America’s Foundation, Political Science, and the Christian Worldview

Kirk E. Miller 1 Comment

AmericasFoundation

There are several areas of theology about which I find myself thinking on a consistent basis. One of those topics is the integration and relationship between the Christian worldview and political-economic science. (This probably isn’t terribly surprising given the fact that I entered college as a social studies major.) Lately, I have found myself thinking about these issues again… and on a frequent basis as well. This has much to do with some recent studying I’ve been doing on Dietrich Bonhoeffer. His views on government and the Christian’s relationship to government has sparked this internal conversation ablaze within me once again. …Well, some of these thoughts will now be spilling out in this post.

Continue reading →

Fear, God, and Delight–An Unexpected Combo?

Kirk E. Miller

Jumbo shrimp, airline food, just war, Microsoft Works, or my personal favorite, country music 🙂 — All of these might fall under a category titled oxymorons–a figure of speech containing self-contradicting components. Likewise, some individuals might also consider Nehemiah’s description of God’s servants in Nehemiah 1:11 as an equally oxymoronic phrase–those “who delight to fear” God’s name. …Give those words a second glance… “who delight to fear your name.” There’s so much in this phrase that runs contrary to our common conceptions. Most obviously, many of us would never pair fear and delight as companions, let alone a fear of God.

Continue reading →

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.