In this blog post, I aim to highlight some recommended dispensational commentaries. I’ve divided the list into two sections: first, full-volume or extensive commentary sets that I believe will be especially helpful; and second, notable single-volume commentaries worth considering.
While this list is not exhaustive—and there are many others I have not included or cannot personally vouch for—it serves as a solid starting point for those looking to build a dispensational library.
I’ve also included a more comprehensive list (taken from here, posted by John Brumett in 2017), which may be helpful to others exploring dispensational commentaries.
If you’re looking beyond the titles I’ve highlighted, this additional resource may point you in the right direction.
If you notice any key commentaries I’ve missed, feel free to let me know—I’ll continue updating this list as new resources become available.
As Christians we keep hearing from the pulpits that the redemptive-historical (christocentric) hermeneutic is the proper way to interpret the scriptures (hermeneutics -> homiletics), and that this is the method that Jesus and the Apostles used. We are told that we need to interpret the bible in light of the New Testament and this method then becomes the lens by which we read the Scriptures, particularly the Old Testament. Not only that, our preaching should be subject to a “christocentric” approach where Christ is read into the Old Testament and every text is subject to Christ. Every pericope then must be seen in light of Christ or the gospel to be functionally relevant to the audience being preached to.
Two excellent articles have been released relatively recently on the Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies website. My dear brothers James I. Fazio and Michael J. Vlach have each shared their respective positions on dispensationalism. James I. Fazio represents the Traditional Dispensational position, and Michael J. Vlach represents the Progressive Dispensationalism position.
This critique will interact with Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr’s article called Definition where he outlines the basic structure of Postmillennial theology. This is by no means an exhaustive response to Postmillennialism, however it will address several concerns and areas of inconsistencies that I see surrounding his theology.
Luke 24:13-27 LSB And behold, two of them were going that same day to a village named Emmaus, which was sixty stadia from Jerusalem. 14 And they were conversing with each other about all these things which had happened. 15 And it happened that while they were conversing and debating, Jesus Himself approached and was going with them. 16 But their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him. 17 And He said to them, “What are these words that you are discussing with one another as you are walking?” And they stood still, looking sad. 18 And one of them, named Cleopas, answered and said to Him, “Are You the only one visiting Jerusalem and unaware of the things which have happened here in these days?” 19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a mighty prophet in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, 20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to the sentence of death, and crucified Him. 21 But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, it is the third day since these things happened. 22 But also some women among us astounded us. When they were at the tomb early in the morning, 23 and not finding His body, they came, saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said that He was alive. 24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just exactly as the women also said, but Him they did not see.” 25 And He said to them, “O foolish ones and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He interpreted to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
I was reading through J.V. Fesko’s work Death in Adam, Life in Christ and came across some interesting connections between the Covenant of Works/Adamic Covenant and its origins.
Fesko notes on pg. 72 that “…it appears that Roman Catholic theologians were some of the first to place Adam in covenant with God.”1 He attempts to tie the concept of an Adamic covenant back to Jerome through the Latin Vulgate translation of Hosea 6:7, which I find unconvincing2, and then through Augustine (though not exactly on comparable grounds), but it really finds its grounds in Ambrogio Catharinus who is a Roman Catholic priest.3
As I am becoming more and more aware of resources available responding to the preteristic understanding of Matthew 24:34 [ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη], I want to make them accessible here for those who are interested in knowing what resources exist.
I affirm that genea [γενεὰ] is used qualitatively in Matthew 24:34 to speak of a class/type of evil and wicked people which have existed from Abel to the time of Jesus [Matthew 23:35-36] and will continue until the Lord comes back (2nd Coming) and destroys “this” evil and wicked generation.
