Biblical Studies

The tension between 1 Samuel 8’s negative perspective and the Pentateuch’s positive anticipation of the 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.

Reflecting upon Israel’s history, God says in 1 Samuel 8:8, “As all of the deeds that they did from the day I brought them from Egypt until this day, they forsook me and served other gods.” As Bergen comments, “Against this backdrop, Israel’s demand for an earthly king is presented as merely the latest instance of their long-standing pattern of rejection” (116-117). However, on the other hand, Pentateuch texts such as Gen 17:6, 16; 35:11; 49:8-12; Num 24:7, 17; and Deut 17:14-20 provide a positive anticipation of the monarchy as part of God’s plan. In other words, 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. How is it that both Samuel and God can be so opposed to the people’s request for a king when in fact God had predicted this request and installment of a king? This short paper seeks to answer this question.

McCarter helpfully notes that the people’s request was not merely concerned with military security. Certainly, this was a concern. With Samuel’s age (8:1), a new leader was obviously going to be needed. Yet Israel did not simply request a new leader, but a new institution or form of that leadership. And clearly, they see this Canaanite model of kingship (8:20) as a military advantage (8:20). This ambition was seemingly innocent in and of itself given the Pentateuch’s anticipation of a monarchy and God’s instruction to secure the land. But as McCarter notes, their ambition went further than this. “They are motivated by a perverse and self-destructive urge to rise above themselves” (160). In other words, McCarter understands the problem with this request as having to do with Israel’s discontentment with the adequate (cf. 7:2-17) pre-monarchial leadership institution established by YHWH and currently in place. Therefore, chapter 8 must be understood in light of the picture painted in chapter 7 (160). Rather than being content with what God had established for the time being, they sought to be “like all the nations” (8:20). “The people demand a king of Samuel because they want to be like the other nations; but this is precisely what they are not supposed to be” (McCarter, 160). Baldwin provides a paradoxical explanation stating, “Despite Israel’s apostasy in requesting a king, the Lord was positively at work to achieve his ultimate purpose” (84, cf. 87). Finally, one should observe that the perspectives represented in the Pentateuch’s anticipation of a king and 1 Samuel 8 are not all that different; in fact, they are quite similar in one sense. Whereas 1 Samuel 8 lists off the various upcoming offenses of this new king, Deuteronomy 17:14-17, for instance, provides restrictions that would prohibit such abuses. In other words, a Pentateuch passage like Deuteronomy 17 also holds to the view that kings tend to corrupt (McCarter, 162). Likewise, but contrastingly, Baldwin eases the tension by arguing that the Pentateuch shares 1 Samuel 8’s pessimistic view. He states that in Deuteronomy 17:14-15 “the desire to emulate other nations is foreseen and permitted, rather than approved” and that God “adapted his purposes and acquiesced sufficiently … even incorporating the monarchy into his revelation of himself to Israel [in the Pentateuch]” (84, emphasis mine). Therefore, for Baldwin, the tension is eased because for him there was really no tension in the first place; both passages are pessimistic.

In conclusion, one of YHWH’s concerns is that this king would claim prerogatives and rights that ought to belong solely to God alone as Israel’s ultimate king. In this vein of thought, it may be that this tension between God’s simultaneous desire and repulsion towards kingship is only truly resolved in the kingship of Christ, that human king who is simultaneously God, possesses the rights to such prerogatives, and executes His rule perfectly. At the same time, the people’s motives for requesting a king provide the surest exegetical explanation. Given these Pentateuch texts (above), God was certainly not against kingship per se. But, as McCarter pointed out, Israel wanted a king for sinful motivations. And contrary to Baldwin, Howard rightly affirms that “this desire flew in the face of the injunctions in Deuteronomy 17:14-20” (159). Consequently, this action was interpreted as a rejection of YHWH’s rule (8:7) because they did not desire his model of kingship.

A Study of “Frontlets” (Deuteronomy 6:8)

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 the exegete enters the ancient Biblical world, background information of various sorts (e.g., cultural, social, political, religious, etc.) often plays a key role in understanding and interpreting the text properly. When confronted with foreign material in the Biblical text, the interpreter does well to investigate. One such example of foreign material occurs in Deuteronomy 6:8 and the mention of phylacteries.

CHALOT describes טוֹטָפֹת as a sign placed on one’s hands or arms (123). Here in Deuteronomy 6:8, its location is specified as בֵּ֥ין עֵינֶֽיךָ (“between your eyes”); however, Merrill clarifies that בֵּ֥ין עֵינֶֽיךָ is a way of referring to what one might call the forehead (168). These “phylacteries,” as they were eventually understood,[1] were small boxes containing portions of scripture (e.g., Exod. 13:9, 16; Deut. 6:8; and 11:18) written on small pieces of parchment. These black boxes were fastened to one’s upper left arm and/or forehead by black straps (Achtemeier, 795). Although Merrill understands the instructions of verse 8 as figurative, he describes its literal practice as follows:

“In postbiblical Judaism and to the present day a miniature box containing verses of the Torah (Exod 13:1-10; 13:11-16; Deut 6:4-9; and Deut 11:13-21) were placed inside the four chambers of the box, the whole being known as the tepillin (“prayers”) or phylactery (cf. Matt 23:5).” (168).

Concerning when began the practice of following Deuteronomy 6:8’s instruction literally in terms of these phylacteries, no definitive evidence exists. However, phylacteries found at Qumran, Jesus’ statement in Matthew 23:5, and mention of phylacteries in rabbinic literature (e.g., Megilla 4:8; Berakot 14b-15a), suggest their prevalence by the Second Temple period (Achtemeier, 795-796). Used only two other times in the Hebrew Old Testament (Ex 13:16; Deut 11:18), in each incident טוֹטָפֹתis used to connote a means of remembering God’s acts or words. On the other hand, Merrill believes that the purpose of binding these words to one’s forehead (not to be interpreted literally in his opinion, however) was to identify oneself with the covenant community (168). Achtmeier notes that, although originally intended for educational purposes, many came to believe that these phylacteries possessed spiritual protective powers (Achtemeier, 795-796).

Whether or not Deuteronomy 6:8’s instruction was intended to be taken literally or not is beyond the scope of this paper. However, many have done so and thus phylacteries have emerged. If nothing else, this practice provides a vivid illustration of the inward intention of this text—a constant awareness of God’s law.

[1] The word “phylactery” is derived from the Greek translation of the Hebrew word טוֹטָפֹת(Craigie, 171).

The meaning of “these words … shall be on your heart” (Deuteronomy 6:6)

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.

In Deuteronomy 6:6, Moses commands the people of Israel with the following words, “And these words that I am commanding you today shall be on your heart.” When faced with figurative and symbolic language, such as עַל־לְבָבֶֽךָ, the exegete has the responsibility to interpret it and provide a substantive, concrete explanation. This task becomes especially important when working in a culture foreign to the Biblical world, where a concept like “heart” or “words on one’s heart” may carry a significantly different connotation.

Of obvious importance for discerning this exegetical issue is the meaning of לֵב. לֵב has a profound semantic encompassment and is likely one of the deepest anthropological terms in Biblical Hebrew. HALOT provides the following glosses for לֵב: heart, seat of vital force, one’s inner self, inclination, disposition, determination, courage, will intention, attention, consideration, reason, mind in general and as a whole, conscience, etc. (513-515). The heart is related to one’s emotions (Prov 12:25; 14:10, 30; 15:15), plans (Prov 6:14, 18; 16:9), determines decisions and actions (Exod 14:5; 35:21; Num 32:9; 1 Kgs 12:27; 18:37), can be perverse, crooked, and foolish (Prov 12:23; 17:20) or wise, insightful, etc. (Prov 14:33; 15:14; 20:9; 15:28). In sum, לֵב may refer to one’s emotions, psyche, cognition, will, behavior, and/or spiritual condition. לֵב represents one’s innermost being, one’s fundamental disposition and source for all thought, emotion, will, and behavior. And significant for this specific exegetical issue, just prior to verse 6, in verse 5 Moses commands the people of Israel to love YHWH with all of their hearts (לֵב). In verse 5, לֵב along with נֶפֶשׁ and מְאֹד are most likely used to refer to one’s total being. Likewise, in verse 6, לֵב most likely refers to one’s entire innermost being. According to McConville, this phrase expands upon the idea of wholehearted obedience addressed in verse 5. Here Moses specifically emphasizes and reiterates the necessity of inner obedience as opposed to mere external obedience (McConville, 142). In similar thought, Craigie comments, “the people were to think on them [the commandments] and meditate about them, so that obedience would not be a matter of formal legalism, but a response based upon understanding.” In other words, for Craigie, the emphasis here in verse 6 moves beyond outward action and calls for an inward response of obedience. No sphere of life is to be left untouched or unaltered (Craigie, 170). Tigay presents an intriguing parallel between Deuteronomy 6:6 and a letter from a Phoenician vassal to his Egyptian suzerain. In this letter the vassal states, “On my innards and on my back I carry the word of the king, my lord.” In a similar way, as subject to their king, Israel was to idealize a constant awareness of her sovereign’s covenant instructions to her. Tigay also points out significant parallels with the book of Proverbs. In Proverbs 3:1; 4:4; 6:21; and 7:3 the speaker encourages the hearer to internalize his commandments and instruction. Such internalization is understood as remembering (3:1) and obeying (4:4; 6:20; 7:3) (Tigay, 77-78). Parallels with Jeremiah 31 also prove insightful. Jeremiah 31:33 anticipates a new covenant in which God will put His law within His people, writing it on their hearts (לֵב). The clear idea is that, with the law internalized, God’s people will be enabled to obey it. In other words, Jeremiah anticipates the fulfillment of the obligation of Deuteronomy 6:6. But finally, if any link between v.6 and vv.7-9 exists (most assuredly), these immediately subsequent verses seem to identify the result of this internalization of God’s word—constant awareness of and meditation upon God’s words (e.g., making signs of God’s word on one’s forehead and hands, writing God’s word on doorposts and gates, incessantly telling upcoming generations, etc.).

In conclusion, Deuteronomy 6:6’s reference to the internalization of God’s commandments communicates the following dual truths. First, YHWH expects and demands absolute obedience from the whole person—inward as well as outward. And second, Israel is to be intentional about incorporating God’s word into her life on a constant basis. Israel is to possess an immediate awareness of God’s word.

The meaning of “The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4)

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.

Many religious individuals are familiar with the Great Shema. In fact, its words are recited by many with ease. But despite this vast and common familiarity, the precise meaning of the Great Shema is somewhat uncertain and rather debated. Namely, how is יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה׀ אֶחָֽד to be translated and understood on a grammatical level? Further, is the Shema commenting on the nature of God, that is His oneness (monotheistic interpretation); or is it speaking to the uniqueness of God in relationship to Israel (exclusivity interpretation)? These matters will be investigated in the following brief paper.

Tigay translates יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה׀ אֶחָֽד into English as “The LORD is our God, the Lord alone.” With such a rendering, he understands the phrase as “a description of the proper relationship between YHWH and Israel.” Rather than being a statement of monotheism, i.e., there exists only one true God, the Shema specifies YHWH, and YHWH alone, as Israel’s God. He provides the following two arguments for this position. (1) The first person plural pronominal suffix on אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ focuses attention on how Israel it to apply the Shema. (2) A parallel with Zechariah 14:9, which uses אֶחָד to designate exclusivity, supports this interpretation. “On that day,” Zechariah states, “the LORD will be one and his name one” (ESV). Clearly, אֶחָד in this instance does not refer to the divine nature (monotheism), for YHWH is and always has been one. On the contrary, according to Tigay, both Deuteronomy 6:4 and Zecharariah 14:9 use אֶחָד to refer to exclusivity, i.e., YHWH alone. Zechariah depicts a day in which YHWH will reign over all peoples. YHWH will be universally recognized as God; His reign will be unrivaled. He will be “one”; His name will be “one” (Tigay, 76). Merrill claims that the nearly poetic structure of יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה׀ אֶחָֽד favors the rendering, “Yahweh (is) our God, Yahweh is one.” In other words, both incidences of יהוה are to be treated nominatively while אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ and אֶחָֽד serve as predicate nominatives. Provided this translation, Merrill seems to favor an overlapping view between the monotheistic and exclusivity interpretations. He states, “there is sufficient ambiguity as to allow the idea of God’s oneness as well as his uniqueness.” He argues that the monotheistic witness in the Shema testifies to God’s unity, self-consistency, and united purpose in creation and history (Merrill, 162-163). Although recognizing the possibility for various renderings, Craigie seems to assume a monotheistic understanding. For Craigie, the Shema tells of the uniqueness, unity, and oneness of God. It can even be described as “the fundamental monotheistic dogma of the OT.” Here YHWH is not presented merely as the first God among many, but the one and only God (Craigie, 168-169).

In conclusion, it would appear that the exclusivity interpretation provides a much more appropriate introduction to the subsequent commands (vv.5-9). In other words, the declaration of YHWH’s unique position in relationship to Israel segues directly into Israel’s obligation to love YHWH alone wholly and undividedly. Therefore, given this point as well as the parallel to Zechariah 14:9 mentioned by Tigay, I favor the exclusivity interpretation. Nonetheless, it should be noted that this interpretation does not preclude the monotheistic view. If YHWH, and YHWH alone, is to be treated as our God, it is no doubt because YHWH alone is God. Finally, Merrill’s comment that the seemingly poetic structure of יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה׀ אֶחָֽד should be rendered as two predicate clauses, i.e., “YHWH is our God; YHWH is one,” is compelling and seems to make best sense of the grammar.

Genesis 3:19 and Romans 5:12-21—Is death an element of the curse?

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.

In Romans 5 Paul argues that when Adam sinned all of humanity sinned in solidarity with him (5:18). As a result, death entered the world through sin (5:12). Clearly, Paul believed that although death was typical, it is not normal, not the way things should be, a result of the fall, the punishment for sin (cf. Rom 6:23). But does Genesis 3:14-19, God’s announcement of “the curse,” jive with Paul’s theology? Specifically, does v.19’s language of returning to the ground or dust teach that death is an element of the curse?

Many scholars contend that death was not an aspect of the curse. For example, critical scholar, Westermann, argues that v.19c,  כִּֽי־עָפָ֣ר אַ֔תָּה וְאֶל־עָפָ֖ר תָּשֽׁוּב, is a proverbial saying that was added to the text and has “no connection either with the curse of the narrative” (263-264).[1] More common is the proposal that this “return to the ground” or “dust” language is not intended to address the entrance of death into the created world; and hence death is not an element of the curse. But rather, this language simply adds intensity to man’s toil, which is an aspect of the curse. As Westermann says, these words “have one function, to underline that man’s work will be full of toil right up to his death; his whole existence will be stamped with it” (267). This language of returning to the dust is only understood correctly in relation to man’s toil (266); it is the term of his toil. In fact, quite contrary to a curse, Westermann understands this reference to death as positive, marking the cessation of this toil (267). Wenham notes that 3:19’s parallel language with 2:7 may be seen as evidence that this “returning to dust” is a part of the natural order (83). And finally, Hamilton claims that the absence of the word “death” anywhere in vv.17-19 argues against seeing death as punishment (204).

However, various reasons exist in favor of understanding death as somehow bound up with the curse and the consequences of sin. First, v.19c comes in God’s address of the curse to Adam, which involves the consequences of sin—a change of state, not the mere continuation of the previous order of existence (Wenham, 83). Certainly producing crop from the ground has changed; but if the author’s simply sought to address that change alone, v.19c would be an unnecessary addition. On its own, v.19c teaches the inevitability of death, suggesting that death itself is part of the curse. Second, surely the threat of death in 2:17 would be looming in the reader’s mind at this point and informing his understanding of Adam’s curse. One is forced to ask, if death was natural prior to the fall, what sort of weight would such a threat carry? Third, that God set a cherubim to prohibit man from access to the tree of life (3:22-24) implies that God intended death to be at most an aspect of the curse and at least an implication of banishment from the garden.[2]

In conclusion, whether or not death is a direct curse or an implication of man’s banishment from the garden and consequent inability to access the tree of life, death is a result of the fall. Death is bound up with the fall and is a result of man’s sin. Therefore, Paul’s theology of sin and the Genesis account are coherent.

[1] Even if an addition, v.19c is part of the final form of the text and should be treated as such—connected to the preceding material and larger narrative.

[2] Examining whether man was originally created immortal and death is a direct punishment due to sin or man was created mortal and would experience death as a result of being banished from access to the tree of life (“conditioned immortality” as Erickson argues, 611-613) is beyond the scope of this paper.