Top Ten Books for 2010

I've read about eight of these lists in the past week, and I'm amused by the great variety of titles included on these lists...and the titles excluded. So here's the list of ten books that most piqued the interest of yours truly, in view of his unique blend of theological concerns, interests, foibles, aberrations, etc. (IOW, it's just like all the other lists, but this one's MINE).

#1: David VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms. Every few years a Eureka book comes along that puts a large amount of seemingly unrelated bits of theology together in a way that really makes sense. This book was one of those for me, connecting a swath of data on apologetics, ecclesiology, culture, and even dispensationalism (the latter, undoubtedly, to the author’s great chagrin).

#2: John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God. Finally, a comprehensive, seminary-level textbook on bibliology—and a really good one, too.

#3: Andrew A. Snelling, Earth’s Catastrophic Past. This one’s dated 2009, but I didn’t get it until 2010, so I’m letting this one in. It’s too important to ignore. A massive, two-volume summary update of flood geology by the premier creation geologist of our time. I’m hopeful that this work, published on the fiftieth anniversary of Whitcomb’s landmark work, The Genesis Flood, will have an impact as great as the earlier work.

#4: Fred Zaspel, The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary. Why didn’t someone have this idea sooner? The systematic theology that B. B. Warfield never published, almost a century after the fact, culled painstakingly from mountains of Warfield’s published and unpublished materials.

#5: Rolland D. McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, volume 3. Dr. McCune’s magnum opus is now complete following this volume on the doctrines of salvation, ecclesiology, and eschatology. Perhaps the best volume of this highly recommendable system of theology.

#6: John D. Currid and David P. Barrett, The Crossway ESV Bible Atlas. OK, so I had some criticisms of this book’s opening chapter a few months back. That doesn’t detract greatly from its overall value. This is an outstanding atlas that leads a very competitive pack of Bible atlases published in the last two years.

#7: Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible. An outstanding contribution connecting exegesis and theology with politics. It’s very conservative, self-consciously Christian, and a lot less abrasive than Sean Hannity. Not in complete harmony with my #1 pick, but that’s part of what makes it enjoyable to read.

#8: Michael Vlach, Has the Church Replaced Israel? A decisive defense of dispensationalism against the replacement theology common in Covenant Theology. An adaptation of his dissertation for a more popular audience.

#9: John S. and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World, 2nd ed. The best available book on Christian ethics, now substantially expanded and updated. I haven’t gotten through this one yet, but so far I’m impressed.

#10: Biblical and Theological Essays: Selections from Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, 1996-2000. Shameless Confession: I had about six volumes vying for the #10 spot and I picked this one because it doubles as a bit of advertising. If you aren’t familiar with our journal, here’s a nice “best of” collection from the first five years. Many of these early issues are out of print.

Literal Interpretation in the Advent Narratives, Part Three--Fulfillment

In the previous post I suggested that the most hermeneutically amenable solution to the harmonization of Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15 is to regard Matthew's use of Hosea as analogical in nature. As such, Matthew is not trying to "interpret" Hosea 11:1 so much as he is drawing a comparison between two events: Christ's emergence from Egypt is LIKE Israel's exodus from Egypt.

That the analogical usage of classic literature is common in everyday parlance can scarcely be denied. We do this all the time, often unwittingly (it is estimated that as many as 9000 idioms from Shakespeare are still used today, most of the time without any realization of that fact). This is not to suggest that we are interpreting these bits of classic literature in all of their context (or, even more bizarrely, that we are treating this classic literature as prophetic in nature). The Scripture writers did the same (see, e.g., Matt 27:46; John 2:17; arg. Acts 2:16ff).

The sticking point here is the fact that Matthew describes Hosea's words as fulfilled by Christ--and an analogical reference does not seem to us to qualify as fulfillment. Fulfillment in ordinary English usage means the realization of a prediction/promise/expectation. Historical statements cannot ordinarily be "fulfilled" by using them analogically. For instance, while we might growl the words "Bah, Humbug" to some maudlin sentimentality at Christmas time, we would not follow this up with the explanation, "This is to fulfill what was prophesied by Scrooge." Likewise, a chastened person might confess, "Woe is me," but we would never conclude that he is "fulfilling" Isaiah 6:5. We simply don't use the term fulfill this way.

But English usage is no gauge of usage in biblical Greek. And we find that the underlying Greek term for fulfillment (the pleroō word group) has a broad semantic range: its meaning includes the common idea of prophetic realization, but also the lesser idea of completion, and even the more basic idea of literal filling (e.g., a net filled with fish). With this in view, it seems plausible to insert the idea of analogical fulfillment into Matthew's usage:

• Matthew 2:17-18 does not complete a prediction made in Jeremiah 31 (if it does, it gets the details terribly wrong!). Instead, the point seems to be that the kind of grief experienced by the mothers in Ramah was "felt in full" by the mothers of Bethlehem (so Dyer, "Biblical Meaning of Fulfillment," p. 57).
• Matthew 2:15 likewise does not complete a prediction made in Hosea 11. Instead, Matthew compares two historical situations and points out that the Mary/Joseph/Jesus incident both resembles and improves on the Exodus, bringing to a climax the exodus motif that threads its way through the Scriptures (see Dyer, Silva, Moo).

Such explanations may not comport well with our narrow use of the term fulfill. But they do fit into the range of biblical usage, and are preferred for their care in preserving the received laws of language.

MAS

Literal Interpretation in the Advent Narratives, Part Two--Exploring the Options

Having established the parameters of literal interpretation, we turn now to a concrete example of this problem in the Advent narrative: the use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15:

Hosea 11:1--When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

Matthew 2:15--So Joseph got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."

The tension here is obvious. Hosea is relating the history of the nation of Israel, whom God rescued from the hand of Pharaoh. The verse appears in one of the minor prophets, but it is not predictive prophecy in the ordinary, self-consciously forward-looking sense. And yet Matthew argues that Hosea's statement is fulfilled when Joseph emerges from Egypt with the toddler Jesus. How do we explain this? Well, there are at least four options:

• Perhaps Hosea actually did mean this to be a prophecy and Matthew's keen exegetical eye caught what the rest of us missed. It is a prophecy that Matthew interpreted literally.


• Perhaps the divine author intended a prophecy of which the human author was ignorant, then specially informed Matthew of this latent intent by the miracle of inspiration.


• Perhaps God arranged the Exodus event as a historical type (of which Hosea was ignorant) the greater meaning of which Christ "filled up" in Matthew 2.


• Perhaps Matthew simply noted (under inspiration, of course) an interesting parallel in history and made an analogical reference to it.

The first of these options is perhaps the easiest to harmonize with literal interpretation, but it is far-fetched, and I know of no one that holds this view.

The second option comports least with literal interpretation, either by (a) flat-out rejecting it or (b) by special pleading (i.e., the Bible is exceptional because it has two authors; further, Matthew could ignore normal hermeneutics because he was inspired). While this arguably solves the tension, the implications of this model are frightful. What other latent meanings hover above the text? Why do I need the Bible at all if it is merely a hinweis to revelation? And, more ominously, how can I be assured that the kind of latent connotations that controvert the literal meaning of the OT will not someday controvert the Christian Scriptures? The parameters of interpretation evaporate and hermeneutical nihilism commences. In time, the whole of God's special revelation could be legitimately controverted by such a hermeneutic.

The third option improves on the second and offers what is perhaps the most popular of the four. It gives a plausible understanding of fulfillment and thus offers a bit of hermeneutical relief. But there are still (to me anyway) three problems: (1) Hosea never intended what Matthew says he intended. (2) Hosea never expected someone to come along and "fill up" his words any more than you or I do when we use words. (3) Further, the vocabulary and syntax of Hosea's words cannot be construed by any ordinary interpretive technique to mean what Matthew says they mean. If Matthew intended to exegete and interpret Hosea, then he betrayed Hosea. Badly. He banished Hosea from his own words.

Excursus: I do not by this statement intend to eliminate the idea of types. God does place in the stream of progressive revelation certain incongruities that almost immediately left the original readers with a realization that there is something bigger in view than the immediate--the seed motif, the king motif, the sacrificial system, etc. Hosea's prophecy does not seem to fit here.

This brings us to the fourth option--that Matthew did not intend properly to exegete and interpret Hosea at all. He was not discovering a latent prophecy or even a type in Hosea's words, but was simply making an analogical observation: "THIS reminds me of THAT." This option seems most faithful to the intentions and integrity of the original writer, Hosea. What is missing, though, is a credible defense of the use of fulfillment language in this scenario. In the third and final part of this miniseries, I will address this question. After Christmas. Enjoy the holiday.

MAS

Literal Fulfillment in the Advent Narratives, Part One--Literalism

The cluster of appeals to the OT in the Advent narratives of the Gospels offers a peculiar challenge to the idea of a "literal" hermeneutic. It is extremely difficult if not impossible to compare the claims of Matthew 2:15, 2:17-18, and 2:23 (or even, arguably, 1:23) with their OT foundations and assert that Matthew has interpreted these texts literally.

The term literal has, ironically, great variance of meaning within the literature. So before I go further in this series, let me explain what I include in the term when I use it.

• The univocal nature of language (a set of words has only one meaning in any one context).
• The jurisdiction of authorial intent (a text can never mean what it never meant).
• The textually based locus of meaning (words not only point to meaning, they contain meaning).

Note that I do not mean that language can be reduced to connotatively static words that must be interpreted flatly without regard to figures of speech or the strictures of the analogy of faith. In fact, it is quite possible that the literal reading may not always be the most plain reading. But the three points above are non-negotiable axioms of language without which language itself fails.

I hold to these axioms not because I am a dispensationalist (though I think that this is their necessary consequence), but more properly because I am a presuppositionalist. That is to say that I must assume these principles even to articulate them--failture to do so would lead inevitably to hermeneutical nihilism. And as a reader, you must assume them to in order to understand and interact with me. Of course, we can surely discuss examples in which one or more of these points seem to fail (and I hope to do this). But in order for such discussion to occur, we must (whether consciously or unconsciously) agree to these principles as axiomatic to the mechanics of our discussion proper. And while we might imagine an alternative reality in which these principles are not true, we can only do so by special pleading--we cannot live with the implications of a reality that holistically negates any of these points.

The question here, then, is not whether these axioms are true, but whether we can by special pleading suspend them under certain circumstances. That is to say, is it possible that the uniquenesses of the Bible (e.g., the dual authorship of its OT prophecies or the inspired nature of its NT interpretation) allow us to posit special rules for the Bible that are different from the ordinary use of language?

Next time we'll look at a concrete example and put some flesh on this question.

MAS

John Calvin Did Not Publish with Logos

I've been grading a stack of end-of-semester research papers, and I've got a beef with Logos right now. According to the papers I just read, Calvin published his Institutes of the Christian Religion in Washington with Logos in 1996. The Master's Seminary Journal is a corporate work written by the Master's Seminary and published by Logos. And most amazingly of all, the Westminster Confession of Faith was written by Morton Smith and published in 1996 (by Logos of course).

OK, I'll grant that careless students bear some of the onus for this. Most of the onus. But I still have to wonder--why is it that Logos inserts egregiously innaccurate and incomplete documentation with frighteningly poor formatting on everything that one copies and pastes from its libraries?

To be fair, the necessary information for footnotes and bibliographies is usually available from Logos versions if a writer will take the time to look for the data. So not all is lost. But anyway, here is my advice to writers citing from Logos:

1. As soon as you cite something from Logos, immediately delete the footnote Logos supplies. It is always hideously wrong, usually consisting of an odd mixture of bibliographic and footnote form and an unpredictable hodgepodge of incomplete and inaccurate data.
2. Remember that most of what Logos makes available today does not consist of original publication, but of previously published material. As such, Logos materials in most cases should be treated as reprint editions. This means that the writer should do as much as is possible to reconstruct original publication data (INCLUDING PAGE NUMBERS) so that readers can consult and verify sources.
3. Use common sense when documenting. Morton Smith did not write the Westminster Confession in 1996. C'mon, think a little.
4. Remember that using Logos does not give a pass to the writer that allows him to ignore specialized formatting associated with journal articles, dictionary entries, classical sources, etc.
5. Realize that the purpose of footnotes is to make documentation available to as wide a readership as possible, not just an elite group in possession of proprietary software.

Don't get me wrong. I think Logos is an enormously helpful tool that has brought a virtual library into the homes of pastors, students, and researchers who might otherwise do more minimal research. I am pleased to say that Logos has led to to quantitatively more research (and, BTW, I use it all the time). But at times it has also resulted in writers (1) who abandon brick-and-mortar libraries and thus do qualitatively more selective research and (2) who suppress documentation and banish readers from their role as critical respondents. Logos is not at fault for (1), but I wonder if they share a part of the culpability for (2).

Conclusion: Use Logos. Use Logos critically. Use adequate documetnation when using Logos. Use materials other than Logos.

MAS

Nor Let Me Ever Stray From Thee Aside

These are the last words I heard sung from the mouth of trusted mentor and friend--just before he turned his back on his wife, family, and ministry in pursuit of a more fulfilling life. That was 15 years ago. I just found out that he died suddenly from a massive heart attack.

I am grieving today, but find myself praying the words of that song with greater earnestness today:

While life's dark maze I tread,

and griefs around me spread,

be thou my guide.

Bid darkness turn to day,

wipe sorrow's tears away,

nor let me ever stray from thee aside.

MAS

Another Conference...

On January 7-8 of next year, the Preserving the Truth Conference: A Symposium on Biblical Separation, will be held at First Baptist Church of Troy Michigan. Two of the current faculty at Detroit Baptist Seminary (Dave Doran and Bruce Compton) will be presenting, and also two graduates (Michael Riley and Matt Postiff). I believe that this conference will help to populate an under-represented bloc in a crowded conference circuit--the bloc situated between a fundamentalism that is culturally conservative and self-consciously separatist but theologically weak, and an evangelicalism that is theologically conservative but culturally lax and insufficiently concerned with ecclesiastical separation.

The organizers of this conference are convinced that cultural conservatism, robust theology, and careful separatism can and ought to co-exist. They futher believe that centering on the cardinal issues of the gospel need not result in the shrugging off of peripheral issues such as young earth creationism, cessationism, conservative worship, and dispensationalism as expendable to the life of the church.

I heartily recommend the conference and trust that as many of you as can will attend.

MAS

Something Light...on the Use of Adjectives

I just read a humorous statement in an article about a local church hosting a skateboarding event. I have no real comment to make about the event, just an observation about the peculiar use of an adjective in the article: "Mark Strong, owner of Degenerate Skateboards in Melvindale and a judge for the competition," the article reads, complains that, too often, "skaters get a bad rap.”

HMMM. Degenerate Skateboards in Melvindale.

Degenerate (definition, MW 11th Collegiate Dictionary): "Having sunk to a lower and usually corrupt and vicious state; one degraded from the normal moral standard."

At this point, is anyone still confused about why skaters "get a bad rap"?


Oh, and another one. Does anyone other than me get a distasteful mental image when they hear ice cream and chocolate cake advertised as decadent?

Decadent (definition, MW 11th Collegiate Dictionary): "Marked by decay or decline." Yes, there is a second definition, "marked by self-indulgence," but this is more appropriately used of people who eat too much cake and ice cream, not the food itself.

Yes, I realize that language evolves and all that. But some evoultion needs to slow down a bit.

Just sayin'.