Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Isaiah 7:14

by Leave a Comment

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 Leave a Comment

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 Leave a Comment

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.

Vlach, Michael. “Introducing the Kingdom.” In He Will Reign Forever.

by

Michael Vlach’s large-scale biblical theological study of the kingdom begins with an outline of what Vlach calls “a new creationist perspective.”

He outlines this perspective in six points (14-16):

“1. A new creationist approach affirms the importance of the material realm in God’s purposes.

2. A new creationist approach affirms that physical promises in the Bible will be fulfilled just as the Bible writers expected.

3. A new creationist approach affirms that the coming new earth will be this present earth purged and restored.

4. A new creationist approach affirms the importance of individuals, Israel, and nations in God’s plans. God works with various groups.

5. A new creationist approach affirms the importance of particular and universal entities.

6. A new creationist approach affirms God’s kingdom will involve social, political, geographical, agricultural, architectural, artistic, technological, and animal elements.”

Vlach also opposes false dichotomies (16):

  • “The kingdom is not physical; it is spiritual.”
  • “The kingdom is no longer about nations; it is about individuals.”
  • “The kingdom is no longer about Israel; it is about Jesus.”
  • “The kingdom is no longer national; it is international.”

I agree with Vlach’s new creationist perspective, with his opposition to false dichotomies, and with his opposition to transforming or transcending the Old Testament promise and storyline.

However, in the introduction he also says that the coming of the kingdom is contingent upon “Israel’s acceptance of the Messiah.” On this point I think he is wrong. The passages he cites speak to the restoration of Israel, but none of them prevent an establishment of the kingdom before that restoration. At least at this point, Vlach is not touching countervailing biblical evidence.

Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ—A Defense of the Testimonium Flavianum.

by

The ⁠Tyndale House Podcast just alerted me to a new book from Oxford University Press making the case that the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus is authentic. The book is going for $130 hardcover on Amazon. Or it can be downloaded for free from the author’s website due to the generosity of a donor: Purchase & Free Download – Josephus & Jesus.

Vlach, Michael J. Dispensational Hermeneutics: Interpretation Principles that Guide Dispensationalism’s Understanding of the Bible’s Storyline. Theological Studies Press, 2023.

by

Insights:

I’m the first chapter Vlach surveys “Key Elements of Dispensationalism’s Storyline.” His survey includes a number of important insights.

  • Rightly sees the importance of Genesis 1:26-28 as foundational for the theology of Scripture and rightly sees the centrality of kingdom and glory to the Bible’s theology.
  • Rightly sees redemption as encompassing not only individuals but also to all of creation, including ethnicities and nations.
  • Understands the covenants as the means by which God brings about his kingdom.
  • Recognizes the spiritual aspects of God’s work coexist alongside the material aspects of God’s work. The material aspects are not merely typological but often have eschatological significance.
  • Recognizes that an emphasis on a progression from the material to the spiritual in redemptive history may be due to the influence of Platonism and other unbiblical worldviews. This viewpoint is at odds with the Bible’s high view of the importance of material creation, including that of the resurrection body.
  • Recognizes God’s role for Israel as the nation through whom God gave the Scripture, through whom the Messiah came, and through whom all the nations will be blessed.
  • Affirms the salvation of all Israel in the last day.
  • Affirms that the spiritual blessings of the covenants have been inaugurated and also affirms that the material blessings will be fulfilled in the last day. (I don’t like spiritual and material as the distinguishing terms. Spiritual in the Bible usually referrs to the Holy Spirit and his work, rather than to a material/spiritual dichotomy; furthermore, the Holy Spirit was at work in the creation of the material world and will be essential to its recreation—just as he is essential to our personal salvation, sanctification, and glorification.)
  • Sees promises in the covenants made with Israel fulfilled in the church, and he sees believing Israel in the present age as part of the church. He also sees the church and Israel as two different kinds of entities. Israel is a nation while the church is a multiethnic body of believers.
  • Affirms that Christ will return to rule all the nations.

In chapters 2-4 Vlach turns to what he identifies as the hermeneutics of dispensationalism. This section also contains a number of insights.

  • He rightly supports discerning authorial intention.
  • He rightly accepts that there are types, symbols, and analogies in the text. He denies that these require a different hermeneutic since grammatical-historical interpretation already recognizes the reality of types symbols, and analogies and seeks to discern their author-intended, contextually governed meaning.
  • He recognizes that dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists both operate with the same grammatical-historical hermeneutic. (He does say that non-dispensationalists often abandon this approach when it comes to prophecies about the restoration of Israel, which may be too sweeping a judgment.)
  • He notes that Israel came under the covenant curses and the judgment of exile just as the Mosaic covenant and the prophets predicted. He then asks why, if the covenant promises of judgment happened as written, the promises and prophecies about Israel’s future restoration and blessing should be reinterpreted as typological and fulfilled only in the church? This is an insightful point, especially since often the prophecies of restoration are textually linked to Israel’s experience of judgment. It would be most odd then for Israel to only experience the judgment and for the promised restoration to be applied only to a different corporate party that did not experience the judgment.
  • He rightly recognizes that turning a promise into a type to be fulfilled for someone other than the person to whom the promise was originally made would violate God’s integrity. “Promises also contain an ethical component. The one making a promise is ethically bound to keep the content of the promise with the audience to whom the promise was made” (40).
  • He recognizes that later revelation “does not reinterpret or change the meaning of earlier revelation” (41). I don’t take this as a denial that the NT properly interprets the OT. That denial, if made, would be a problem.
  • He affirms that the progress of revelation does not alter promises or change the recipients of the promises, though the beneficiaries of the promises may be expanded through progressive revelation.
  • The first coming of Christ did not exhaust prophetic fulfillment; some prophecies await fulfillment at the second coming.
  • The reason that some OT prophecies are only partially fulfilled at present is due to the fact that Christ comes twice. We can see this in certain prophecies where within the same passage part of the prophecy was begun to be fulfilled in the earthly ministry of Christ and another part awaits the second coming (cf. Zech. 9:9-10; Isa 61:1-2; Amos 9:11-15).
  • Jesus is the “Yes” to OT promises in a complex way:
    • Jesus “directly” fulfills some prophecies (73)
    • “Jesus is the means for the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, promises, and covenants” (73). Vlach explains: “There are predictions about a coming antichrist, temple, Israel, nations, destruction and rescue of Jerusalem, battles between nations, the Day of the Lord, kingdom, resurrection, judgment, etc. While not Jesus, these matters are significant to God’s purposes and Jesus is involved with their fulfillment. These things do not vanish or dissolve into Jesus in a metaphysical way” (p. 74).
  • Jesus is the true Israel and national Israel still exists as an entity for which promises will be fulfilled. This is a “both/and” rather than an “either/or.”
  • Vlach observes different ways in which Israel is used in Scripture. (1) “an ethnic, national, territorial, corporate entity”, (2) “to the believing remnant of Israel,” (3) “the ultimate representative of Israel.” (76).
  • Dispensationalism historically has been Christocentric and Christotelic.
    • But it is careful not to “read meanings into texts that are not there” in an effort to be Christ-centered.
    • Dispensational Christ-centered interpretation does not find Christ in the text by “adding a hermeneutical move beyond the grammatical historical” interpretation of a text (82).
    • The OT should be read from the perspective of a NT believer with the knowledge of how Jesus has fulfilled the law and the prophets.
  • Vlach agrees that there are types, but he argues that the promises of the Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants are not types. He also rejects what he terms typological interpretation, which he defines as interpretations that transform covenant promises into something other than what was promised.

In chapters 5-6 Vlach turns to what he describes as the hermeneutics of non-dispensationalism.

  • He rejects NT priority. He defines this as the idea that the NT use of the OT involves a “radical reinterpretation” of OT prophecies (93, citing Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed., 373). He is right to deny that the NT “reinterprets” the OT or changes the meaning these texts originally had. But he over-reacts when he denies that that the NT teaches interpreters how to interpret the OT (see below).
  • He rejects spiritualizing the promises regarding the physical creation.
  • He denies that covenantal promises are types
  • He denies that prophecies about events to come are types. (I would affirm this denial even while granting that these prophecies may involve people and institutions that are typological at some point in history.)
  • He denies that a typical entity or institution can cancel out the fulfillment of promises regarding those entities or institutions. He helpfully quotes Craig Blaising’s opposition to when typology is “employed to contravene, suppress, or subvert the meaning of explicit covenant promise, and even more so when the NT explicitly repeats and reaffirms the same promise as declared in the covenants of the OT” (Blaising, “A Critique of Gentry and Wellum’s, Kingdom through Covenant: A Hermeneutical-Theological Response,” 117 as cited on p. 108).
  • He objects to the use of the following terms to describe the NT’s interpretation of the OT: “redefine,” “reinterpret,” “transform,” “transcend,” “transpose” (114).
  • Vlach is correct to say, “Matters like corporate Israel, nations, land, earthly kingdom, and physical blessings are not Jesus, but they are related to Jesus. We should understand how everything relates to Jesus without assuming all things disappear or metaphysically collapse into Him” (122).

Weaknesses

  • He defines redemption and redemptive history too narrowly. Redemption encompasses the restoration of all creation and includes God’s kingdom purposes. This narrow definition of redemption is inconsistent with things Vlach says elsewhere. I think it is a place where some traditional dispensational thinking is it odds with his broader theology.
  • Vlach is correct to focus on the multidimensional nature of the covenants, but in this book he only seems to speak of the Israel aspect of the covenants. If some covenant theologians err by focusing only on the salvation aspects of the covenants, dispensationalism often errs by focusing on the Israel side of things to the neglect of other aspects.
  • He doesn’t always accurately represent covenant theology. For instance, presents the Covenant Theolgoy position as holding that the Moasic covennat was a restatement of the covenant of works, that the Mosaic covenant was a restatement of the covenant of grace, or that the Mosaic covenant was a restatement of both. But the Mosaic covenant as a republication of the covenant of works is controversial among covenant theologians. In addition, among most covenant theologians, the Mosaic covenant is not a restatement of the covenant of grace but is an administration of the covenant of grace.
  • Sometimes Vlach’s statements about what non-dispensationalists think are too sweeping. Other times non-dispensational viewpoints are stated prejudicially; that is, they are stated in ways that I don’t think proponents of those views would hold. I should note however, that this critique can also be applied to almost every single critique of dispensationalism that I’ve read from a covenant theologian. Covenant theologians are almost always critiquing either older forms of dispensationalism or they are critquing straw men. Both sides in this debate need to do better in understanding the other side before registering their critiques.
  • Vlach’s typology of the temple fails to recognize that the temple was solely and purely a symbol that would pass away. The typology of the land is different. It seems that both Vlach and the major altenatives to dispensationalism (covenant theology and progressive covenantalism) don’t recognize this difference. This causes all of these parties to err in their understading of biblical typology, though in different ways.
  • Vlach over-reacts to the misuse of typology. He has some legitimate concerns. But in response, Vlach wants to limit typology to “the Mosaic Law and its elements” (108), and he wants to deny that Israel and the land are types because they are “linked with … covenants of promise.” However, David was a type of Christ even though kingship is linked to the Davidic covenant, a covenant of promise, rather than being a provision of the Mosaic Law and its elements. Thus, Vlach is drawing the definition of typology too tightly.
    • This is how I woudl respond to the problem that Vlach is seeking to address:
    • If someone were to say: David is a type of Christ; therefore, he will not enjoy eternal life in the new creation because Christ is the reality and the type has entirely passed away, the proper response would be to note that David was a type of Christ in his life and reign in the Old Testament. His life in the new creation is not typological.
    • Likewise, Israel was a type of the church during the period of the Mosaic Covenant. Its continued existence in the new creation is not typological. The land was a type of the new creation in the period of the conquest and during Solomon’s reign, and the future fulfillment of the land promise is not typological.
    • In other words, rather than denying that David or Israel or the land are types (as Vlach does), the better solution is to understand that certain types all have a time dimension to them.
  • Vlach rejects that the NT should instruct us in how to interpret the OT. I understand his concern about approaches that re-interpret original OT meaning, but this is a problematic over-reaction that undercuts the sufficiency of Scripture for hermeneutics.
  • Too often Vlach makes assertions rather than arguments when dealing with opposing views.

A Brief Review of the New Subscription-Based Logos Bible Software

by

The big news about Logos Bible Software is that it is moving to a new subscription model. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I try to avoid all subscriptions for software. On the other hand, I have an investment in Logos, and I want the company to succeed so that my investment continues to pay dividends. Here is the FAQ for the Logos subscriptions. Something that softens the change to subscription is the Legacy Fallback License. For those who have already purchased a base package, they can keep features from their subscription tier that don’t rely on the cloud or AI. The features that do require cloud and AI are specified in the FAQ. This seems to allow something akin to an occasional upgrade for those without the budget for a subscription.

Logos is touting several new features.

Synopsis Feature

The synopsis feature uses AI to summarize top search results. The summary is footnoted so that the user can jump from the summary to the resources. I like the idea. I tried several sample searches, and the results were mixed. As expected with AI-generated text, the paragraphs didn’t always cohere, were not always drawing from the sources that I would value the most, and thus did not tend to direct me to the main sources. However, by narrowing the scope of the resources being searched, I was able to generate better results.

This search on the archaeology of Jericho under the “All” tab (which searches books in my library as well as books I have not purchased) returned a critical understanding of the question.

The result was somewhat better when I limited the search to just the books I owned, but it was still drawing on sources that I would not rank highly, and it still gave a generally critical summary.

When I limited the range of the search to journals which I owned, the content was better, but the paragraph didn’t really cohere.

Perhaps this feature will continually improve as AI improves, and it would work best if run against pre-defined collections of books. But at present I probably won’t be using this feature.

Summarize Feature

An AI feature that I did find helpful was the summarize feature in the search results. Historically, the search results returned a sample of text, and by reading that sample the user decides if that resource is worth reading or not.

But by clicking on “Summarize,” an AI summary of the source is generated that provides a bigger picture summary of the source.

I found this genuinely helpful in choosing resources to pursue from search results.

Updated Factbook

One of the challenges that comes with a large library in Logos is surfacing the right materials from the library at the right time. The Factbook helps with this.

Here are some examples of different kinds of Factbook searches:

New Toolbar

The subscription version of Logos has also debuted a new toolbar. This is similar to the ribbon in Microsoft Office. Selection of different tabs reveals access to different tools. While this does mean extra clicks to access certain features, it also makes a number of features more clearly accessible. For instance, I’m glad to be able to access special copy features without having to open the copy verse pane.

Insights

Another new feature is the Insights panel which can open on the right side of a Bible resource. It will surface a top Bible commentary, and parallel passages.

I find the Related Passages section helpful. I’d rather drop the Study Bible option. Permitting customization in which the top commentary for each book of the Bible could be selected would make this feature more useful to me.

Other Things I Liked and Areas for Improvement

The new version of Logos had a couple of other features that I liked. The program no longer needs to be restarted when changing from to or from dark mode. When text is copied from the mobile app, a citation is copied along with it. This is especially helpful because the mobile app does not consistently show page numbers.

There are a few regressions which are now areas for improvement. In Logos 10 there were several options for linking to resources. I prefer the L4 option because I can link directly to the program without internet access. In the new Logos this option does not seem to be present.

I like the bottom drawer in the mobile app and all of the functions it holds. However, when copying text, the drawer takes up too much space on the screen, and this limits how much text can be copied. It should recede entirely when text is being copied and reappear only after text has been selected. Even better, it would be good if the screen would scroll when the user selects text down to the bottom of the screen.

Pricing Info and Subscription Link

Here is the subscription pricing:

To subscribe, see here.

For more information from Logos on the subscriptions, see: https://www.logos.com/subscription-faq

The Fall 2024 Issue of the Journal of Biblical Theology and Worldview Has Been Realeased

by

The Fall 2024 issue of the Journal of Biblical Theology and Worldview has just been released.

I contributed three book reviews:

Bauder, Kevin T. and Bruce Compton, eds. Dispensationalism Revisited: A Twenty–First Century Restatement. Plymouth, MN: Central Seminary Press, 2023.

Little, Tim and Angela. Song of Songs for Singles: Lessons on Love from King Solomon: Akeny, IA: Faith Publications, 2023.

DeRouchie, Jason S. Delighting in the Old Testament through Christ and for Christ. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024.

I would also commend Layton Talbert’s article “Adoring Shulamite as Foil to Adulterous Israel: A Canonical Theology of the Song of Songs.” This is the best article I’ve read on the Song’s theology. Talbert interacts with some of the best material I’ve read elsewhere, and he refines and extends their insights. He does this by a careful attention to details in the biblical text that require more precision in statement than is often found even in helpful articles and commentaries. This increased precision has a theological pay-off. This article deserves a wide reaidng.