Commentary Recommendations Part #2

Page 1 of 2 (24 items) 1 2 Next >
This post has 23 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 1675
Rick | Forum Activity | Posted: Sun, Dec 18 2011 11:08 AM

I did not want to distract from this thread: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/42310.aspx because I think that my question is a bit different.

I am taking some old advice from the forums, a couple of years ago, and asking about commentaries theological views before I buy them. Can anyone recommend any commentaries that are non-dispensationalist? My next major investment will probably be the Believer's Church Bible Commentary but knowing that a lot of Anabaptist are dispensational I would really like to hear any comments on this set but also others that are out there in Logos land, including Baker. It seems that I have asked about Baker before but cannot remember or find my answer after a forums search. Thanks in advance.

Peace  Smile

Romans 14:19 (NRSV)
19 Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.

Posts 382
Sacrifice | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 11:55 AM

You should be safe with most (but check each one individually  ....) of these (some in Logos, others not):

http://www.covenantseminary.edu/academics/library/guides/commentaries/

Yours In Christ

Posts 3767
Forum MVP
Friedrich | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 12:11 PM

tyndale commentaries are not dispensational.

neither, I believe, are college press NIV commentaries.

with other sets, it may depend on the individual volume.

also, I don't know if you are drawing a distinction between "dispensational" and "pre-millenial." some are the latter, but not the former.  (such as Carson's Matthew commentary, and perhaps much of the EBC set)

I like Apples.  Especially Honeycrisp.

Posts 13379
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 12:51 PM

Dan DeVilder:
also, I don't know if you are drawing a distinction between "dispensational" and "pre-millenial." some are the latter, but not the former.  (such as Carson's Matthew commentary, and perhaps much of the EBC set)

Carson's a-mill.

Rick:
Can anyone recommend any commentaries that are non-dispensationalist?

None of the following commentaries are dispensational:

  • Calvin's Commentaries (a/post mill)
  • Bible Speaks Today (mainly a-mill)
  • Tyndale (mainly a-mill)
  • Preaching the Word (a-mill, I think)
  • NIV Application Commentary (mixed, but often pre-mill)
  • Welwyn Commentaries (mainly a-mill)
  • Focus on the Bible (mainly a-mill)
  • IVP NT Commentary (pre-mill and a-mill, I think)
  • Baker's NT Commentary (a-mill)

I've not included the more academic commentaries, as I'm assuming they're not what you're after.

Posts 2710
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 12:58 PM

Mark Barnes:
Carson's a-mill.

I thought Carson was Historical Pre-Mill and not A-MillWink

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 13379
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 1:38 PM

Ted Hans:

Mark Barnes:
Carson's a-mill.

I thought Carson was Historical Pre-Mill and not A-MillWink

Judging by the way he exegetes a wide range of texts, he's definately a closet amill!

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2007/06/da_carsons_millennial_position.php

 

Posts 2710
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 2:03 PM

Hi Mark,

I am posting a link to Carson sermons on Revelation for your attention http://pjtibayan.wordpress.com/2006/10/17/d-a-carson-audio-sermonslectures/

I also purchased his class room lectures on Revelation and he takes a Historical Pre-Mill position.

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 1675
Rick | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 2:33 PM

These are great and I appreciate your comments tremendously. I am writing them all down into a note file this time. Do any of you have enough experience with the Believer's Church Bible Commentary to be able to tell whether or not it is dispensationalist?

Peace  Smile

Romans 14:19 (NRSV)
19 Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.

Posts 5615
Todd Phillips | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 18 2011 8:10 PM

Rick:

These are great and I appreciate your comments tremendously. I am writing them all down into a note file this time. Do any of you have enough experience with the Believer's Church Bible Commentary to be able to tell whether or not it is dispensationalist?

I haven't used it much, but a quick perusal of Daniel, Romans, and Revelation suggests that it is not.

"Some predictions, like Gabriel’s word about Jeremiah’s seventy years, seem quite specific (Dan. 9:24–27). The apparent precision has led Christians to spend immense amounts of time and energy trying to connect each segment of the seventy years with an identifiable event in the past, present, or future. [Seventy Weeks of Years, p. 295.]
To what extent should the church, in attempting to interpret Gabriel’s predictions, tie them to specific events in history or to the future? All too often, interpretations tied rigidly to future events prove to be in error."

Paul M. Lederach, Daniel (Believers church Bible commentary, Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1994), 223.

"The three elements of the mystery are interdependent. Paul links the salvation of the Gentiles with the salvation of the Jews. The restoration of Israel is a consequence of the salvation of the Gentiles, and the salvation of Israel is necessary for the salvation of the Gentiles. The Gentiles first and then the Jews for Paul represents universality, the fulfillment of God’s plan to reconcile Jew and Gentile into a single Israel."
John E. Toews, Romans (Believers church Bible commentary, Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 2004), 282.

"After seizing Satan, the angel binds the great perpetrator of evil for a thousand years. The act is certainly not for punishment (Isa. 24:21–22; 1 Enoch 10, 18), but for restraint (Matt. 12:24–29; Mark 3:22–27; Luke 11:15–23; Jub. 48:15). Moreover, the binding of Satan may not be a future event but a result of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ (Matt. 12:29; Luke 10:17–18; John 12:31–32; 16:11; Col. 2:15; Heb. 1:3; 2:14–15; 12:2; Rev. 12:4–6; cf. Matt. 13:41; 1 Cor. 15:24–28). The saints take part in Satan’s restraint through their commitment to faithfulness, thus serving to limit the devil’s influence in the world (Efird, 1989:113; see Luke 10:17–19). If this interpretation is correct, the thousand years refers to the present church age rather than a future expectation."
John R. Yeatts, Revelation (Believers church Bible commentary, Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 2003), 373.

Wiki Links: Enabling Logging / Detailed Search Help - MacBook Pro (2014), ThinkPad E570

Posts 13379
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 19 2011 1:52 AM

Ted Hans:

I am posting a link to Carson sermons on Revelation for your attention http://pjtibayan.wordpress.com/2006/10/17/d-a-carson-audio-sermonslectures/

I also purchased his class room lectures on Revelation and he takes a Historical Pre-Mill position.

Thanks, Ted. I'm still not convinced Smile. I've heard some of those sermons in person (the four listed under #93). But I can see that there's many of his lectures on Revelation at The Gospel Coalition. I'll take a listen. It may be he doesn't fit comfortably into either category, but his basic hermeneutical framework, and his take on the differences between Old and New Covenants is definately closer to a typical amillennialist view than a typical premillennialist view. See D. A. Carson. “Mystery and Fulfillment: Toward a More Comprehensive Paradigm of Paul’s Understanding of the Old and New” in The Paradoxes of Paul (Justification and Variegated Nomism 2; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (eds.), pp 393–436.

 

Posts 1675
Rick | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 19 2011 4:42 AM

Todd Phillips:
I haven't used it much, but a quick perusal of Daniel, Romans, and Revelation suggests that it is not.

Thanks Todd and to all others. You have been a BIG help.

 

Peace  Smile

Romans 14:19 (NRSV)
19 Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.

Posts 2710
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 19 2011 6:47 AM

Mark Barnes:

Thanks, Ted. I'm still not convinced Smile. I've heard some of those sermons in person (the four listed under #93). But I can see that there's many of his lectures on Revelation at The Gospel Coalition. I'll take a listen. It may be he doesn't fit comfortably into either category, but his basic hermeneutical framework, and his take on the differences between Old and New Covenants is definately closer to a typical amillennialist view than a typical premillennialist view. See D. A. Carson. “Mystery and Fulfillment: Toward a More Comprehensive Paradigm of Paul’s Understanding of the Old and New” in The Paradoxes of Paul (Justification and Variegated Nomism 2; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (eds.), pp 393–436.

Okay Mark.

The Historical Pre-Mill (hermeneutic) position is much closer to the Amill hermeneutic than you are allowing for . I guess i am saying nothing you have posted or linked to, will a good Historical Pre-Mill disagree with.

In the Gospel Coalition Revelation Lecture part 21, Carson says he was brought up with the Amill position and that his father died holding that position but that is not the position he holds http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/a/Revelation-part-21. This come almost at the very end of the Lecture.

I am sure that I am correct on this Stick out tongue

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 13379
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 19 2011 7:59 AM

Ted Hans:
In the Gospel Coalition Revelation Lecture part 21, Carson says he was brought up with the Amill position and that his father died holding that position but that is not the position he holds http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/a/Revelation-part-21. This come almost at the very end of the Lecture.

Very interesting, thanks. I listened to all of part 21 and the first part of 22 where this is discussed fully. I guess I hadn't understood the breadth of pre-milleniallism, and have been too put off by those closer to dispensationalism. It was great to hear Carson put texts, not structures first (particularly in part 22). I remain an amillennialist though Big Smile

Ted Hans:
I am sure that I am correct on this Stick out tongue

I concede!

Posts 1675
Rick | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 19 2011 8:00 AM

5 Solas:

You should be safe with most (but check each one individually  ....) of these (some in Logos, others not):

http://www.covenantseminary.edu/academics/library/guides/commentaries/

Just took a good look at this site. Thanks 5 Solas.

Peace  Smile

Romans 14:19 (NRSV)
19 Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.

Posts 1675
Rick | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 19 2011 8:09 AM

Ted Hans:
I am sure that I am correct on this Stick out tongue

Sorry I am so under educated in this area and have to keep bothering you all but, honestly my head is spinning  Embarrassed

Since Mark has conceded, what position do we agree on that D.A. Carson holds?

Peace  Smile

Romans 14:19 (NRSV)
19 Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.

Posts 3767
Forum MVP
Friedrich | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 19 2011 8:21 AM

Mark Barnes:

I remain an amillennialist though Big Smile

Ted Hans:
I am sure that I am correct on this Stick out tongue

I concede!

lol, I missed a whole day of riveting dialogue and controversy!  Cool  anyway, yeah, I'm glad Ted is sure he is correct, because, by association, I am too!  I think.  Stick out tongue

But, I will say that these issues and textual interpretations are so complex, that even people of the same "persuasion" can differ and overlap with people of other persuasions.  Except that I am pretty sure that Anthony Hoekema and Hal Lindsey may not overlap a whole lot.  Geeked

 

 

 

I like Apples.  Especially Honeycrisp.

Posts 13379
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 19 2011 8:21 AM

Rick:
Since Mark has conceded, what position do we agree on that D.A. Carson holds?

Historic Premillennialism

Posts 3767
Forum MVP
Friedrich | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 19 2011 8:24 AM

Todd Phillips:

Rick:

These are great and I appreciate your comments tremendously. I am writing them all down into a note file this time. Do any of you have enough experience with the Believer's Church Bible Commentary to be able to tell whether or not it is dispensationalist?

I haven't used it much, but a quick perusal of Daniel, Romans, and Revelation suggests that it is not.

"Some predictions, like Gabriel’s word about Jeremiah’s seventy years, seem quite specific (Dan. 9:24–27). The apparent precision has led Christians to spend immense amounts of time and energy trying to connect each segment of the seventy years with an identifiable event in the past, present, or future. [Seventy Weeks of Years, p. 295.]
To what extent should the church, in attempting to interpret Gabriel’s predictions, tie them to specific events in history or to the future? All too often, interpretations tied rigidly to future events prove to be in error."

Paul M. Lederach, Daniel (Believers church Bible commentary, Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1994), 223.

"The three elements of the mystery are interdependent. Paul links the salvation of the Gentiles with the salvation of the Jews. The restoration of Israel is a consequence of the salvation of the Gentiles, and the salvation of Israel is necessary for the salvation of the Gentiles. The Gentiles first and then the Jews for Paul represents universality, the fulfillment of God’s plan to reconcile Jew and Gentile into a single Israel."
John E. Toews, Romans (Believers church Bible commentary, Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 2004), 282.

"After seizing Satan, the angel binds the great perpetrator of evil for a thousand years. The act is certainly not for punishment (Isa. 24:21–22; 1 Enoch 10, 18), but for restraint (Matt. 12:24–29; Mark 3:22–27; Luke 11:15–23; Jub. 48:15). Moreover, the binding of Satan may not be a future event but a result of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ (Matt. 12:29; Luke 10:17–18; John 12:31–32; 16:11; Col. 2:15; Heb. 1:3; 2:14–15; 12:2; Rev. 12:4–6; cf. Matt. 13:41; 1 Cor. 15:24–28). The saints take part in Satan’s restraint through their commitment to faithfulness, thus serving to limit the devil’s influence in the world (Efird, 1989:113; see Luke 10:17–19). If this interpretation is correct, the thousand years refers to the present church age rather than a future expectation."
John R. Yeatts, Revelation (Believers church Bible commentary, Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 2003), 373.

Thanks, Todd.  I hadn't used this set a lot, only after my dad sung its praises recently have I started using them and found them very helpful.  However, I had never used them in relation to eschatology.  However, it didn't match up with my recollection that they'd be dispensational premill.

 

I like Apples.  Especially Honeycrisp.

Posts 13379
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 19 2011 8:28 AM

Ted Hans:
Carson says he was brought up with the Amill position and that his father died holding that position

What we all need to know is what position his father holds now!

Posts 2710
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 19 2011 8:33 AM

Mark Barnes:

Ted Hans:
Carson says he was brought up with the Amill position and that his father died holding that position

What we all need to know is what position his father holds now!

Very funny Mark! Blessings

Ted

 

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Page 1 of 2 (24 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS