Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Thoughts on Proverbs 1:8–19

by Leave a Comment

These verses form the first section of Proverbs after the Prologue. It begins with the words “Hear, my son,” and the phrase “my son” is repeated three times in this section: vv. 8, 10, 15. Thus Proverbs opens with instruction from a father and mother to a son. More particularly, it opens with instruction from the Davidic king to the Davidic son.

Steinmann argues that there are ten of these “my son” sections in Proverbs 1–9: “(1) 1:8-19; (2) 2:1-22; (3) 3:1-20; (4) 3:21-35; (5) 4:10-19; (6) 4:20-27;(7) 5:1-23; (8) 6:1-19; (9) 6:20-35; and (10) 7:1-27” (Steinmann, ConcC, 61). He excludes 4:1–9 from this count on the grounds that sons, plural, are addressed. I don’t find this entirely convincing. And yet, there is something different about 4:1–9. Much of this section is a quotation of the father’s father’s instructions. Also, the latter verses of the section are similar to a personified wisdom section (e.g., “love her, and she will guard you,” “She will honor you if you embrace her,” etc.). Perhaps Steinmann is correct, and perhaps these ten addresses are intended to evoke the Decalogue.

In any event, the command not to murder is the first command of the second table of the law after the transitional command about obedience to parents. Thus, it is notable that after an exhortation to obey the fifth commandment (1:8-9), the father speaks to his son regarding the sixth commandment.

Thoughts on Proverbs 1:7

by Leave a Comment

I owe the following insights to a conversation with Bryan Smith:

יִרְאַ֣ת יְ֭הוָה רֵאשִׁ֣ית דָּ֑עַת חָכְמָ֥ה וּ֝מוּסָ֗ר אֱוִילִ֥ים בָּֽזוּ׃

Note that the first and last words of the verse relate to dispositions: fear and despise.

Note that there is no waw after the athnach. It is possible, this being poetry, that “knowledge, wisdom, and instruction” should be read together as applying to both those who fear Yhwh and those who are fools who despise: “Fear of Yhwh is the beginning of knowledge, wisdom, and instruction; fools despise knowledge, wisdom, and instruction.” Subsequent verses indicate that fools hate knowledge (דַּעַת, Prv 1:22, 29).

This kind of thick, poetic meaning is the kind of thing one would expect in the thesis statement for the book.

Notably, Bruce Waltke says something similar:

The punctuation of the MT in this verse creates an enjambment. The parallel in 1:2a suggests that knowledge (da’at) in v. 7a spills over into wisdom (hokmâ) and instruction (mûsār) in verset B. Mutatis mutandis, “wisdom and instruction” in verset B spill over into “knowledge” in verset A. Fools (wîlîm; see pp. 112 13), however, are incapable of this prerequisite for understanding the sage’s teaching and knowing wisdom, for they willfully make the corrupt moral choice to refuse the sage’s moral teachings.

Waltke, NICOT, 1:181.

Three Views on the Rapture, 2nd edition on Sale

by Leave a Comment

Amazon has the second edition of Three Views on the Rapture on sale today. Criag Blaising defends the pretribulational position, Alan Hultberg the prewrath position, and Doug Moo the postribulational position.

In the first edition, I thought that Doug Moo had the strongest argued essay even though I was not ultimately persuaded of his position. Moo’s essay is updated and reprised in this edition. The essays by Blaising and Hultberg are new to this edition. I think Blaising’s essay is the strongest defense of pretribulationalism that I’ve read. Also, though Blaising was a pioneer of Progressive Dispensationalism, he constructed his argument in a way that it does not rely on any specifically dispensational commitments.

Related:

Review of Three Views on the Rapture by Craig Blaising, Alan Hultberg, and Douglas J. Moo
Resources on the Pretribulation Rapture

Thoughts on the Purposes of Proverbs according to Proverbs 1:2–7

by Leave a Comment

  • The first purpose is general: to know wisdom and instruction. Note the three words knowledge, wisdom, and instruction all appear in verse 7, creating an inclusio.
  • The second purpose is “to understand words of understanding.” This parallels verse 6, “to understand a proverb and a saying, the words of the wise and their riddles,” which indicates that the “words of understanding” = proverbs, sayings, words of the wise, and riddles of the wise.
  • The third purpose is to receive instruction in wise dealing, which is explicated as righteousness, justice, and equity. Thus wisdom involves not just the mind (to know, to understand) but also action (righteousness, justice, and equity) (Brown, “Righteousness, Justice, and Rectitude,” in The Old Testament Yesterday and Today: Essays in Honor of Michael P. V. Barrett, 202). These words also clarify that wisdom is not just cunning (Waltke, NICOT, 1:177).
  • The fourth purpose highlights and audience “to the simple”, “to the youth.” They especially need prudence, knowledge, and discretion.
  • Verse 5 breaks the pattern with a command. The command is addressed to the wise. This is a second audience. They have learning, but they are to increase in it. They understand, but they still need guidance.
  • This fifth purpose is directed at the wise. They need to understand a proverb, a saying, the words of the wise and the riddles of the wise. This links back to 2b, but it is an advance upon “words of insight.”
  • The prologue comes to a climax in verse 7.

Thoughts on the Study Assistant in Logos 46

by Leave a Comment

Logos 46 has now been released, and the new main feature is Study Assistant, an AI tool with the familiar chat interface found in ChatGPT or Copilot.

Previous versions of Logos have made use of AI in different tools. For instance, a smart search with the search tool will generate an AI generate synopsis of the topic being searched.

Below the synopsis is the normal listing of resources. Hovering the mouse to the right of the resource title will reveal a summarize button which will provide an AI generated summary of the resource.

I find these summaries genuinely helpful in choosing which resources to dig into.

Often AI is used in a way that hinders true education. Instead of doing personal research and writing, this task is outsourced to the computer. The computer not only produces an inferior product, but the human person fails to grow his abilities to research and write. This summarize feature avoids this trap by being a means toward finding the best resources rather than serving as a substitute for research.

The other danger of finding answers from AI chatbots is unreliable sourcing. A chatbot that draws on the entire internet is bound to draw on poor sources. The Study Assistant in Logos, which is an expansion of the synopsis feature in search (note the Continue in Study Assistant button that now appears below the synopsis), mitigates that problem by drawing on a more select number of resources.

The Study Assistant advances upon the search tool in allowing for continued interaction. For instance, here is a query that I generated in the Study Assistant:

One of the current limitations of the Study Assistant is that it limits itself to around four to five resources. They are not always the resources that I would select as the most reliable or most fitting for the question asked.

In this case I followed my query with an attempt to pull in additional sources:

The attempt was not entirely successful. The same resources were used with an additional one added to the mix. I then refined the query by specifying a particular author.

This example shows how the Study Assistant advances upon the synopsis provided in smart searches, but it also reveals some of the limitations of the Study Assistant.

For instance, I would like to be able to delimit the Study Assistant’s search to one of the collections I’ve made using the Collections tool. The Study Assistant does not seem able to do this at present (see the query below), though this is the kind of feature that I would expect to see added in the future.

Note also, that while the first source is an excellent source I probably have other resources in Logos that are more pertinent to the question that I posed than Phillps’s commentary on John (though Phillips does discuss John Flavel’s teaching about the covenant of redemption on p. 408. However, what I really wanted was a ransacking of my Puritan volumes on the topic of the covenant of redemption. Perhaps in a future release. This is, after all, the first version of a new tool.

The Study Assistant also has some built in limitations that are wise. For instance, the Study Assistant won’t write a sermon or a research paper.

All-in-all the Study Assistant is a new tool that shows some promise. It is an improvement over asking these kinds of questions of a generic AI chatbot. Even in the instance above where I complained a bit about the Study Assistant not returning quite the resources I wanted, the resources presented were still superior to resources on the open web. In addition, there was usually a top-quality resource in the mix. I hope the next step will be to allow greater user control over the sources the assistant draws upon.

Isaiah 7:14

by

1. The sign given must be something “as deep as Sheol or as high as heaven” (7:11; Minnick, Sermon on 18 Dec 11; Mackay, EPSC, 204; Rydelnik, 818). It is a notable thing to which Isaiah can say, “Behold!” A young woman having a son is not a sign of this nature.

2. The term עַלְמָה refers to “a young unmarried woman who is a virgin.” This sense “fits all seven uses and can be denied in none of them” (Compton, 8; cf. Motyer, Isaiah, 84–85; Hess, Song, BCOT, 51; Rydelnik, 820-21). The LXX confirms this understanding of the Hebrew by translating with a word that unambigously means virigin. Thus the sign in Isaiah 7:14 is that a virigin will be pregnnat. (On the term בְתוּלָה referring to a maiden but not necessarily a virgin, see Wenham, “A Girl of Marriageable Age” VT 22.3 (Jul 1972); Bush, Ruth, WBC, 361; Adele Berlin, Lamentations, OTL, 122).

3. There is a parallel between the sign in Isaiah 7:14–16 and the oracle that accompanies Maher-shalal-hash-baz in 8:3–4. Before each boy reaches a certain age, Syria and Israel will be eliminated as a threat. However, Maher-shalal-hash-baz cannot be the Son of Isaiah 7:14

3.1. Isaiah’s wife (the prophetess) is not a virgin; Isaiah already has a son, Shear-jashub (Compton, 9).

3.2. Isaiah 8:4  seems to refer to events that took place in 732 BC, when Assyria defeated Israel and Assyria and took captives (1 Kings 15:29; 16:9). However, the kingdom of Israel continued for some time, so Isaiah 7:16 may refer to the fall of the kingdom in 722 BC (1 Kings 17:6). Note: The statement  in Isa. 7:8 that within 65 years “Ephraim will be shattered, so that it is no longer a people” (NASB) seems to have been fulfilled in  671 BC (1 Kings 17:2).

3.3. Immanuel also appears in Isaiah 8:8. The land is identified as “your land, O Immanuel,” which links Immanuel to the Davidic royal line and thus distinguishes him from Maher-shalal-hash-baz, the son of Isaiah.

4. The name Immanuel, God with us, points to this Son truly being God with us. This is especially the case within the context of Isaiah 2–12. In chapter 2 Yhwh was said to reign from Zion, in chapter 4 the branch (a Davidic title; 11:1) is implied to rule in Zion, in chapter 7 the birth of a child who is named God with us is prophesied, in 8:8 Immanuel is said to be the possessor of the land (implying a kingly role), in 9:7 a Davidic king who is called “Mighty God” is promised, and in Isiaah 11 the Spirit-empowered Davidic king rules over all the nations with justice. Thus, within this section of Isaiah, the reader should be primed to see the birth of a child, in connection with the Davidic covenant, who is also identified as God.

Conclusion: Isaiah 7:14 is a direct messianic prophecy.

• The most significant challenge to the direct messianic prophecy view is the claim that Immanuel must be a certain age before the lands of Israel and Syria are deserted. There are two options here:

1. Even though Immanual is born many years after these events, the time frame of “before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good” is abstracted from his actual life an applied to the period between this prophecy and the conquest of Israel and Damascus in 732 BC (1 Kings 15:29; 16:9) or fall of Israel in 722 BC (1 Kings 17:6).

1.1. In support of this view, it is important to note that there are two threats that Isaiah is addressing. The threat to the Davidic house, addressed with plural pronouns to the whole house of David (7:14–15). The threat to Ahaz’s kingdom, addressed singularly to Ahaz (7:16–17) (Compton, 11–12; cf. Rydelink, 818).

1.2. The birth of Immanuel addresses the first threat; the time frame addresses the second threat.  This provides a rational for abstracting the time frame from the actual life of Immanuel.

2. Because Ahaz lacked faith, the fulfillment of the sign will take place many years after the events. It will be long “before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good” that the lands of Israel and Syria will be deserted.

2.1 There are two types of signs in Scripture: (1) Present persuader (Ex. 4:8),  (2) Future confirmation (Ex. 3:12).

2.2. Ahaz was offered a sign that would be a present persuader in verse 11, but due to his unbelief the sign given is a future confirmation (Jaeggli, Lecture, 20 January 2006). 

At present I’m inclined toward option 1.

Intertextuality in Proverbs 1

by

Proverbs is often viewed as a canonical outlier. It is understood as a practical, non-theological book that is difficult to integrate into a larger biblical theology. However, the connections between Proverbs 1 and other passages, especially other foundational passages like Deuteronomy 6 and Psalm 1, show the importance of Proverbs 1 within the canon. Proverbs is not a canonical outlier. It is integrated into the rest of the canon.

Proverbs opens with the title “The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel.” This opening recalls texts in Kings in which Solomon is depicted as the wise king (1 Kings 3:12, 28; 4:34; Mt 12:42). It also looks forward to Christ, who will also be called the Son of David (Mt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31l 21:9, 15; 22:42; Mk 10:47-48; 12:35; Lk 3:31; 18:38-39; 20:41). Jesus is the “greater than Solomon” (Mt 12:42; Lk 11:31), the antitype of the type. He is the wisdom from God (1 Cor 1:30) and in whom is hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2:3). This title indicates the book was written from the king of Israel to his son, the Davidic king who would follow him. Thus, in a sense, Proverbs was written to Christ as the ultimate Davidic Son. He alone of all the Davidic kings would keep the wisdom of Proverbs perfectly.

The prologue (1:2-7) climaxes with the statement that the fear of Yhwh is the beginning of knowledge. Notably, “this “fear of Yhwh” is an important phrase in Deuteronomy and Joshua. Note especially the connection between fear of Yhwh and wisdom in Proverbs and fear of Yhwh and “keeping all his statutes and his commandments” in Deuteronomy 6:2 (cf. 6:13, 24). In both of these contexts there is an emphasis on the father instructing his son. Isaiah may be looking back to Proverbs 1 when he says that the Spirit of Yhwh that will rest on the Messiah will be “the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of Yhwh” (11:2). The Messiah will fulfill Proverbs 1:7.

Proverbs 1:8 continues the allusions to Deuteronomy 6. The idea and language of instructing a “son” is present in both passages. In Proverbs 1:8 the son is called to “hear” just as in Deuteronomy 6:3, 4 Israel is called to hear. Thus, Proverbs 1:8-19 is an application of Deuteronomy 6. The word “instruction” links 1:8 (and thus 1:8-19) back to the prologue (The word מוּסָר appears in vv. 2, 3, and 7; it serves as part of an inclusio, bracketing 1:2-7.)

The word “teaching” (תּוֹרָה, torah) links back to the law of God (Ex 24:12). It is God’s law that the parents are to be teaching their children (cf. Dt 6:1-2, 7 Andrew Steinmann proposes that the ten discourses directed to the son in Proverbs 1-9 allude to the Decalogue. The first address alludes to the fifth commandment in calling for the son to hear and obey his father and mother’s teaching. The topic of the instruction focuses on keeping the sixth and eighth commandments, the commandments concerning unlawful killing and stealing (CC, 61-63). The fifth commandment is transitional between the first and second tables of the law. Thus, the father begins his instruction of his son by beginning with the first commandment of the second table of the Decalogue. (The first table is comprehended in the prolgoue’s statement about the foundational nature of the fear of Yhwh.)

The reference to parental instruction and teaching being adornment to the neck does not directly allude back to Deuteronomy 6, but Schipper notes, “The word גַּרְגֶּרֶת (“neck, throat”) occurs in the Hebrew Bible only in Prov 1:9; 3:3, 22; and 6:21. The instructions in 3:1–12 and 6:20–35 both allude to the Shema in Deut 6:6–9” (Herm., 78).

The reference to torah also links Prov. 1:8-19 to Psalm 1. The blessed man meditates day and night on the torah. (Note that Psalm 1 is connected to Joshua 1:7-8 and the need to be strong and courageous; later Joshua will emphasize fear of Yhwh [4:24; 22:25; 25:14].) The blessed man is one who “walks [הלך] not in the counsel of the wicked” (Ps 1:1), and the father in Proverbs warns his son against sinners who say, “Walk [הלך] with us” (1:11, lit. trans.). He tells his son, “do not walk [הלך] in the way [דֶּ֫רֶךְ] with them” (1:15). The “them” have already been identified as “sinners” (חַ֝טָּאִ֗ים, 1:10), and Psalm 1:1 says that the blessed man “stands [not] in the way [דֶּ֫רֶךְ] of sinners [חַ֭טָּאִים].” Psalm 1 concludes by contrasting “the way of the righteous” and “he way of the wicked.” Proverbs will also lay two ways out before the son. Finally, Psalm 1 notes that “the way [דֶּ֫רֶךְ] of the wicked will perish” (1:6) while Provebs 1:19 concludes by noting that the “unjust gain” of the sinners “takes away the life of its possesors.”

Proverbs 1:20-33 has some notable connections to Psalm 2. When Wisdom says that she will “laugh” [שׂחק] and “mock” [לעג] at the calamity the comes on the wicked, the same two words are used as are found in Psalm 2:4, “He who sits in the heavens laughs [שׂחק]; the Lord holds them in derision [לעג].” Note also that the outcome of these fools is the same in a that of the wicked in Psalm 2:12 (cf. 1:6) and Prov. 1:32 (the word אבד is used in all three verses).

Note also that  because fools did not choose the “fear of the Lord” (1:29; cf. 1:7), they will have terror/dread [פַּ֫חַד] instead (1:26, 27, 33). The word פַּ֫חַד is elsewhere used in the phrase “fear of God” or “fear of Yhwh”—often of the dread unbelievers have of God (Isa 2:10, 19, 21;1; 2 Chr 14:14; 17:10; 19:7; 20:29). These texts all post-date Proverbs. Interestingly, Psalm 36, a psalm of David, says that the wicked has “no fear [פַּ֫חַד] of God before his eyes” because he “flatters himself” that his iniquity will not be found out. But Proverbs 1:26, 27) teaches that the wicked will indeed come to experience “terror.”

Romans 1:18-32 may be drawing on Proverbs 1:20-33. I take wisdom to be creational norms and her crying in the streets to refer to her accessibility. That is, her calling in the market squares is general revelation. Romans 1 is also concerned with the rejection of general revelation. The statement in Romans 1:26 about acting contrary to nature also fits with wisdom as creational norms. In addition, Romans 1:21 speaks of not honoring/glorifying God, which seems equivalent to not fearing him. Romans 1:22 also uses the language of the wise and fools, which links back to Proverbs. The links to Proverbs may be broader than just Proverbs 1. Romans 1:28 says they did not acknowledge God, which may allude to Proverbs 3:6.

Thoughts on Gavin Ortlund’s “Angelic Fall Theodicy in Dialogue with Tolkien, Augustine, and Aquinas,” Themelios 50.2 (August 2025): 329–27.

by

The problem of evil is a significant defeater for old earth creation views. On the classical view, all creation fell with the fall of man, and Adam’s fall introduced natural evil into the world. It does not seem that Ortlund disputes this to be the classical view. All of the advocates for his view—that the angelic fall introduced natural evil into the world—are moderns: C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, Thomas Torrance, and Alvin Plantinga. In his 2015 Evangelical Quarterly article Ortlund traces this idea back to 1876 and George Pember.

In closing this article, Ortlund comments, “I have observed it to be a nearly universal rule that those who scoff at angelic fall theodicy tend to be less familiar with Tolkien, while those who take it seriously tend to read him quite closely” (338). I hope that I don’t simply scoff at Ortlund’s position. But this close reader of Tolkien does not find the angelical fall theodicy convincing. The Simarillion is an engaging piece of fiction, and I have found “The Music of the Ainur” fascinating since I first read it in high school. Nonetheless, it is fiction.

Ortlund addresses this objection by noting that Tolkien conveyed true theological beliefs in his fiction and that some of these beliefs can be found in Augustine and Aquinas. There is value in looking at historic Christian thought. But historical theology needs always to be accompanied by exegetical reflection. It is not enough to know that Augustine and Aquinas believed something. That is only the first stage. The interpreter must then ask if those beliefs can be substantiated from Scripture. In addition, it is worth noting that Calvin found the medieval views of angels overly speculative (Institutes 1.14.4-12).

Ortlund’s goal in this article is not to make a case from Scripture but to make his view plausible by pointing to three historical figures who held views of angelic agency in creation that would be necessary for his view to work. However, I find these precursors to his view (e.g., that the angels participated in creation and are given oversight over it) overly speculative. Not only is the angelic fall theodicy overly speculative, but it is so in ways that run against explicit scriptural teaching. Genesis 3:17 reveals when the ground was cursed: in Adam’s fall, not in an angelic fall. Romans 8 links the groaning and redemption of creation with the fall and redemption of man. Why does creation fall with man, and why is it restored with man? Because in Genesis 1:28 God made man, who bears his image, ruler over creation under him. This partially accounts for the incarnation and for why the kingdom of God arrived with the incarnate Son. The kingdom of God is not merely the reign of God. That never ceased. The kingdom of God that John and Jesus announced as being at hand was the reign of God through an obedient man.

It may be fun to speculate in fiction about the angels singing creation into existence, as Tolkien does, or to imagine with Lewis that different angelic beings each have their own planet to rule. But to bring these fictions into theology is to destabilize the biblical Creation-Fall-Redemption narrative with the central place given to man—especially the Man—in it.

Morell, Caleb. A Light on the Hill: The Surprising Story of How a Local Church in the Nation’s Capital Influenced Evangelicalism. Crossway, 2025.

by

My interest in this book was piqued by hearing the author talk about it on a podcast. The anecdotes he shared were edifying. The same is true of the book as a whole. This is not a hagiography. The faults of the church at various points in its history were examined. Nor is this an academic history; it is written to edify. Each chapter is focused not only on an era of the church but on key issues that emerged in those eras. There is much to learn from this book. But in the end, it evokes thankfulness to God for his faithfulness to the church that has gathered on Capitol Hill over many lifetimes.

Vlach, Michael. Chapter 1: “The Importance of the Kingdom,” in He Will Reign Forever

by

Vlach proposes that “kingdom” is the central theme of Scripture (21). He argues this case by noting that the theme runs from Genesis 1 through Revelation 22, that much of Scripture is focused on the development of the kingdom, that the kingdom is the central theme in Jesus’s ministry (and that of his forerunner, John), and that the kingdom is the focal point of eschatology. Vlach also argues that the themes of covenant, promise and salvation all connect into the kingdom theme. Finally, Vlach acknowledges that God’s glory is the “purpose for which God does what he does,” but he wishes to distinguish this from “a theme of Scripture” (27).

I’m not committed to kingdom as the central theme of Scripture. For instance, I don’t see the need to deny that the glory of God is a theme. But I do affirm that it is right at the heart of biblical theology and that the other major theological themes all connect to it.

Having established the centrality of the kingdom theme, Vlach then turns to define kingdom.

“The concept of ‘kingdom’ includes at least three essential elements:

1. Ruler—a kingdom involves a ruler with rightful and adequate authority and power.

2. Realm—a kingdom involves a realm of subjects to be ruled.

3. Rulership—a kingdom involves the exercise of ruling.” [28]

He insists that all three parts must be present for a kingdom to be present. In the end he follows Alva McClain to define kingdom as “the rule of God over His creation” (30, quoting McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, 19).

There are a number of weaknesses in Vlach’s definition of kingdom.

First, realm should not be reduced to subjects. The realm of the kingdom includes land. Ultimately, the entire earth is the realm of God’s kingdom.

Second, Vlach seems to think that requiring ruler, realm, and rulership to all be present argues against a present form of the kingdom. This is clear in his characterization of Luke 19:12, where he argues “the actual kingdom reign occurs when the nobleman returns to his realm of authority.” However, Psalm 110:1–2 indicates that the Son is reigning now even before his return. I would argue that all three elements are present even in the inaugurated but not yet consummate rule of Christ.

 This definition doesn’t clearly highlight that the kingdom is God’s rule over His creation through man. The Creation Blessing and the necessity of the incarnation is left to the side in this definition. However, Vlach elsewhere roots the kingdom theme in Genesis 1:26–28. Including the through man aspect of the kingdom seems consistent with what Vlach teaches elsewhere.