Who Is Your Favorite Dispensational (in the broad sense) Scholar?

I respect all these guys, but I especially appreciate the insights from Charles Feinberg in his work on the Minor Prophets and Jeremiah. Really good stuff!

Also, sorry I left off Leon Wood — meant to put him on and thought I had.

Yes, Robert Thomas and especially Alva McClain may have gotten some votes. S. Lewis Johnson is another good name. That’s the problem, too many to list ‘em all. Paul Benware has done some nice work, too.

I voted for Charles Feinberg, but it was a hard choice. Harold Hoehner is everywhere in academia. His “Chronological Aspects in the Life of Christ” is very influential, and I think he contributed to ISBE too. I thought of other names like Louis Goldberg, David Stern (Messianic Jewish Scholar), and the amazing but sometimes off target Michael Brown (I often use his “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus” books as a commentary to get Talmudic or other Jewish insights …I use the Scripture index). My favorite prof at Moody was Renald Showers. I also enjoyed Benware for the Synoptics. I can’t remember, but I think Earle Cairns was also dispensational (I think). But, as I mentioned before, I regret that I left off Leon Woods. His commentary on Judges is excellent.

No, Tyler, my intent was to choose a favorite scholar as defined in the initial post. This includes the spectrum of Bible & theology and related fields, including Biblical scholarship, theological scholarship, Biblical languages, and hermeneutics — areas in which a dispensational approach makes a significant difference. This would not include areas like homiletics, pastoral theology, leadership, etc. Although dispensationalism (or other alternatives) do affect even these areas, the effect is not as “in your face” different. Pastoral theology is affected by ones view of the church, for example, and ones view of the church is affected by ones view of dispensationalism. But it is not as overt. The way I officiate a funeral, organize my week, or preach a sermon is not really distinguishable from the way my covenant friends would do so.

Whether the poll SHOULD be as you suggest (limited to systmeaitc theologians) is another matter — polls involve subjective choices. I can only explain what I had in mind, but my mind certainly has its limitations!

Kent and Hiebert are amazing, tis true! Howard Vos has done some good work, too.

It is quite subjective to label someone a “scholar” as I pointed out. This is different than an amazing teacher of Scripture with a scholarly bent, like MacArthur (or, in the Covenant camp, Piper). This is also different from a more popular-level academic, like Wuest. Thomas Constable’s free commentary online is one of my favorite resources. Would he be considered a true “scholar?” I think as the term is generally used, certainly. But, fortunately, the competition is stiff. So we are really talking about scholars who have a focus and are recognized as authorities by other leading authorities who may disagree with them.

• This is different from the occasional agenda-driven author, arrogant pastor, snobby professor, or lay person who thinks those with differing views have no scholars. Scholars are recognized by FAIR-MINDED fellow scholars, whether they are Arminian, Roman Catholic, Jewish, or Liberal. They may detest their opinions, but they recognize their scholarship. We may separate from them, but we don’t set them up as straw-men dummies.
• You occasionally see assemblages of various evangelical scholars of various stripes in works like ISBE or on Bible translation committees. Academics (and people in general) who make genuine efforts to be fair-minded are refreshing.