Biblical Studies

A devotional examination of “delight to fear your name” (Nehemiah 1:11)

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Pentateuch and Historical Books course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

At the close of his prayer, Nehemiah describes God’s servants as those who “delight to fear your [YHWH’s] name.” Interestingly, out of the handful of commentaries examined, this author was unable to find a single comment on this quick phrase. However, this somewhat odd and seemingly paradoxical expression is certainly worthy of further study because undoubtedly it speaks volumes to fundamental questions about the source and nature of the believer’s delight, let alone his or her relationship with God.

יָרֵא means to fear, to hold in awe or deference. It connotes a level of honor and respect. And often, it is used to refer to the proper fear due to God (Holladay, 142). But paradoxically, Nehemiah’s words indicate that delight is found in fearing God’s name. (As is commonly known, “name” in the OT is often used to represent one’s essential characteristics. Therefore, this refers to those who fear God as He truly is.) However, this is very much contrary to common opinion; many live, act, and think as though pleasure is found in anything but God and His commandments. In fact, God is even called the “cosmic killjoy.” Contrary to this thought, Nehemiah demonstrates the belief that pleasure is found in fearing God, “that there is a kind of sweetness to the very experience of fearing God” as Piper says. Fear itself is a sweetness to the believer (Piper, “Kindness and Severity of God”).  As Piper further explains,

There’s a reason why people run away from scenes of terror in real life, but still go to movies to see the same terror. There’s a reason why no one wants to fall out of an airplane, but they will pay money at Valley Fair for the same sensation of falling. The reason is that we were created to be safely afraid of God. Everything else is an echo of this truth. We were made to be safely afraid of God, because when we are safely afraid of God—when there is no condemnation and we know that he is our Father and our Friend—then what remains in fear of God is deeply pleasant. (Piper, “Kindness and Severity of God”) In sum, Nehemiah’s description of the saint alludes to the reality that there is ironically greater pleasure found in living a life that honors God’s way and refuses the temporary and lesser sinful pleasures. That’s the paradox of “delighting to fear.” It’s not to say that fearing God won’t mean the forfeiting of some pleasures. But paradoxically, the forfeiting of such pleasures in the pursuit of reverencing God yields even greater, unshakable pleasure.

Nehemiah’s use of Pentateuchal conditions in his appeal (Nehemiah 1:8-9)

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Pentateuch and Historical Books course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

After extolling God, praising His works and faithfulness, confessing sin, and pleading for forgiveness, Nehemiah appeals to the stipulations and guarantees of the Mosaic Covenant. Allen calls this reference to the Mosaic Law the “crux of the prayer” (89). And this is an accurate assessment. Certainly, an appeal to scripture as a grounds for prayer indicates interpretive importance for how the former text applies to the latter. Therefore, the interpreter does well to further evaluate this exegetical issue.

It is quite clear that Nehemiah is referring to the Pentateuch. This is clear from (1) the fact that Nehemiah says, “Now, remember the word that you commanded Moses, your servant,” and (2) the obvious similarity between the words of Nehemiah’s prayer and the following texts from the Mosaic Law: Deut 4:25–31; 6:1; 7:9, 21; 9:29; 10:17; 12:5; 21:15; 28:64; 30:1-4; cf. Lev. 26:33, 39-42. Nehemiah was likely providing a loose recitation and summary of these various texts here, as one who is well-versed in scriptures might likewise do even today as he or she prays. As Frensham says, “Parts of it are free citation and part quoted verbatim,” but, either way, “it is a true reflection of what is said in Deuteronomy.” (155-156). Fensham notes that, in his reference, Nehemiah employs covenantal language. He thereby “sketches the result of sin” in verse 8. Yet at the same time, as was custom of Ancient Near Eastern treaties, the covenant curses are balanced with covenant blessings. By using the convenantally loaded verbs, שׁוב (return) and שָׁמַר (keep), Nehemiah indicates that “if one transgressed the stipulations [of the covenant], the curse would come into operation, but if one kept the stipulations, the blessings would be bestowed. It was an either/or choice.” (155)

Fensham concludes that, in making this reference and preferring those parts that refer to captivity and return from exile, Nehemiah sees these predictions and stipulations in the Law as applying to the events contemporaneous to his own day (156). Breneman understands the importance of Nehemiah’s appeal to scripture primarily in terms of Nehemiah’s reliance and utter dependence on the word of God. He observes that, although Nehemiah “had to come before God empty-handed, with nothing deserving the Lord’s favor . . .” he nonetheless was able to make an appeal based on God’s own promises and faithfulness. God may have predicted this situation, may have justly punished Israel due to her sin; but Nehemiah realized that God likewise predicted Israel’s restoration, and likewise promised restoration upon repentance. In other words, Nehemiah saw the current situation of exile as an unfinished portion of God’s story concerning His people. And Nehemiah made his appeal on the basis of this reality (173). Allen claims that by citing Deuteronomic texts, Nehemiah’s prayer exemplifies a liturgical form of expression (88). Allen argues that “repentance is the keynote of the prayer.” Because “God’s normative relationship with the covenant people . . .” was “beyond their reach . . .” Nehemiah’s references Deuteronomy in verses 8-9 serve as a divine instruction and exhortation to repent. Nonetheless, such repentance would only serve as an initiator for God’s gracious intervention (89). In other words, in distinction from Breneman, rather than interpreting Nehemiah’s use of Deuteronomy as a basis for his appeal, Allen sees the reference’s use as primarily exhortative. Throntveit, on the other hand, understands Nehemiah’s use of Deuteronomy as primarily indicating Nehemiah’s understanding that God was in fact in control of history in general and Israel’s current situation in particular. “This is to be seen as a testimony to God’s power and control of history. Israel is in God’s hands, not subject to the capricious machinations of human despots.” Thus, Nehemiah seeks to remind God that the lesson has been learned and the judgment effectively administered (65). It is time to move on to restoration.

In conclusion, this author believes that Breneman’s conclusion is the most accurate assessment of why Nehemiah appeals to Deuteronomy. His prayerful request is not an exhortation to the people (contra. Allen), but a petition to God. Just as he did so in verse 5, Nehemiah appeals to God as the God of the covenant made with Israel. Yes, this covenant involved judgment for disobedience. But upon repentance, this covenant promised blessing. To such sure guarantees, Nehemiah fashions his prayer.

The theme of YHWH’s kingship (1 Samuel 8:7)

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Pentateuch and Historical Books course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

When the people of Israel requested a king to rule over them like all other nations, Samuel sought YHWH’s counsel. Interestingly, YHWH remarked that by making this request the people were not rejecting Samuel’s leadership (although in one sense they were). They were ultimately rejecting God’s kingly rule over them (8:7). And this rejection was paradigmatic of Israel’s previous behavior as far back as the Exodus (8:8). But what exactly does it mean for God to be king over Israel? And when did he become king in this sense? This intriguing comment about YHWH’s kingship, both implying and indicating the nature of God’s relationship to His people, requires further investigation.[1]

Although in the Old Testament kingship often refers to human kings, whether of Israel or other nearby nations, YHWH is also frequently designated as king and sovereign (e.g., 1 Chron 17:14; 28:5; Psalm 114:2). Significantly, in Judges 8, when the people of Israel previously sought to establish Gideon as king, Gideon responding negatively that neither he nor his sons would rule over Israel as kings because God was to rule over Israel as king” (v.23).[2] Similarly, in 1 Samuel 12:12, when Samuel recalls Israel requesting a king be appointed over them, Samuel states, “YHWH, your God, was your king.” One contextual clue of what it meant practically to reject YHWH’s rule (besides making a request with improper motives for a king) is provided in 1 Samuel 8:8—serving other gods; idolatry. The Song of Moses, reflecting upon the exodus from Egypt, states, “YHWH will reign forever and ever,” apparently assumes the kingship of God. In Moses’ final blessing upon Israel, he states that YHWH became Israel’s king in Jeshurun, referring to the covenant renewal at Moab. In other words, YHWH’s kingship over Israel is seen as bound up with the Exodus and the subsequent covenant made at Sinai. Potentially somewhat similar to contemporaneous Ancient Near Eastern suzerain-vassal treaties, YHWH, having delivered Israel from bondage, claimed the right of lordship over her. And, in making His covenant with her, He established the “constitution” of His reign over her, demarcating her obligations as vassal and his position as suzerain.

“Parallels in literary structure between the Sinai covenant and certain international treaties drawn up by the kings of the Hittite Empire in the fourteenth century b.c. show that in the Sinai covenant Yahweh assumes the role of the Great King, and Israel, that of his vassal.” (EDBT, 449-450)

The goal of this covenant, significantly, is that Israel might be God’s kingdom of priests (Ex 19:6). It’s also worth noting the suggestion of many that the tabernacle functioned in some sense as YHWH’s throne in Israel’s midst.

In summary, as sovereign, YHWH founded His particular kingly relationship over Israel by redeeming her from the clutches of the competing sovereign nation and gods of Egypt. This relationship was formally established in the covenant made at Sinai. And this particular sovereign rule of God over Israel did not conflict with His purpose to appoint a human king over Israel. On the contrary, as the “Son of God” (Ps 2:7; cf. 2 Sam 7), this ruler was to imitate God’s rule, be the agent through whom God’s rule was mediated to Israel. This individual is ultimately realized in Christ—the person in whom the rule of God and the mediation of that rule through a human agent is perfectly realized.

[1] Interestingly, although checking several commentaries, none make any interpretive comment on this theme.

[2] Nevertheless, the repeated refrain in the book of Judges, “in those days there was no king in Israel” (18:1; 19:1), beats a drum that calls for the stability anticipated in the eventual kingship.

The seemingly “inconsistent” views in 1 Samuel 8-12 concerning Israel’s monarchy

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Pentateuch and Historical Books course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

As mentioned in the previous paper, an apparent tension exists between 1 Samuel 8’s negative appraisal of the people’s request for a king and the Pentateuch’s anticipation and prediction of such a king. This tension has unsurprisingly led many critical scholars, not only to claim an inconsistency between 1 Samuel 8 and the Pentateuch (above paper), but also within the chapters of 1 Samuel itself. In other words, these critical scholars have suggested the existence of different underlying traditions represented in 1 Samuel. These divergent traditions are supposedly responsible for the “inconsistent” opinions about the monarchy in 1 Samuel. This short paper will seek to wade through various opinions about this matter and provide an initial response.

Various “inconsistencies” within 1 Samuel’s appraisal of the monarchy are levied as evidence for distinct traditions with differing assessments of the monarchy. For example, different locations are provided for king-installment ceremonies (compare Gilgal in 11:15 to Mizpah in 10:17). Note also the seeming inconsistency between Samuel appointing Saul king in 9:1-10:16 and yet selecting him to be king via casting lots in 10:17-27 (Baldwin, 82). One might also add Samuel’s own mixed response (compare 8:6 with 10:24) as well as God’s motives (compare 8:7-9 with 9:15-16). Adding further difficulty is the fact that God apparently selected Saul (9:15-16). In other words, if God had planned the monarchy from the nation’s birth at Sinai, why did he not appoint a competent and godly king upon the people’s request, despite whether or not their own motives were pure? His choice of an ungodly and eventually unsuccessful King, Saul, calls into question the sincerity of God’s counter-reasoning—essentially, “He will be a bad king” (8:10-18)—against the people’s request. Baldwin suggests that the final editor allows each tradition to speak with its full voice, neither suppressing either tradition nor demonstrating a significant concern for harmonization as many modern Christians exhibit. Baldwin suggests this editor is concerned with providing a multitude of equally important complexity of perspectives that can address different situations and emphases (82-83). Howard, on the other hand, acknowledges that no problem confronts the evangelical by theoretically entertaining the possibility of multiple sources (cf. the self-attestation of scripture in this regard, e.g., 2 Sam 1:18; 1 Chron 29:29). Nonetheless, Howard concludes that such dichotomized source theories (i.e., absolute anti-monarchy v. absolute pro-monarchy) are rather blown out of proportion beyond what the actual data can justify (144).

In conclusion, it should be noted that a lack of uniformity does not mean a lack of consistency. Just because various portions of the narrative may derive from different sources, and just because they may create tensions within the narrative, does not necessitate the inclusion of inconsistencies and contradictions. Resolving every one of these tensions is beyond the scope of this paper; but as an example, one may note the above paper. In sum, the complexity of the narrative is likely purposeful in providing a variety of perspectives. However, one should not assume that any existence of such complexity requires inconsistency. In fact, one might rightly argue that the critical approach to biblical literature in this incident is far more complex and unnatural than the more straightforward approach of evangelical scholarship, despite its concession of tensions.