God

David’s Speech Hits Me in the Gut

Kirk E. Miller

A Meditative Reflection on 1 Chronicles 29:14-16

solomons_templeAfter David and his fellow Israelites make their offerings for the future building of the temple, David praises God. In 1 Chronicles 29:14-16 he says the following.

14 But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able thus to offer willingly? For all things come from you, and of your own have we given you. 15 For we are strangers before you and sojourners, as all our fathers were. Our days on the earth are like a shadow, and there is no abiding. 16 O Lord our God, all this abundance that we have provided for building you a house for your holy name comes from your hand and is all your own.

David’s speech here hits me in the gut—

Continue reading →

The Institutes of the Christian Religion (Abridged Version) by John Calvin

Kirk E. Miller

The following is a summary of and reflection upon an abridged version of Calvin’s Institutes produced by Tony Lane and Hilary Osborne (see it here on Amazon). I should note that I did not read the final book, Book IV: Outward Means by which God Helps Us, in its entirety; and therefore, it was directly not taken into consideration in the writing of this review.

* * * * *

Summary

Calvin’s understanding of how men know God, know themselves, and the relationship between these two types of knowledge is seemingly foundational to the entirety of his theology (1:1:1). For Calvin, knowledge of self is intrinsically linked to knowledge of God while knowledge of God results in proper assessment of self (1:1:1). Genuine knowledge of self necessarily assumes knowledge of God. One cannot fully grasp the existence of the creature apart from his fundamental relationship to his Creator and Sustainer (1:1:1). Comprehension of man’s falleness assumes an ideal, one that is rooted in God’s creative-design; transgression implies the reality of Judge (1:1:1). On the other hand, without knowledge of God, no one ever truly knows himself (1:1:2). Lacking insight into the purpose for which He was created, ignorance of his original nature and its divine intent flourish. Unaware of God’s standard of righteousness, man consequently assesses his moral condition inaccurately (2:1:1).

Continue reading →

Athanasius’ On the Incarnation

Kirk E. Miller

I previously wrote a review On the Incarnation by Athanasius (c. 297-373). Well, I read the book again and wrote another review that I thought I’d share with you here. Hopefully this second review, which covers a lot of the same things as the first one, has greater insight and clarity. Enjoy!

* * * * *

In his work, On the Incarnation, Athanasius seeks to present “a brief statement of the faith of Christ and of the manifestation of His Godhead to us” (IX.56). Acknowledging that “such and so many are the Savior’s achievements that follow from His incarnation” (X.54) such that one is unable to present them satisfactorily, he nonetheless determines to set forth his understanding of “why it is that the Word of the Father . . . has been made manifest in bodily form” (I.1); his answer in short: “for the salvation of us men” (I.1). What follows is less a systematic doctrinal treatise and more an explanation and defense of the incarnation against its 4th century misconceptions and critiques.

Athanasius begins his account with creation and the fall. Of all His creatures, God bestowed upon mankind a special grace, the Image of God. For Athanasius this Image means a sharing in the divine being (“though in a limited degree”; I.3; III.11) and a unique incorruptibility because of this intimate knowledge of and union with the Incorruptible One (I.4-5; II.6-7; III.13). In such a state, man would have continued forever (I.3). But by “turning from eternal things to things corruptible” man embraced corruption—death—by forsaking union with the eternal (I.5; cf. I.4). Such is the setting for “the divine dilemma and its solution in the incarnation” (II).

Continue reading →

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.