# Bock OR Peterson? - Acts Commentary



## InSlaveryToChrist (Dec 5, 2011)

Which one should I get for a commentary on Acts: 

Darrell L. Bock

or

David G. Peterson?

Cannot afford both.


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 5, 2011)

John F. Evans in his book:_ A Guide to Biblical Commentaries & Reference Works_ (9th ed) gives Mr. Peterson's work an edge for its handling of theology, though he names both works "a well matched pair."


----------



## rbcbob (Dec 5, 2011)

Unless he has changed his position, Bock is dispensational.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Dec 5, 2011)

Thanks, JWithnell!

Considering the fact that Peterson's work was published two years after the publication of Bock's work, isn't it possible that during the writing of his own work, Peterson has read Bock's entire work and took notes from it? In that light, Peterson would seem to have the upperhand.

If anybody can, please list your opinion of the pros and cons (if there are any) of both works.

---------- Post added at 08:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 PM ----------




rbcbob said:


> Unless he has changed his position, Bock is dispensational.



Really?! Could that affect his exposition of Acts somehow?

I'm strongly leaning to Peterson at the moment.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 5, 2011)

He is dispensational and teaches at Dallas Theological Seminary, but he's more of a neo-dispensationalist rather than a dispensationalist in the classic sense (there is a "moving away" from some of the extremes of Chafer-style dispensationalism, for instance).


----------



## bookslover (Dec 5, 2011)

It's older, but J. A. Alexander's 19th-century commentary is very good. John Stott quotes from him in his own commentary on Acts.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 5, 2011)

I like Derek Thomas' commentary on Acts in the Reformed Expository Commentary series.


----------



## KMK (Dec 6, 2011)

Peterson is top notch and so is Marshall. Alexander is also very good.


----------



## elnwood (Dec 6, 2011)

Marrow Man said:


> He is dispensational and teaches at Dallas Theological Seminary, but he's more of a neo-dispensationalist rather than a dispensationalist in the classic sense (there is a "moving away" from some of the extremes of Chafer-style dispensationalism, for instance).



He's progressive dispensational, and co-wrote a book on it.
Amazon.com: Progressive Dispensationalism (BridgePoint Books) (9780801022432): Darrell L. Bock, Craig A. Blaising: Books

A progressive dispensational will acknowledge that "Israel" does not always mean ethnic Israel, and that prophecies for Israel have (some) fulfillment of the church, but still hold to an eschatological distinction between the two. They're usually pretrib premill.

Bock also wrote a two-volume commentary on Luke, so he is one of the foremost Lukan scholars today. I have Bock's commentary on Acts, and have used it a little bit and have found it very helpful. I haven't used Petersen, but I would assume it is excellent as well.

Does his progressive dispensationalism affect his interpretation? Well, since Bock is premillennial, he interprets the apostles' question “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6) as a legitimate question about an earthly kingdom from Jesus' disciples, who have been speaking to him about the kingdom of God for forty days (1:3).

My eschatology is tentatively historic premillennial (NOT dispensational), and Bock's interpretation makes sense to me. Amillennial interpreters like Stott usually say that the apostles just didn't get it that the kingdom was spiritual. If that were the case, though, I'm surprised that Jesus did not rebuke or correct them before he ascended into heaven.


----------

