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.

The significance of “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife” (Genesis 3:17) for a theology of gender

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.

Within evangelicalism over the past couple decades, much ink has been spilled over the debate between so-called “complementarians” and egalitarians. Both groups have debated and sought different answers to the question, what is Biblical manhood and womanhood? One crucial area, if not the fundamental place, for sorting out a Biblically accurate response to this question is the opening chapters of scripture, Genesis 1-3. As Ortlund explains,

“Why go all the way back to the first three chapters of the Bible, if our concern is with manhood and womanhood today? Because as Genesis 1-3 go, so goes the whole Biblical debate. One way or the other, all the additional Biblical texts on manhood and womanhood must be interpreted consistently with these” (Ortlund, Kindle Locations 2146-2148).

This paper in particular seeks to examine the phrase כִּֽי־שָׁמַעְתָּ֮ לְק֣וֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ֒ (Gen 3:17) and determine its potential significance for a theology of gender.

As introduced by a כִּי conjunction, כִּֽי־שָׁמַעְתָּ֮ לְק֣וֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ֒ provides the reason or grounds for Adam’s punishment—Adam listened to his wife. The crucial question for this paper’s concern is whether issues of differing gender roles are being addressed, assumed, or alluded to in this clause. (1) Is this mention of Adam’s “listening” (idiomatic for “obeying”; Wenham, 82) to his wife meant to communicate his failure to “listen” to God? In other words, is כִּֽי־שָׁמַעְתָּ֮ לְק֣וֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ֒ a rhetorical way of referring to Adam’s disobedience as spelled out in the following phrase (וַתֹּ֨אכַל֙ מִן־הָעֵ֔ץ)? Or, (2) does כִּֽי־שָׁמַעְתָּ֮ לְק֣וֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ֒ reflect a complementary male-female creation design that was subverted in this original sin (i.e., man not only sinned, but was lead into sin by woman)?[1] If the former option—a rhetorical use—is accurate, then this phrase may contribute very little (if anything) to the debate concerning biblical manhood and womanhood. And, as indicated by וַתֹּ֨אכַל֙ מִן־הָעֵ֔ץ, the rhetorical meaning is clearly present. In fact, Wenham (82) and Westermann (264) seem to assume that a rhetorical use is the sole significance of this phrase.[2] However, that “listened to the voice of your wife” is rhetorically equivalent to “and you ate from the tree” does not preclude the reality that creation-established gender roles may also be assumed here.

In fact, several reasons indicate creation-designed gender roles are assumed behind כִּֽי־שָׁמַעְתָּ֮ לְק֣וֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ֒. First, if God was merely addressing Adam’s disobedience (i.e., וַתֹּ֨אכַל֙ מִן־הָעֵ֔ץ), the addition of כִּֽי־שָׁמַעְתָּ֮ לְק֣וֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ֒ would be superfluous and unnecessary. As Ortlund states, “Adam sinned at two levels. At one level, he defied the plain and simple command of 2:17. That is obvious. . . . At another level, Adam sinned by ‘listening to his wife.’ He abandoned his headship” (Kindle Locations 2559-2560). Second, the immediate context of 3:16 addresses the relationship between man and woman; therefore, the presence of כִּֽי־שָׁמַעְתָּ֮ לְק֣וֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ֒ is likely not coincidental but deliberately addressing the subversion of that relationship in this original sin. Third, although Eve takes of the fruit first, Adam is addressed for the sin. Adam was “with her” (3:6) and is ultimately held responsible for their disobedience (cf. Rom 5:12-21). It is because of Adam (“you,” 3:17), and his eating of the fruit, that the ground is cursed. And fourth, this last point is consistent with the larger context of chapters 1-2, where the woman is created subsequent to man and, therefore, as man’s helpmeet (2:18-25). Correspondingly, man is to serve as the leader of the family. In sum, although כִּֽי־שָׁמַעְתָּ֮ לְק֣וֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ֒ clearly refers to Adam’s act of eating from the tree (וַתֹּ֨אכַל֙ מִן־הָעֵ֔ץ), this phrase also assumes the complementary relationship between man and women—ontologically equal (i.e., both fully created in the image of God) yet different in regards to relational roles (i.e., headship and subordination).

[1] Of course to say that this phrase has reference to the established male-female relationship is not to claim that Adam is rebuked for letting his wife influence him, as if man may never listen to his wife. On the contrary, God chastises Adam for his failure to lead his wife (note: Adam was “with her,” 3:6) and demonstrate the headship to which he was called.

[2] And interestingly, some commentators make absolutely no comment on this phrase whatsoever, e.g., Hamilton.

An examination of “the LORD was with the judge” (Judges 2:18)

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 verse 18, the author briefly mentions in passing that God was with the judges. This peculiar phrase is somewhat ambiguous and indefinite and requires further thought and investigation. Initially, this reality would seem to be linked with the judges’ function and success; and therefore, the meaning of this brief phrase likely has significant implications for understanding the office of judge in ancient Israel. What exactly does this phrase mean, and what does this presence indicate about these judges? Although few commentators care to investigate these questions to any significant degree (or at all), I suggest that the exegete does well to sort out the meaning and implications of this phrase.

First, this presence indicates God’s validation of the judges. This is assumed by God being “with” the judges and is explicitly mentioned in the preceding phrase: “YHWH raised up judges for them” (2:18). עִם serves to indicate an accompanying relationship (Arnold and Choi, 124-125), a special or particular (not general or common) relationship between God and His judges. Therefore, primarily, this presence also indicates God’s favor and blessing upon the judges with accompanying real, concrete results in terms of the socio-political and hopefully religious state of Israel. As Block notes, this presence indicates the “secret” to the judges’ success (129). For example, Butler observes, “God’s presence, not the judge’s leadership or military skills, brings victory” (48). This is clearly indicated by the phrase immediately following וְהָיָ֤ה יְהוָה֙ עִם־הַשֹּׁפֵ֔ט. “And He saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge (2:18). “They [the judges] represented agents of the divine presence” (Block, 129). Given this apparent relationship between God’s presence and superhuman victories worked through the judges, this presence likely entails charismata. This is clearly exemplified in the subsequent narratives throughout the book (e.g., Samson’s superhuman strength, etc.) Moreover, this presence also indicates God’s tangible compassion for His people; such victories resulting ultimately from God’s presence with His appointed judges demonstrate His maintained compassion for His people. Finally, that God’s presence is with those whom He appoints indicates that YHWH is fundamentally faithful to His judges despite whether or not Israel herself is (cf. 2:17) (Butler, 48).

In conclusion and summary, this presence seems to indicate, imply, or result in the following realities: (1) God’s appointment, (2) a special, particular relationship, (3) God’s faithfulness to the judges despite Israel’s wavering faithfulness, (4) God’s blessing and favor, (5) God’s compassion, (6) God’s working through these agents, specifically in terms of success in deliverance, (7) and conversely, that these victories are due to God’s power, not the military strength of the judges, and finally (8) a charismatic gifting.