Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Literal or Symbolic? Thought’s on Ben Gladd’s Article about Reading Revelation Responsibly

by Leave a Comment

Last week Ben Gladd authored an article for the Carson Center on reading revelation responsibly. As I read the article, it became clear that it involved a series of confusions. The title offered the opposition: “Literal or Symbolic?” However, an introductory paragraph offers the following opposition: “the futurist perspective and the recapitulation perspective.” And the final paragraph of the article targets a kind of historicist perspective; one that ties events in the present or near future to Revelation.

These oppositions involve Gladd in a set of confusions. The futurist interpretation does not involve arguing that the book of Revelation is to be interpreted “literally” rather than “symbolically.” Futurists recognize the prevalence of symbols in Revelation. The most recent Revelation commentary from a futurist perspective, Buist Fanning’s commentary in the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series, includes a lengthy discussion of genre and symbolism in its introduction.

Similarly, futurism and recapitulation are not inherently opposed to one another. Both are found in some of the early patristic commentaries. I’m not personally convinced by the arguments for recapitulation; I find Richard Bauckham’s structure more persuasive. But were I convinced of a recapitulatory approach, I would not find it necessary to abandon futurism.

Finally, reading Revelation in light of CNN or Fox News is contrary to a futurist approach to Revelation. This tendency is one of the bad fruits of historicism, which spent so much energy on trying to tie the symbolism of Revelation to past and then near future events. It is of a piece with the older interpretations which debated whether the first trumpet judgment related to the heresies of the Ebionites and others who arose shortly after the time of the apostles (Johann Gerhard), to the period following the death of Constantine (Alexander Minorita), or to the period from the rise of the Goths to the spread of the Turks (Thomas Goodwin). The only difference between the older historicism and this newer historicism is the time frame in view. A true futurism recognizes that Christ could return to begin the Day of the Lord judgments described by Revelation at any time and that there are no signs which precede that Day of the Lord coming. Thus, there is no utility or validity in trying to correlate current events and Revelation.

What of Gladd’s argument regarding sēmainō? A tighter argument for the same basic point can be found in Fanning’s futurist commentary (p. 76). That said, I think Beale’s insistence on interpreting everything in Revelation symbolically leads to the same kinds of absurdity’s that one finds from the interpreter who insists on interpreting everything Revelation literally. I’ve read Beale’s NIGTC commentary in its entirety, and I was surprised to find him interpreting even the Revelation’s own interpretations of the symbols as themselves symbolic of something else!

In the end, Gladd isn’t arguing just for recognizing and interpreting symbols in Revelation; he’s arguing for the idealist approach to Revelation. That is the opposition that should have run consistently through the article.

So the question remains, which is the more responsible way to read Revelation? The idealist way or the futurist way? I’ll address that question in the next post.

When Did the Church Begin?

by Leave a Comment

In today’s “A La Carte” Tim Challies linked to an article arguing against locating the beginning of the church at Pentecost. The article contains a series of misunderstandings. First, it links this position to dispensationalism. Dispensationalists do hold this position, but so, for instance, do many Baptists who are not dispensationalists. Second, while the article grants that “Israel was not identical to the New Covenant church in every respect,” it maintains that “the difference in form did not create a different way of salvation.” However, no one who holds that the church began at Pentecost believes that there are different ways of salvation for Old Testament believers and New Testament believers. He asks, “Did the Old Testament saints lack saving union with Christ?” None of those who believe the church began at Pentecost would answer in the affirmative. Third, the article presupposes that dispensationalists believe that national Israel and the multinational church are “two covenant peoples with separate destinies.” But this view has long been abandoned by dispensationalists.

For a helpful, positive, discussion of the relationship between Israel and the church, see Craig Blaising’s “Progressive Dispensationalism as Kingdom Theology.”

Did Jesus Affirm that the Kingdom Would Be Restored to Israel: Inner-biblical Exegesis in Acts 1:6–8

by Leave a Comment

Isa 32:15until the Spirit is poured upon us from on high [LXX: ἕως ἂν ἐπέλθῃ ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς πνεῦμα ἀφʼ ὑψηλοῦ], and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field, and the fruitful field is deemed a forest.Acts 1:8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you [ἐπελθόντος τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς],
Isa 43:10-12“You are my witnesses,” [LXX: γένεσθέ μοι μάρτυρες,] declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior. I declared and saved and proclaimed, when there was no strange god among you; and you are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and I am God.Acts 1:8and you will be my witnesses [καὶ ἔσεσθέ μου μάρτυρες] in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
Isaiah 44:8Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses [LXX: μάρτυρες ὑμεῖς ἐστε]! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.”Acts 1:8and you will be my witnesses [καὶ ἔσεσθέ μου μάρτυρες] in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
Isa 49:6he says: “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth [ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς].”Acts 1:8and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth [καὶ ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς].”

Parallels taken from Connecting Scripture New Testament, 214.

In the notes to the Connecting Scripture New Testament, Dennis Johnson, whose work on Acts (especially his The Message of Acts) I generally appreciate, says that by quoting these passages Jesus “corrected the apostle’s conception of the kingdom’s power and extent” and their “myopic focus on restoration for Israel.” If by this Johnson means that Jesus expanded their view of the restoration to include Gentiles, there is no argument. But if Johnson is indicating that Jesus was in some way denying a restoration for Israel, then I think he has erred in his understanding of Jesus’s use of the Old Testament here. In looking at the context of these Isaiah passages it becomes clear that Jesus was affirming the restoration of the kingdom for Israel and linking it Israel’s witness-bearing role to the nations.

In response to the apostle’s question, Jesus reiterated the coming of the Spirit: “you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you.” This wording aligns with the Greek translation of Isaiah 32:15. In that chapter the pouring out of the Spirit is connected to a king who would reign over Israel with justice, to a desolate land that is restored to fruitfulness, and to a people who live in peace. By evoking this passage, Jesus was reaffirming the restoration of Israel’s kingdom. But he also indicated that there will be some time between the pouring out of the Spirit and that restoration.

Jesus went on to say, “and you shall be my witnesses.” This statement alludes to Isaiah 43:10, 12. In this passage Yhwh gathers the nations and the peoples to present witnesses to their gods’ ability to exercise omniscient sovereignty as Yhwh does. The nations can produce no witnesses. Of Israel, however, Yhwh says, “You are my witnesses.” They are witnesses that Yhwh is the only God and that he is the only Savior. Here it is important to note that the apostles were all Jewish and that they were a band of twelve men (the end of Acts 1 makes a point of bringing the complement of the Apostles back to twelve). Though Acts records that many Jews rejected the Gospel, Acts also records Israel bearing witness to the Gentiles of the true God and savior.

In the remainder of Isaiah 43 God speaks of the coming Babylonian exile and of Israels redemption and return. Then in chapter 44 God speaks of pouring out his Spirit on Jacob his servant, that is on the nation of Israel. The result is that Israel will witness that there is no god besides Yhwh.

By alluding to these passages Jesus was affirming, not denying, that the kingdom would be restored to Israel. But he was also instructing the disciples that the restoration of the kingdom to Israel will happen in conjunction with Israel’s witness-bearing to the nations. God’s election of Israel was never (going all the way back to Genesis 12) for Israel’s own sake but always for the sake of God’s saving work among all peoples.

Jesus drove this point home by alluding to the Servant song in Isaiah 49.

And now, says the LORD, who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him so that Israel might be gathered to him; for I am honored in the sight of the LORD, and my God is my strength— he says, “It is not enough for you to be my servant raising up the tribes of Jacob and restoring the protected ones of Israel. I will also make you a light for the nations, to be my salvation to the ends of the earth.” [Isa 49:5–6,CSB]

Note that the restoration of Israel is a key part of this Servant song: “to bring Jacob back to him so that Israel might be gathered to him.” But note also that Servant will not save Israel alone; he will be “[Yhwh’s] salvation to the ends of the earth.”

The apostles wondered if the soon pouring out of the Spirit meant the soon restoration of the kingdom to Israel. These allusions in Jesus’s answer affirms the that the kingdom will be restored to Israel, but it directs the apostles to the prior task of bearing witness to all peoples that Jesus is the only true God and Savior.

Is the Referenced in Deuteronomy 4:31 the Abrahamic or the Sinai Covenant?

by

Block argues for the Sinai covenant:

1. The distinction many make between the Abrahamic covenant as unconditional and the Israelite covenant as conditional is false. All covenants involve relationships, the health of which depends on the actions of each party vis-à-vis the other. As anticipated in Genesis 17:7, the Israelite covenant ratified at Sinai was the means by which the promise made within the Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled.

2. Although we read of God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, this covenant is never referred to elsewhere as “the covenant of your forefathers.”

3. Leviticus 26:45 explicitly associates the “covenant of the ancestors”(brit rišanim), used here, with those “whom brought out of Egypt in the sight of the nations to be their God.”

4. In this chapter (esp. vv. 9-31), the central issue has been the covenant that Yahweh made with Israel at Horeb and that is embodied in the Decalogue.

5. Moses’ reference to Yahweh’s remembering his covenant with the forefathers deliberately contrasts his fixed memory with the Israelite lapse of memory (cf. v. 23).

6. Since Moses is speaking of the distant future (v. 30) and specifically refers to when “you have had children and grandchildren” (v. 25), “your forefathers” could refer to the exodus generation or even to the present generation.

7. While some cite the absence of an oath at Horeb as evidence for the Abrahamic covenant, we should note first that in the ancient Near East covenants would rarely have been made without an oath. Moreover, later prophetic tradition actually speaks of Yahweh’s commitment on oath to this covenant. [Note 35: “See Ezek. 16.8 and 20:5. Cf. Daniel I. Block, Ezekiel Chapters 1-24 (NICOT, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1997), 625-26.”]

8. Finally, borrowing heavily from Deuteronomy, Jeremiah explicitly identifies the exodus generation as the forefathers with whom Yahweh made a covenant (34:13).

Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC, 134-35.

In response:

1. While all covenants include responsibilities for both parties, some covenants are unconditional while others are conditional. For instance, there are responsibilities for humans in the Noahic covenant, but their failure to keep those responsibilities does not  negate the promised blessing of the covenant. That blessing is unconditional. On the other hand, the Mosaic covenant conditions the covenant blessings on obedience and prescribes covenant curses for disobedience. The Mosaic covenant is a conditional covenant. The cutting of the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 15 shows it to be an unconditional covenant.

2.a. However, in Deuteronomy 4:37, the very next time אָב is used, “fathers” refers to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It refers to Yhwh choosing their seed and, as a result, Moses says Yhwh “brought you out of Egypt.”

2.b. What is more, the first occurrence of אָב in Deuteronomy defines the fathers: “Go in and take possession of the land that Yhwh swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give to them and to their seed after them.’” (Dt 1:8, ESV, alt.; cf. Dt. 1:35).

2.c. After Deuteronomy 1, Deuteronomy 4:1 contains the next occurrence of אָב. That verse refers back to Deuteronomy 1:8, 35 by connecting the giving of the land to Yhwh as “the God of your fathers.”

2.d. Though there is debate over the referent of fathers in Deuteronomy 5:3; 8:3, 16, 18, the proper referent is arguably Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. A contrast is being drawn between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants.

2.e. Throughout the rest of Deuteronomy, when fathers is used of the forefathers of this generation, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are in view.

2.f. Thus it is immaterial that the phrase is not used of the Abrahamic covenant elsewhere. (In fact, this precise phrase only occurs in this verse.)

3. Leviticus 26:45 speaks of a yet future generation. So their forefathers could include the very people that Moses is speaking to in Deuteronomy 4. It seems safest to define בְּרִ֣ית אֲבֹתֶ֔יךָ in Deuteronomy 4:31 by the usage of אָב in Deuteronomy rather than by בְּרִ֣ית רִאשֹׁנִ֑ים in Leviticus 26:45.

4. It is true that the making of the Mosaic covenant at Horeb is central to this passage, but throughout those verses Moses place the current generation in solidarity with the generation that came out of Egypt by using the second person singular to describe those events: “And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform” (Dt. 4:13; cf. vv. 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, 21, 23, 33, 36, 37). The use of the second person plural continues through Deuteronomy 4:29–31. The you in this chapter thus encompasses the first generation to leave Egypt. The fathers are distinct from both generations.

5. Israel is not to forget the Sinai covenant even as Yhwh will not forget the Abrahamic covenant. Verses 25–28 predict that Israel will forget the Sinai covenant and come under its covenant curses. Veress 20–31 notes that despite Isreal’s forgetfulness of the Sinai covenant, Yhwh will not forget the Abrahamic covenant. It would not make sense to refer to him not forgetting the Sinai covenant at this point; that is what verses 25–28 recount. Yhwh’s remembering the Sinai covenant means that he brings the curses of the covenant on Israel as a disobedient people. Yhwh’s remembering the Abrahamic covenant grounds the redemption of Israel.

6. This is a fair observation. However, note the continuity of the second person you throughout this passage. Further, this observation does not overturn the arguments made in responses 1–5.

7. I agree with Block on this point; I would not deploy the argument he is countering.

8. Jeremiah 34:13 is not the only place where a covenant with the fathers refers to the Sinai covenant. See also 1 Kings 8:21; 2 Kings 17:15; Jer 11:10; 31:32. However, this is beside the point. To be sure the Sinai covenant was a covenant made with the fathers of subsequent generations. Block is treating this phraseology as if it were a technical term with a unified referent whereas the referent needs to be determined contextually.

Buist Fanning on Typology

by

 “(1) Typology is not just a matter of Old Testament to New Testament relationships as noted above. It occurs from one part of the Old Testament to another and from the Old Testament to later Jewish literature. This is grounded in observations about God’s consistency in working out his purposes across human history.

(2) Typology is not limited to features of Christology and soteriology, although these are common topics. For example, judgment of the ungodly, opposition to God’s ways, and human character traits are some of the patterns that appear (only negatively related to soteriology) [Note 102: “See comments on Balaam (2:14–15), Jezebel (2:20), the Euphrates (9:14; 16:12), Armageddon (16:16–18). Also Elliott, Survivors, 387–92, and various OT examples in 2 Pet and Jude.”]

(3) Typology does not necessitate a metaphysical shift from physical, geographic, or historic entities in the Old Testament type to spiritual and eternal realities in the New Testament antitype. Sometimes the typological escalation works this way, but it is not necessary for it to do so. For example, the typology of sacrifice in Hebrews and elsewhere (e.g., 1 Cor 5:7) did not mean that Christ offered himself only spiritually or only in the heavenly realms to deal with sin. He experienced real physical suffering, death, and resurrection in time and space, even though his sacrifice was God’s full and final provision for sin and provides spiritual, eternal blessings for the redeemed. [Note 103: “See comments on this issue at Rev 6:16–17; cf. Blaising, “Biblical Hermeneutics,” 85–87.”]

(4) Typology does not necessitate the abrogation of the type in favor of the antitype. Abrogation is the case in one notable example that is sometimes cited (animal sacrifices as a type of Christ’s sacrifice; Heb 9–10). But to take another instance from Hebrews, Adam’s role as God’s image bearer and ruler over creation (Gen 1; Ps 8) is not revoked for humankind but renewed and restored by Christ (Heb 2; cf. Rev 2:26–27; 20:4, 6; 22:5).[Note 104: “See Bock, “Summary Essay” [in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond], 293–94; see also commentary on 1:6; 5:10; 7:8; 21:3.”]

(5) The future counterpart or antitype may not be limited to a single, climactic exemplar, although this is often the case. It is also possible for an Old Testament pattern to find more than one future replication on the way to its ultimate fulfillment. Either way it involves “progression toward a final goal” in God’s design for history. Beale gives the illustration of Noah (Gen 9:1–2, 7) as an intermediate antitype of Adam (Gen 1:26–28), pointing ultimately to Christ. In the same place he cites day of the Lord prophecies that have a near-term fulfillment as well as an eschatological one. [Note 106: “Beale, Handbook, 16–17; Bock, “Summary Essay” [in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond], 294–95.”] The same can be said of the use in Revelation of Babylon (the ancient empire pointing to Rome and on to an end-time power opposed to God) or of the “beast” that exalts itself against God, desecrates the temple, and oppresses God’s people (Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Rome in AD 70, and a future antichrist).”

Buist Fanning, Revelation, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020), 47–48.

Spring 2026 issue of the Journal of Biblical Theology and Worldview

by

The Spring 2026 edition of the Journal of Biblical Theology and Worldview has released.

I contributed an article: “Reading the Bible as Part of Which Great Tradition? A Critique of Allegorical Interpretation and a Commendation of the Reformation’s Recovery of the Literal Sense.“

Here is my conclusion:

The move toward pre-critical interpretation and away from the barrenness of historical critical interpretation is understandable. There is an attractiveness for young conservative scholars to embrace the Great Tradition. This claim to stand against modernism with the Great Tradition has a significant problem, however. Examination of the Great Tradition reveals fierce debates. The Reformers and their Post-Reformation heirs stood opposed to the quadriga and allegorical interpretation. The medieval period saw a turn away from allegory and toward the literal sense. And the origins of allegorical interpretation of Scripture came from paganism. Allegorical interpretation is foreign to the Bible itself. All of this is papered over by broad appeals to the Great Tradition.
The Reformation also provides a pre-critical approach to interpretation that stands as an alternative to historical criticism. It retains the best of the quadriga (concerns to find Christ in the OT, to discern the ethical import of a text, and to discern what eschatological hope the text contains) without its weaknesses. Instead of reading these things into texts, the Reformers and their heirs read them out of the literal sense.
Which Great Tradition should exegetes follow? The Great Tradition of the apostles as recovered by the Reformers and their heirs.

Included in the article are two appendices. One looks examines Craig Carter’s claim that Calvin embraced the spiritual sense in his commentary on Exodus 3:5 by looking at Calvin’s comments on that chapter in comparison with patristic comments on the same.

The other evaluates allegories that Mitchell Chase proposes are found in the New Testament. After surveying Chase’s proposed allegories, I conclude that the NT authors did not allegorize the OT.

In this issue I also review Erik Lundeen’s book, The Reformation of the Literal: Prophecy and the Senses of Scripture in Early Modern Europe. In researching the above article, I found Lundeen’s work to be an important resource. I enjoyed reading and reviewing it.

I also reviewed Crawford Gribben’s book, J. N. Darby and the Roots of Dispensationalism. I note in the review, “Gribben opens his book by citing Donald Akenson’s claim that Darby is the fourth most influential Protestant theologian, following only Luther, Calvin, and Wesley.” On the other hand, Gribben distances Darby from the dispensationalism that followed: “Gribben finds Darby’s thought neglected, overshadowed by the dispensationalism that followed him.” The reader could come away from Gribben’s book with some regret as to how significant aspects of Darby’s thought has been neglected or simplified. I warn against that conclusion: “One might feel some regret in reading Gribben’s account that Darby’s complex thought was simplified or abandoned. “But when evaluated theologically, Darby’s view of imputation, his view of the church, his views on the sealing of the Spirit, and his distinctive definition of dispensation all should have been abandoned. In the almost century and a half since Darby’s death, his best ideas (such as the distinction between definitive and progressive sanctification and some of his eschatological thought) have endured, while the less valuable ideas have fallen away.”

I close the review with a caution to dispensationalism’s critics: “Gribben’s observation that Darby was often drawing on earlier theological ideas should move some Reformed theologians to examine whether some of the opposition to dispensationalist positions is too reactive. The restoration of Israel to the land and a national conversion has a long Reformed pedigree. Must it be abandoned simply because it was also adopted by Darby and the dispensationalists who followed him?”

Layton Talbert also contributed an article that examines claims of contingency in prophecy. I heard him deliver it in paper form at last summer’s Bible Faculty Summit and highly commend it. He proposes a solution to an alleged discrepancy in 1 Kings 21 and 22 that I have found compelling and which I’ve not encountered in any other source.

I also commend Mark Ward’s excellent review of Kevin Vanhoozer’s Mere Christian Hermeneutics.

Proverbs 3:27

by

Proverbs 3:27 is part of a cluster of Proverbs. The larger section is 3:21-35  and the subsection is 3:27-32. A literal translation of Hebrew is found in the Geneva Bible, “Withholde not the good from the owners thereof, thogh there be power in thine hand to do it.” Other translations render מִבְּעָלָ֑יו not as “from the owners thereof” but as “those to whom it is due” (NKJV [cf. KJV], RSV, NRSV. ESV, NIV11, NASB, LSB) or “from the one to whom it belongs” (CSB, cf. HCSB).  

Matthew Poole understands this to refer to “from those who have any kind of right to it,” and he includes in this a moral right of those who are in need to receive relief from their “real want or misery” (Annotations, 2:219). John Gill likewise observes that “rich men are not so much proprieters of good things as they are God’s almoners or stewards to distribute to the poor,” whom God has deemed the owners of these gifts (Exposition of the Old Testament, 4:350). Van Leeuwen concludes, “Humans have a general claim on certain things that their humanity entitles them to. Life, food, shelter, and dignity are among the most obvious of these things essential to our humanness” (NIB, 55). Garrett broadens the referent to include not only the poor but also “laborers who have earned their pay” and those who have loaned money and deserve to be repaid” (NAC, 84). Kitchen, on the other hand, would narrow the referent to those who are owed wages (Mentor, 90). Schipper also rejects the application to “a needy or poor person” but instead argues the verse “would call for the addressee to remit that which belongs to another person (debts, taxes?) insofar as one is in the position to do so” (Herm., 1:157-58). 

Waltke observes that this verse indicates that some people have “a moral claim upon your assistance” (NICOT, 1:267). He draws upon Fox who indicates the “owner” “is one who possesses something by right” even if he “does not currently hold them item” (AB, 1:164). These include the enemy whose donkey has fallen down (Ex. 23:40) or the widow or orphan gleaning in the field (Dt. 24:19), but it does not include “the sluggard (cf. 19:24; 2 Thess. 3:10, 12), the leech (Prov. 30:15), and the pampered servant (29:21)” (NICOT, 1:267). Regarding the former, Fox observes, “Such moral claims and their corresponding duties are essential to the cohesion and sound working of society, perhaps even more so than acts of mercy and kindness” (AB, 1:165). 

The final phrase, “when it is in your power to do it” pushes the interpretation away from that which is strictly owed (since debts must be remitted whether one has the money at hand to do so or not) and toward the idea of those with means having obligations to others who are in need. In context, it likely includes employers being generous in their wages, especially toward poor workers. Verse 28 would push in this direction since it parallels commands in the Mosaic law designed to protect poor workers from having their wages withheld. It also fits with Proverbs 3:31 in which the “oppressor” (KJV, NKJV) or “man of violence” (RSV, ESV, NASB, LSB; cf. NIV, CSB, CEB) is not to be envied (presumably for the wealth that his oppression generated).

Thoughts on Proverbs 3:13–20

by

Place in the structure of Proverbs 3: Exhortation to the son (3:1–12), Personified wisdom (3:13–20), Exhortation to the son (3:21–35).

Links with Proverbs 3:1–12. There are numerous connections between these verses and the previous address to the son. The concern with length of days/life and peace in 3:2 is picked up in 3:17-18. The language of ways and paths (though a different Hebrew word for the latter) in 3:6 is picked up in 3:17. The promise that wisdom leads to wealth in 3:10 (cf. 3:8) is qualified in 3:14-15 (but not denied, cf. 3:16).

Proverbs 3:13–20 as a textual unit. Blessed forms an inclusio around 3:13-18. Blessed is the first word of 3:13 and the last word of 3:18. Wisdom and understanding begin the section in v. 13 and are the key words in v. 19 (with knowledge being added in v. 20).

Eternal life in Proverbs 3:13–20.  In 13–20, the terminology of blessedness, ways, and tree link this section to Psalm 1. The reference to the tree of life link this section to Genesis 1–2. These intertextual connections and the superlatives “nothing you desire can compare with her” indicates that the “long life” of verse 16 (and the “tree of life” in v. 18) should be read as a reference to eternal life.

Long life, shalom, and eternal life (a tree of life), is given by wisdom to the one who finds her. Verses 19-20 explain that this is because wisdom is built into the fabric of creation. Getting wisdom is thus like a return to Eden. It is living life as God intended and is therefore life-giving. This is not earning salvation by works, since the beginning of wisdom is fear of Yhwh (=faith).

On the significance of riches and honor in 16b. In light of the foregoing, it seems best to understand the riches and honor of verse 16b as riches and honor obtained in the new creation. (Though, under the Mosaic covenant, some riches and honor may have been typologically enjoyed in the present.) I don’t know if it would be over-reading the text to note that long (=eternal) life is in the right hand while riches and honor are in the left hand. Eternal life is of greater importance while riches and honor are significant blessings, but not as important as eternal life.

Is personified wisdom the Son or creational norms?

Steinmann wants to see wisdom in these verses as the Son. In favor of this is the idea that those who get wisdom get eternal life. 

However, Proverbs 3:13–20 speaks not only of wisdom (which is personified in the book) but also of understanding and knowledge (which are not personified in Proverbs). Nor is wisdom personified in this passage, though this passage does have affinities with the passages in which wisdom is personified.  

Furthermore, wisdom, understanding, and knowledge all have senses that have been established by previous usage in the book. God communicates them to humans through words (2:6). A person can have his own understanding and be wise in his own eyes (3:5, 7).  

Wisdom is something the son is looking for and supposed to find. The preceding context is clear that it is a certain character, not a divine person that is being sought.

Thus, it is better to understand 3:19-20 as indicating that the creation was made by means of Yhwh’s wisdom, understanding, and knowledge. That being the case, Yhwh’s wisdom, understanding, and knowledge is baked into the created order. Personified wisdom in Proverbs refers to the created order, not to the Son.

This does not mean, however, that the Son is absent from these passages. He is the Creator who built wisdom into the creation. He is Son who is greater than Solomon in His wisdom. 

How, then, does getting wisdom relate to eternal life and blessedness? I think “tree of life in the context of Proverbs” refers not to initial regeneration but to living as a person with new life. To find wisdom of to find the way God made his world to work, and that makes life run right. Living according to creational norms = living according to God’s law = eternal life. However, Proverbs, though closely connected to the Mosaic covenant is not a works covenant. Because the beginning of Wisdom is fear of the Lord (= faith) the entrance onto the path of wisdom is faith. The emphasis of Proverbs, however, is the walk on that path.

Thoughts on Proverbs 3:1–12

by

 The life and length of days and shalom that Solomon’s teaching will give to his son is ultimately eternal life. This is why they are to be bound to the person and written on the heart, an allusion to Deuteronomy’s prediction of the new covenant in Deuteronomy 30.

However, these verses are not teaching that obedience to the law leads to eternal life. Rather vv. 5-8 make it clear that it is trusting in Yhwh will all of one’s heart and knowing him in all of one’s ways, and fear Yhwh rather than being wise in one’s own eyes that enables walking according to the divine commandments.

Verses 11-12 reveal that the obedience of such a person will not be perfect, for Yhwh will need to discipline and reprove. Thus, this passage really is presenting eternal life though faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.

Regarding the promises of heath and wealth in these verses: though there may be some experience of these as a result of living wisely in this life, they are ultimately looking toward eternity.

Thoughts on the Structure of Proverbs 3

by

WaltkeSteinmannSchipper
3:1-123:1-203:1-12
3:13-353:21-353:13-20
  3:21-35

In favor of Waltke and Schipper, 3:1-12 has a unified structure that sets it apart from what follows. In favor of Steinmann, the “my son” address does not reoccur until v. 21. Steinmann treats 3:1-12 and 3:13-20 as two subsections under 3:1-20. On the other hand, Schipper’s structure does seem to divide the text naturally. It may be that 3:1-12 and 3:21-35 are addresses to the son. The other kind of material in Proverbs 1-9, other than the introductory statement in 1:1-7, are addresses by Wisdom herself. Though 3:13-20 is not an address of Wisdom, it contains many affinities to these addresses, especially the one in chapter 8. If it is associated with those Wisdom addresses, it could be classified as its own section here.