. The Sermon on the Mount:
Jesus applies that foundation to judgment
Jesus repeatedly does this pattern:
“You have heard… but I say to you…”
And every time, He pulls guilt upstream from visible action to invisible intent.
Example: Anger → murder
“Everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment.”
(Matt 5:22)
Notice:
No murder has happened.
No outcome has occurred.
Yet culpability already exists.
Why?
Because:
The heart has already chosen the direction.
Example: Lust → adultery
“Everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
(Matt 5:28)
The plan exists.
The desire exists.
The trajectory exists.
Whether God permits the physical act to happen is secondary.
3. This matches Proverbs 16 exactly
Proverbs:
Humans own the heart’s plans; God governs whether the steps occur.
Jesus:
Judgment already attaches at the level of the plan.
So even if:
God blocks the action,
circumstances interrupt the act,
the opportunity never arises,
the moral reality is already present.
4. Why this proves God does not control loyalty
If God controlled the human will,
then Jesus’ entire Sermon would collapse.
You cannot justly condemn someone for:
anger, lust, hatred, coveting,
unless those internal movements are genuinely theirs.
Jesus is not teaching higher ethics.
He is exposing where the covenant truly lives: the heart.
And that heart remains radically free.
5. The terrifying implication (and the gospel)
This also explains why salvation must involve a new heart (Jer 31; Ezek 36)
and not merely new behavior.
Because behavior is not the problem.
The planning center is.
6. The unified picture
Layer: Proverbs 16 —-> Teaching: Humans choose intentions; God governs outcomes
Layer: Sermon on the Mount —-> Teaching: Guilt attaches to intentions regardless of outcomes
Layer: Covenant theology —-> Teaching: Loyalty must be freely chosen
Layer: Gospel —-> Teaching: God heals the heart, not just the behavior
These responses from ChatGPT really makes sense of this verse…
“Many plans are in a man’s heart,
but the LORD’S decree will prevail.” – Proverbs 19:21 (HCSB)
Godspeed, to the brethren!
Check out my book!
theidolbabbler.com 