Thoughts on Engaging the Creation Debate

Kirk E. Miller 4 Comments

Introductory remarks

You should keep in mind that as I write this post, I am not taking a specific position on issues such as evolution, God and science, nor the meaning of Genesis 1-2. In this post I simply seek to share some thoughts I have on these matters. At times and in various circles, creation debates can be very heated. I understand that. But sometimes I think the result is that things get a little blown out of proportion. I’m not suggesting we compromise on vital truth. But I guess I’m calling us to examine what constitutes as that vital truth. In class last year, Dr. Carson reminded us of the words of Francis Schaeffer: something like, “what is the least Genesis 1-2 must be saying for the rest of the Bible to be true.” Secondary truths are not by nature unimportant truths. And I don’t want to downplay their importance. But they must be distinguished from primary doctrines. And either way, no context excludes the necessity of charitableness.

Continue reading →

Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther

Kirk E. Miller

The following comes from a paper presented for Dr. Scott Manetsch at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School for the course Classic Texts in the History of Christianity CH 8100.

* * * * *

In The Bondage of the Will Martin Luther sets out to investigate what ability human freedom possesses and how it relates to God’s grace (II.iii.). For Luther, this theological dispute over human freedom is of utmost importance. He claims it is the fundamental disagreement between himself and the Catholic tradition (II.iii.; VIII.). Because this topic strikes at the heart of soteriology, truths of “eternal consequence” are at stake (II.vi.). To know nothing of these matters is to know nothing of Christianity (II.iii.); the entirety of the Christian faith and the gospel would be ruined by such ignorance (II.v.).

Responding to Desiderius Erasmus’ Discourse on Free Will, Luther asserts that man has no “free-will.” Contrary to Erasmus (IV.i.), men are not autonomous in regards to meriting or even willing salvation (II.x.), but are enslaved, “ever turned in the direction of their own desires, so that they cannot but seek their own” (V.iv.). God’s will is carried out necessarily; no room is left for man’s so called “free-will” (V.vii.).

Continue reading →

What Luther Said Before His 95 Theses

Kirk E. Miller

Almost two months (Sept. 4, 1517) before posting his famous 95 Theses to the door of Wittenberg Castle Church, Luther released a lesser known but even more radical statement called the Disputation against Scholastic Theology.

By “scholastic theology” Luther was referring mainly to the late Medieval nominalism proposed by some Roman Catholic scholars, in particular William Ockham and Gabriel Biel. Nominalism’s motto was Facere quod in se est, or “do the best that lies within you.” In response to doing the best one could (congruent merit), God would grant grace, namely through the sacraments. Through cooperation with this grace, one could perform fully meritorious deeds (condign merit) that could merit/earn salvation. Clearly such teaching is not only unbiblical (i.e., not found in scripture) but even anti-biblical by its complete reworking of the relationship between grace and works (e.g., Rom 4:4-5; 11:16).[1] Nominalism is what Luther had been trained in; and to this errant theology Luther was reacting. It should also be noted that in these statements Luther believed that he was stating “nothing that is not in agreement with the Catholic church and the teachers of the church” (final statement in his Disputations).

So, what did Luther have to say before his famous 95 Theses? He had a lot to say, and in fact, he was probably more extreme here than in his more controversial 95 Theses.[2]
Continue reading →

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.