Biblical Studies

The Meaning of “Kingdom of Priests” (Exodus 19:6)

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 Exodus 19:6, as conditioned on Israel’s obedience, God marks Israel’s special position with three descriptions. The second of these is מַמְלֶ֥כֶת כֹּהֲנִ֖ים (“kingdom of priests”) Since an understanding of this phrase is central to an understanding of the immediate text, Israel’s calling in the subsequent Biblical drama, as well as various New Testament passages that employ language from this passage, the exegete does well to investigate this phrase.

In Exodus 19:6, YHWH identifies Israel’s intended position as a result of keeping God’s covenant as being מַמְלֶ֥כֶת כֹּהֲנִ֖ים (“a kingdom of priests”). The syntax of this phrase allows itself to be interpreted two ways: (1) a kingdom (domain or realm) of priests over whom God rules. Or (2), a kingly (royal) priesthood, “the exercise of royal office by those who are in fact priests” (Gentry, 319). Nonetheless, Israel is specified with this collective priestly function. Hamilton presents two possible theological meanings (or emphases) for this idea. The question is whether this phrase addresses Israel’s relationship to God or to the nations. On the one hand, מַמְלֶ֥כֶת כֹּהֲנִ֖ים may express Israel’s privileged position in relationship to God. To Israel alone has God revealed Himself in this way through His Exodus-redemption and this nation-covenant. And just as priests alone were privileged to enter the holy place, only Israel has this special access to His mediated presence through the tabernacle (and eventual temple). But, on the other hand, מַמְלֶ֥כֶת כֹּהֲנִ֖ים may refer to a mediatorial role to which YHWH has called Israel (Hamilton, 304). Just as priests mediated between God and the worshiper, so Israel was to be God’s priests unto the nations. Stuart advocates the latter position: “they [Israelites] were to represent him to the rest of the world and attempt to bring the rest of the world to him,” and thereby bring to fruition the responsibility inherent in God’s words to Abraham to be a blessing and that all nations would be blessed through him (Gen 12:2-3; Stuart, 423). Stuart provides four ways in which Israel might have served as priests to the nations:

(1) Israel would be an example to the people of other nations, who would see its holy beliefs and actions and be impressed enough to want to know personally the same God the Israelites knew. (2) Israel would proclaim the truth of God and invite people from other nations to accept him in faith as shown by confession of belief in him and acceptance of his covenant. . . . (3) Israel would intercede for the rest of the world by offering acceptable offerings to God (both sacrifices and right behavior) and thus ameliorate the general distance between God and humankind. (4) Israel would keep the promises of God, preserving his word already spoken and recording his word as it was revealed to them so that once the fullness of time had come, anyone in the whole world could promptly benefit from that great body of divinely revealed truth, that is, the Scriptures. (423)

As Sarna well summarizes, “the priest’s place and function within society must serve as the ideal model for Israel’s self-understanding of its role among the nations” (104; cf. Childs, 367).

So does מַמְלֶ֥כֶת כֹּהֲנִ֖ים refer to Israel’s privileged position before God or her mediatorial relationship to the nations? This author suggests a both/and solution. Certainly, the immediate context deals with Israel’s relationship to God; the pericope contains no direct reference to Israel’s obligations to the nations. Nonetheless, Israel’s mediatorial relationship to the nations is a passive one, not an active one as in the case of modern missionaries; they are called, not necessarily to witness, but to be a witness. By being who they are called to be in relationship to God, they serve as priests unto the nations.

Notes:

Gentry argues that מַמְלֶ֥כֶת כֹּהֲנִ֖ים וְג֣וֹי קָד֑וֹשׁ (“a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”) should be taken as one description, rather than two. These two parallel terms share a hendiadys relationship in which both descriptions consider the same topic from a variant perspective (318). Contrary to this perspective, Childs claims that apart from a brief parenthetical remark (כִּי־לִ֖י כָּל־הָאָֽרֶץ) three distinct descriptions are provided, which nonetheless ought “to be interpreted in relation to one another” (367). Childs claims that while סְגֻלָּה specifically addressed Israel’s relationship to God, מַמְלֶ֥כֶת כֹּהֲנִ֖ים  defines her relationship to her neighbors (367). Either way, for the sake of this brief paper, מַמְלֶ֥כֶת כֹּהֲנִ֖ים will be examined on its own terms.

An Analysis of “Treasured Possession” (Exodus 19:5)

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.

The stipulations element of the covenant (וְעַתָּ֗ה אִם־שָׁמ֤וֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ֙ בְּקֹלִ֔י וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֑י, v.5) is followed by the divine promise of Israel’s special position, which is presented with three terms. The first of three descriptions held out to Israel is סְגֻלָּה, which has been translated into English as “peculiar treasure” (KJV), “treasured possession” (ESV; NIV; cf. NASB; RSV; HCSB), and “special treasure” (NLT). The precise meaning and origin of סְגֻלָּה is somewhat obscure. Given the importance of understanding this term in order to understand the immediate passage as well as Israel’s intended position throughout Biblical history, the exegete does well to investigate סְגֻלָּה.

Out of its eight Biblical uses, twice סְגֻלָּה carries a secular or common use as it refers to literal treasure. In 1 Chronicles 29:3, David speaks of all the resources, including his own special treasure (סְגֻלָּה), which he is donating to the building of Solomon’s temple. In Ecclesiastes 2:8, Solomon mentions gold, silver, and סְגֻלָּה among many other pleasures he sought in vain. However, סְגֻלָּה came to be employed in a theological-figurative sense (e.g., Ps 135:4). As Sarna and Hamilton note, a connection between the Hebrew סְגֻלָּה (segulla) and Akkadian sikiltum may exist. Sikiltum occurs in a royal seal parallel to the description of Abban king of Alalakh as the servant and beloved of the god, Alad. Similarly, in an Ugarit text from a Hittite king (identified as “the sun”) to Hammurapi of Ugarit, a potential cognate of סְגֻלָּה occurs parallel to a word referring to Hammurapi as a friend-servant. Such parallels suggest that sikiltum, and correspondingly סְגֻלָּה, connotes a special relationship (Sarna, 104; Hamilton, 303). In Malachi 3:17, YHWH uses סְגֻלָּה to describe the remnant that fears Him. Again, such texts indicate that סְגֻלָּה connotes a unique relationship. Therefore, according to Stuart, in Exodus 19:5, סְגֻלָּה indicates God’s intention to create for Himself His own particular people. As he says,

“This represents the separation of his chosen people from the general world population, or, stated in terms of the overall biblical plan of redemption, the beginning of the outworking of his intention to bring close to himself a people that will join him for all eternity as adopted members of his family.” (422)

In like thought, according to Childs, if Israel demonstrates faithfulness to God’s covenant, she will achieve this special relationship (367). In other words, these scholars claim that סְגֻלָּה primarily serves to define Israel’s relationship to God; “Israel is God’s own people, set apart from the rest of the nations” (Childs, 367). Interestingly, in the Pentateuch exclusively, this language of Israel as God’s סְגֻלָּה always occurs hand in hand with Israel’s unique election and subsequent call to holiness (Ex 19:5; Dt 7:6 14:2 26:18; Sarna, 104; Hamilton, 302). In other words, Israel’s unique “otherness” from all other nations as a result of her election and special relationship to God is to result in Israel’s “otherness” in action, ethics, religious service, etc.

In conclusion, although used to refer to an individual’s literal special treasure, a “prized possession” if one will, סְגֻלָּה entered the figurative as well as the religious sphere to denote something or someone of a unique, privileged position similar to that of one’s literal “prized possession.” In Exodus 19:5, God states that if Israel is faithful to His covenant, such a position will be hers. God holds his people as his “prized possession,” His special and most valued treasure. What a privilege! And, as a result of this special position, God’s people are called to special conduct unique from those that are not God’s people.

The meaning of “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband” (Genesis 3:14)

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 Genesis 3:14-19, God pronounces His curse upon the serpent, the women, and the man after humanity’s fall into sin. Of the punishments administered out to the woman, God includes the following—וְאֶל־אִישֵׁךְ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָתֵ֔ך. Much scholarly debate has occurred as a result of the ambiguity of this phrase. What is meant by the woman’s desire (תְּשׁ֣וּקָתֵ֔ךְ)? And how does this desire relate to her husband (וְאֶל־אִישֵׁךְ֙)? The answer to these sorts of questions is no trivial matter, for they strike at the heart of the nature of both womanhood and the marital relationship within this fallen world, let alone the identity of God’s curse against the woman.

Matthews provides a succinct survey of various perspectives on the meaning of this phrase (see pg. 250). One such popular view argues that תְּשׁוּקָה refers to the wife’s sexual desire for her husband. In this case, the וְאֶל would be understood as indicating interest, e.g., desire for your husband. The central argument for this understanding is found in Song of Solomon 7:11 [Eng. 10], one of only two other occurrences of תְּשׁוּקָה, where תְּשׁוּקָה clearly refers to sexual desire. Further support is drawn from the close proximity reference to childbirth in 3:1, which assumes sexual relations. According to this interpretation, the woman’s curse entails sexual desire for her husband despite the now extremely painful experience of childbirth that comes as a result of such sexual relations, “making all the more certain that the woman will undergo painful childbirth” (Matthew, 250). In other words, וְאֶל־אִישֵׁךְ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָתֵ֔ךְ relates more so to what precedes it (הַרְבָּ֤ה אַרְבֶּה֙ עִצְּבוֹנֵ֣ךְ וְהֵֽרֹנֵ֔ךְ בְּעֶ֖צֶב תֵּֽלְדִ֣י בָנִ֑ים) than what follows (וְה֖וּא יִמְשָׁל־בָּֽךְ). Therefore, the relationship of the subsequent line about the husband ruling is handled in various ways. For example, Wenham provides one possible understanding—the husband takes advantage of his wife’s sexual appetite; “women often allow themselves to be exploited in this way because of their urge toward their husband” (81).

However, more persuasive reasons exist for understanding this desire as a desire of the woman to rule over or be independent of her husband. In this case, the וְאֶל would most likely be viewed as adversative, e.g., desire against your husband. This view finds initial support in the immediate and larger context. This punishment comes as the disruption of the complementary marriage relationship (i.e., the woman as the man’s helpmeet) established in 2:18-25. Matthew also notes that this “reference to marital disharmony [in 3:16] . . . has its match in the subsequent clause, where the judgment against the man alludes to the ensuing gender struggle in the indictment, ‘because you listened to your wife’ (3:17)” (250). Further, this interpretation makes much more sense of the relationship between this line (וְאֶל־אִישֵׁךְ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָתֵ֔ךְ) and the one that follows (וְה֖וּא יִמְשָׁל־בָּֽךְ). As Wenham states, “woman’s desire for independence would be contrasted with an injunction to man to master her” (81-82). But finally, the nail in the coffin is the close proximity use of תְּשׁוּקָה in Gen 4:7 where it refers to sin’s personified desire to dominate Cain. Further, as Hamilton notes, the pairing of תְּשׁוּקָה and מָשַׁל in both 3:16 and 4:7 argues that these words should be read in concert and carry the same force in both contexts. As such, “the clear meaning of 4:7 illuminates the less clear meaning of 3:16” (201). In fact, the lexical and structural similarities are likely intentional (Matthew, 251). Therefore, although the meaning of תְּשׁוּקָה can be ambiguous—granted—these connections between its use in 3:16 and 4:7 are convincing. With that said, the clear meaning in 4:7 is that of control and mastery; and as such, וְאֶל־אִישֵׁךְ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָתֵ֔ךְ is best understood as referring to the desire of the woman to rule over or be independent of her husband.

The rhetorical significance of the prophetic gifts (Joel 3:1; English 2:28)

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Hebrew Exegesis course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Be aware: I use the Hebrew Bible’s chapter and verse references in the following, which can be different than what one will find in English translations of Joel.

As evidenced by its inclusio placement, the Spirit’s outpouring serves a central role to the message of vv.1-2. Through the Spirit’s presence, the hope of YHWH’s presence among his people, anticipated in the immediately preceding verse (2:27), will be realized (Allen, 98). These factors indicate that Joel’s primary focus in 3:1-2 is the universal presence of God via the outpoured Spirit. As such, his mention of prophetic gifts has a subordinate function (Hubbard, 75). This leads to the question, what exactly is the significance of Joel’s reference to prophetic gifts in this passage? Through examination of Biblical and scholarly data, this article will conclude that Joel uses prophetic gifts as a rhetorical vehicle to communicate his primary message, which is YHWH’s intimate presence via the poured-out Spirit.

Throughout the OT, an intrinsic connection exists between prophecy and the Spirit (Num 11:25-29; 24:2; Deut 34:9-10; 1 Sam 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23-24; 2 Sam 23:2; 2 Kgs 2:9; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20.). As such, for God to grant individuals prophetic gifts is equivalent to God granting these individuals the Spirit’s presence (Turner, 551; Barton 95; Allen 98; Wolff, 66). Therefore, Joel successfully communicates the realization of YHWH’s presence via the Spirit by attributing prophetic gifts to “all flesh” (Allen, 98) As Stuart observes, “The verbs in the verse (‘prophesy,’ ‘have dreams,’ ‘see visions’)” each “describe revelatory functions associated with the fullness of God’s Spirit . . . .” (260). To be a prophet implies having the “Spirit of prophecy”; therefore, these prophetic gifts manifest the Spirit’s presence. As Crenshaw notes, the waw on וְנִבְּא֖וּ indicates result (165)—the outpoured Spirit results in, and is therefore evidenced by, these prophetic utterances. In summary, by claiming that everyone will prophesy, Joel anticipates an elimination of the previous era’s characteristic of only certain individuals, like prophets, being endowed with the Spirit (e.g., Jdg 3:10; Ex 31:3; Num 11:17; 1 Sam 16:13; Stuart 260-261). “The promise takes up the wistful longing of Moses expressed in Num 11:29 . . . and stamps it as a definite part of Yahweh’s program for the future.” (Allen, 99; cf. Barton, 95; Garrett, 368).

Nonetheless, the significance of Joel’s reference to prophetic gifts is not merely bound up with its function in demonstrating God’s presence among His people; it has a particular rhetorical importance within itself—it speaks to the immediacy in which all will relate to God (Crenshaw, 166). Contrary to Orelli (cited in Crenshaw, 166), who argues for a special significance to the pairing of certain gifts with certain groups of people, the various mediums of revelation in vv.1-2 are mentioned in order to enrich poetic parallelism (Hubbard, 75) and to emphasize the direct relationship all of God’s people will have with him (Wolff, 67). And as Wolff keenly observes, Joel’s focus is likely not prophetic proclamation, since all in view share in the prophetic gifts, but that all are prophets, i.e., have the Spirit of prophecy (66). In contrast to other prophecies about the eschatological Spirit, Joel’s point is not new obedience (Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 11:19-20; 36:26-27) or new creation (cf. Isa 32:25; 44:3; Crenshaw, 164-165); but rather, in continuity with the prophetic hope, Joel picks up on the Old Testament’s anticipation of an intimate relationship with God through the Spirit (Isa 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 11:19-20; 36:26-28; Jer 31:1, 31-34) by way of this “prophetic motif” (Num 12:6; Isa 50:4; Jer 15:16; 20:11; Hubbard, 73-75; Wolff, 66-67; Achtemeier, 149; Garrett, 368; Allen, 99).

In summary, Joel uses prophetic gifts rhetorically to communicate his primary message concerning the hope of intimate communion with God via the poured-out Spirit, universal to all God’s people in the “last days.” Joel’s point may not be that all of God’s people will literally prophesy, but that all of God’s people will have the Spirit. All will be prophets in a non-technical sense, i.e., having the Spirit of prophecy; but not all will be “prophets proper.” This understanding accords with the NT: Even after the redemptive-historical fulfillment of Joel 3:1-2 at Pentecost (Acts 2:16-21), not all have the gift of prophecy (1 Cor 12:10, 29); yet all do have the illuminating presence of the Spirit of prophecy (1 John 2:20, 27; cf. Jer 31:34).