The manner in which Sproul puts his comments throughout the text served to make the biblical narrative more “alive” rather than detracting from the flow of Matthew’s account. What I mean is that anyone could pick up this commentary and use it to better understand what is happening in Matthew’s Gospel. As with all of Sproul’s commentaries, this volume is written in such a manner that it can be read as a book (in fact, I would recommend you do this) rather than being used solely for reference purposes.

As I think back on my last decade of using commentaries, it seems clear to me that the only series I have ever used as part of my own devotions is the St. Andrew’s Expositional Commentary set. Each one I have read causes me to worship and glean useful helps for sermon prep. In short, Sproul has done it again! Wonderful commentary!

Positives

Ancient Israelite religion is no easy topic to tackle. Difficult words, cumbersome acronyms, and hard-to-follow arguments abound in many volumes on this topic. Chalmers manages to engage this area of study in an easy to follow format, writing in a near popular-level manner. I cannot praise the stylistic elements of this book enough. Furthermore, the portions of the text that contain “scholar profiles” is an informative look at those who have put forward many of the prevailing views surrounding Israelite religious practices.

Negatives

As much as I can praise Chalmers’ work for the aforementioned positives, I do have some reservations. Overall, Chalmers makes needed distinctions between what the Hebrew text prescribes for proper worship/theology and what the people practiced. This is a necessary distinction that can be useful in demonstrating that the Old Testament is monotheistic even if, at times, the people of Israel are not. However, Chalmers does tend argue for henotheism being the prevalent view of the Old Testament authors. I recognize that this is a popular view among some scholars but I just have a difficult time understanding why this is so unless presuppositions come into play. Yes, I am well aware of the Ancient Near Eastern context and the theologies that abounded during that era in time. However, it is easily (in my opinion) arguable that the text of the Old Testament is utterly incoherent unless you assume some form of monotheism. I have argued this at length in previous book reviews and I won’t reconstruct the arguments here. Still, I must admit that the adoption of this theory tends to detract from the value of the book as a whole. Further, while I appreciate the “scholar profiles,” I am left to wonder why nearly every profile focuses upon liberal scholarships (often in a relatively positive fashion) and neglects to mention many conservative scholars.

Conclusion

Overall, Exploring the Religion of Ancient Israel does have some value and is (in my opinion) a resource that those studying Israelite religion should engage. However, the shortcomings of the book mentioned in this review should serve as a caution to the readers of Exploring the Religion of Ancient Israel.

The Man Christ Jesus is a theological text and there can be no debate on that point. However, there is a comforting and almost devotional value to Ware’s work. So often, we focus upon explaining, expounding upon, and defending the deity of Christ. Considering the number of attacks on the deity of Jesus, the varying emphases mentioned make sense. Still, do we ever emphasize the deity of Christ at the cost of His humanity? I would answer that question with an emphatic “yes!”

A few themes that Ware explores should both astonish readers and encourage the hearts of the faithful. First, when one comes to accept that Jesus was truly a man who experienced all that we experience, His sinlessness becomes all the more incredible. Ware points out this aspect of the humanity of Jesus for the purpose of noting the supernatural nature of the atonement. How could anyone be truly human but completely sinless? Reflection on this should cause our hearts to rejoice that Jesus willingly paid the debt we could not pay.

The second theme worth mentioning is that Jesus lived a genuinely human life. This may seem elementary but how often do you think about the fact that being like Jesus involves every area of your life? For example, Jesus ate food and would become hungry. So, do you approach meals as Jesus did? Jesus also worked and had a trade that required great effort and skill. Do you approach your career in light of the fact that the God-man worked and had a career?

In summary, The Man Christ Jesus is both a theologically valuable text and a worship inducing reflection on the humanity of Jesus. You should always be expanding the “Jesus Studies” section of your personal library. With that being said, The Man Christ Jesus is a title you should pickup and read. While your at it, get Carson’s book, Jesus the Son of God.

Frame’s book is part biography and part critical analysis (critical meaning thorough…not negative). It is a rather weighty read that will be difficult for those not already invested in Van Til’s writings. If you have already engaged Bahnsen’s works that discuss Van Til and you have previously read some of Van Til’s books, then reading CVT:AHT would be part of a natural progression.

As are all of John Frame’s books, CVT:AHT is well-written. Due to the weighty material, Frame’s writing style is most helpful. While engaging difficult concepts in Van Til’s thought, Frame explains somewhat muddled language and concepts in a way that is most accessible. What I am ultimately trying to say is simply this: It is very difficult to make total sense of Van Til’s works without a guide and in CVT:AHT Frame has supplied the most well-rounded guide I have found. So, jump into the writings of Cornelius Van Til but don’t get into the deep end without a lifejacket. Frame’s CVT:AHT will not only help you understand Van Til, it will prevent you from drowning in the writings of a genius who often re-defined words and coined his own terms.

So, is it worth your time?

Well, if you desire to know more about Francis Schaeffer, then absolutely!

There are a few of the presentations worth mentioning. First, Udo Middelmann has an excellent opening entry on the life of Francis Schaeffer. If you have read any of the major biographies on Schaeffer, you won’t find anything revolutionary here. Still, this is a valuable and succinct summary of Schaeffer the man. Second, Jerram Barrs navigates the difficult topic of Schaeffer’s apologetic methodology. This is probably the most interesting essay in the book. Third, Jerram Barrs has a second essay that deals with the legacy of Schaeffer and his influence on evangelical thought.

At a little over 100 pages, Francis Schaeffer: A Mind and Heart for God, is one of the best introductions to Schaefferian (yeah, I just made that up) studies that you could pick up. So, if you want to become well acquainted with Francis Schaeffer and his thought, start here.

Much of what Trueman stated regarding the “Christian Right,” and conservatism as whole, reflected my assessment. However, on occasion, his unrelenting logical attacks on conservatism left me feeling drained. Not because I was shocked to find that one of my favorite authors was wrong, but because I fear much of what he states is correct. Christian value voters (like me) are really a people without a party. As Trueman correctly notes, “The Left” has become little more than a group of reactionaries taking up psychologically oriented causes that serve no lasting or greater purpose for a society at-large. Worse still, modern conservatives have fallen prey to the cause of capitalism (even though, as Trueman notes, capitalism is the best system in use) at the expense of the masses. While capitalism (yes, I am a capitalist) provides the greatest level of freedom for the greatest number of people, equating the “morality” of capitalism with Christianity simply cannot work.

Capitalism pushes consumerism which is antithetical to the Christian worldview. Further, capitalism advances the notion that we hold our own destiny. While it is true that our actions have consequences, it is equally untrue that we have the world by the tail. There is not tail and we have no hands. God alone holds the future. Still, free market capitalism enables a society in which the free exchange of information can take place and supplies the largest number of people with the highest standard of living. So, it is good for society. Still, it is not necessarily “the Christian system,” nor is there any Christian system explicitly described in Scripture.

While it may as if (based on what I wrote above), that Trueman roughs up conservatives, he admits that he too is a conservative. His primary point is simply this…we must vote Christian values while recognizing there is no “Christian” party. His critiques are both frustrating and fun (if those two can actually go together). In terms of political-theological texts, Republocrat is as good as they come. In light of election 2012, I suggest Christian read it and consider Trueman’s points. Will you agree with all of them? No, I certainly didn’t. However, his observations provide ample food for thought as conservatives like me move toward election 2014.

Here are some of the titles you will see reviewed in 2013…

Apologetics

Reasons for Faith by Scott Oliphint

Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought by John Frame

Reasons of the Heart by William Edgar

Answering Mormon Questions by Bill McKeever & Eric Johnson

Biblical Studies

The Progressive Publication of Matthew by B. Ward Powers

In the Beginning…We Misunderstood by Johnny Miller & John Soden

From Pentecost to Patmos by Craig Blomberg

Encountering the Manuscripts by Philip Comfort

Biography

Francis Schaeffer: A Mind and Heart for God by Bruce Little (ed.)

Church Ministry

Faithful Preaching by Tony Merida

Politics

Republocrat by Carl Trueman

Theology

Truths We Confess (3 Volumes) by R.C. Sproul

Dogmatic Theology by William Shedd

A Theology for the Church by Daniel Akin (ed.)

The Holy Trinity by Robert Letham

God’s Indwelling Presence by James Hamilton

Concise Reformed Dogmatics by J. van Genderen & W.H. Velma

Election and Free Will by Robert Peterson

Unlike previous years where I only mention my favorite books, this year I will note my favorite (and least favorite) coffee blend to drink while reading each book. Yes, this is a lame excuse to talk about coffee.

TOP BOOKS (and coffee) OF 2012

1. A Puritan Theology - I have reviewed dozens and dozens of books over the past few years and I can plainly say that this is one of my ten favorite books…period!

Coffee – My favorite coffee to drink while working my way through this book was Caribou Coffee’s “Costa Rica Blend.” It is a dark coffee with some light coconut after notes. The worst coffee to drink? Any of the special flavor infused Dunkin’ Donuts blends.

2. The Creedal Imperative - As with most everything Carl Trueman writes, The Creedal Imperative is clear, concise, and enjoyable to read. Few authors possess Trueman’s ability to unpack weighty issues in an accessible and yet meaningful manner.

Coffee – Starbuck’s “Verona” carried me through each page of Trueman’s book. The worst coffee to drink? Any of the special flavor infused Dunkin’ Donuts blends.

3. Delighting in the Trinity – This is an excellent addition to the ever-growing library of contemporary, Trinitarian thought. As of recent, numerous titles have attempted to provide a Trinitarian framework by which to understand the Christian life. So what makes it different from the other useful titles on the market? Well, Delighting in the Trinity is simply a joy to read! How often can you say that about a theology book?

Coffee – Archer Farm’s “Iced Coffee Blend.” I wondered how good home-brewed iced coffee could actually be and I was pleasantly surprised. This particular blend is specifically designed to be less acidic than regular coffee and is therefore far more conducive to chilling and pouring over ice. The worst coffee to drink? Any of the special flavor infused Dunkin’ Donuts blends.

4. God is Impassible and Impassioned - Lister supplies an immensely valuable hermeneutical framework to those seeking to understand the Scriptural descriptions of God as both unchanging and capable of expressing emotion. I cannot overstate the value of God is Impassible and Impassioned. This is a must-read text on numerous levels.

Coffee – Starbuck’s “Christmas Blend.” I don’t know exactly what goes into this blend, but I wish it was available all year-long. The worst coffee to drink? Any of the special flavor infused Dunkin’ Donuts blends.

5. Miracles - This was one of those new releases that I have been waiting for nearly a year. This two-volume set needs to be on the shelf of every church library and in every pastor’s study. Once you read through Miracles, you will understand how/why Dr. Keener spent three years researching and writing this important text.

Coffee – Dunkin’ “Dark.” So, not everything put out by Dunkin’ Donuts is bad…this stuff is actually a pretty good donut shoppe blend. The worst coffee to drink? Any of the special flavor infused Dunkin’ Donuts blends.

6. Popologetics - Turnau’s perspective on pop culture consumption accomplishes its goal of getting the reader to think critically about culture. Regardless of your perspective on this topic, Popologetics will provide you with some interesting questions and a greater level of clarity in your own convictions.

Coffee – Counter Culture Coffee’s “Holiday Blend.” This is especially good when served in a pour over method. Very clean and nutty notes. The worst coffee to drink? Any of the special flavor infused Dunkin’ Donuts blends.

Think for a moment of how many pastors, theologians, and lay Christians speak of God as if His emotions are dictated by the whims of His creatures. Only a small deity could be tossed around by the contingent emotions/feelings/actions of contingent beings (us!) in a contingent universe. Still, how do we make sense of the biblical description of God as unchanging while recognizing that He does exhibit a variety of emotions? Rob Lister has provided a masterful answer to that very question. 

Lister begins God is Impassible and Impassioned by painstakingly establishing the necessary foundation for answering the aforementioned question. He accomplishes this goal by walking through the historical development of theological musings on the issue-at-hand.. Lister starts this survey in the early church and marches through the past two millennia of church history until he reaches his assessment of contemporary writings on impassability.While this material is vitally important, what makes God is Impassible and Impassioned most worth your time and money are the final few chapters.

Lister supplies an immensely valuable hermeneutical framework to those seeking to understand the Scriptural descriptions of God as both unchanging and capable of expressing emotion. This segment is both theologically instructive and devotionally moving. I found myself going between highlighting for important theological points and for segments to reflect upon for spiritual nourishment.

I cannot overstate the value of God is Impassible and Impassioned. This is a must-read text on numerous levels. Further, this will be one of my top ten books of 2012. Thank you Rob Lister for providing an amazing working!

Weaknesses 

While not exactly a weakness, the style of this book will exclude many potential readers. To state it simply, it is heavy reading. Holmes spends a great deal of time interacting with the thought of theologians (conservative, liberal, and everything in between) throughout the text. Yet, unless you are a researcher by trade or interest, this interaction with other thinkers will be difficult to navigate. Again, this isn’t a weakness in the plainest sense, but is instead a style issue that is necessary but will prevent many from engaging some of Holmes’s more valuable arguments.

Another area worth noting is (again, in my opinion) a glaring weakness. One section of the book focuses upon the biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity. Most of this portion of The Quest for the Trinity is quite good. However, Holmes has adopted a rather critical view of the Old Testament understanding of monotheism. What I find interesting about this element of the text (notably page 45) is that Holmes abandons his heavy interaction with relevant scholarship on both sides of the theological aisle and merely states that monotheism is a concept foreign to the Old Testament (at least the earliest portions). Having just completed massive amounts of Ph.D research in this area of study, I find this proposition to be faulty at best. While citing the Shema, Holmes notes that he sees this passage as encouraging monolatry rather than prescribing monotheism. The question that must be asked is: does that make sense? I do not believe it does unless one adopts a critical and theologically moderate-to-liberal interpretation of the Old Testament as a whole.

Scholars from both ends of the theological spectrum would disagree with the interpretation of the Shema that Holmes advances. For instance, critical scholar Alexander Rofe (2002:19) concludes that the context of this passage must be understood in light of the Ancient Near Eastern (henceforth referred to as ANE) belief in regional gods. Yet, as Rofe argues (2002:19), the Shema must be acknowledged as a condemnation of other gods for not being gods at all. Elsewhere, critical scholar R.W.L. Moberly’s essay in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism (Stuckenbruck & North, 2004) combines a revealing admission along with crucial presuppositions. Moberly states, “First, although the Bible presents a picture that is apparently monotheistic from the outset, monotheism…only emerged relatively late in Israel’s history during the biblical period…” (Stuckenbruck & North, 2004:216). While Moberly’s statement implies that monotheism is the initial theological framework of ancient Israel, his assumptions regarding the date of the Old Testament come into play. Moberly can concede that conservative scholarship is correct in asserting that the entire Old Testament is monotheistic, because he believes that much of the content of the Old Testament was either written in the sixth century before Christ or was massively edited and altered during this same period (cf. Smith, 2010:187-215). So, in avoiding the conclusions of this data, Moberly needs only to adhere to his late dating of the Old Testament. I fear that this presupposition may serve as the basis for the approach Holmes adopts in The Quest for the Trinity.

In distinction to the citations above, conservative scholar Todd Miles has made the following observation of Old Testament monotheistic assertions:

Fundamental to Old Testament monotheism is not merely the explicit denial of other “gods,” though such denials are there…Rather, the Israelite people were to worship the Lord God who is essentially and categorically different from any other being, whether real or imagined, natural or supernatural, who was worshipped as “god” by the surrounding peoples (Miles, 2010:51-52)

Similar to Miles, John Frame (2002:622) states the following: “God is one being (quantitatively) because there is only one Lord (qualitatively).”  This nuanced understanding of qualitative deity is most helpful and will be referenced throughout the course of this chapter. For Frame (2002:622-623), just as those authors previously mentioned, the Shema must be understood in the greater context of Deuteronomy, in which frequent monotheistic affirmations occur. For instance, in Deuteronomy 4:32-39, the author states twice that there is no other God beside Yahweh. In verse 4:35 the author states, “Know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him.” Again in 4:39 an equivalent statement is made, “…The LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other.”  Compare these affirmations to what is stated in Deuteronomy 32:39 when the author writes, “…there is no god beside me…”  Such a series of pronouncements seems to lay the matter to rest. This is especially true when one considers that the author of Deuteronomy records an insistence that the worship of other “gods” through sacrifice is actually the worship of demons (Deut. 32:17). Thus, while not the only way to interpret the data, the most consistent interpretation of the information in Deuteronomy is to assume monotheism.

It may seem like I am spending far too much time on this weakness of The Quest for the Trinity. Perhaps I am. Still, I am inclined to see this (in my opinion) faulty approach to the Shema as damaging the otherwise solid description of the textual basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.

Strengths

The strengths in The Quest for the Trinity are numerous.Here a three areas worth discussing.

First, Holmes begins be recounting modern and contemporary approaches to Trinitarian theology. This is one of the most thorough discussions I have seen on this topic. In fact, having recently penned a chapter in my dissertation that accomplishes a similar task, I applaud Holmes for his work. It is not easy to consume massive amounts of theological writings for the purpose of summarizing specific areas of thought and then presenting those thoughts in meaningful fashion.

Second, The Quest for the Trinity demonstrates Holmes’s abilities a patristics expert. He is able to accurately describe, assess, and engage often problematic and highly nuanced theological data from the early church. I especially found the following statement provocative and amusing: “It is a stretch, but perhaps not too much of one, to assert that the female prophets Prisca and Maximilla forced the church to adopt a Trinitarian confession (pg. 73).” Such a proclamation with undoubtedly ruffle some feathers. Nevertheless, those acquainted with historical theology are well aware that heresy often pushes orthodoxy to establish greater levels of doctrinal clarity. In short, this sentence alone could serve as the basis for an interesting journal article, book, or lecture.

Third, Holmes has written a book that I wanted to (eventually) write. It is a great service that Holmes provides the church by essentially assessing contemporary Trinitarian theology by recounting the historical development of Trinitarianism. This is a much-needed engagement. I’d imagine that if IVP could market this work in a more raw form, Holmes would have penned a much fuller manuscript. Still, in a limited space, Stephen Holmes has summarized and described massive amounts of information.

Summary 

There is much to praise in The Quest for the Trinity. Additionally, there is much that can be gleaned from the in-depth research furnished by Stephen Holmes. While the weaknesses I mentioned are worth engaging they should not dissuade one from reading The Quest for the Trinity. Just as I began this review, I will end by saying this: The Quest for the Trinity a resource that should be in the library of any theologian or student of church history

Sources Cited

FRAME, J.M.  2002.  The Doctrine of God.  Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing.  864 p.

MILES, T.L.  2010.  A God of Many Understandings?  Nashville, TN: B&H Academic.  397 p.

MOBERLY in STUCKENBRUCK, L.T., & SPROSTON NORTH, W.E.  2004.  Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism.  New York: T&T Clark International.  264 p.

ROFE, A.  2002.  Old Testament Studies: Deuteronomy.  New York: T&T Clark.  263 p.

SMITH, M.S.  2010.  God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World.  Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.  382 p.